Introduction
The international community widely upholds the position that maintenance of the proper implementation of human rights standards violates the principle of state sovereignty within the international law system. In reality, the concept of human rights is involved in the internal sphere of the regulation of the states to certain extent, while the scope of the interference is quite limited. With the development of the concept of human rights in the contemporary society during the 20th century, the position of the state in the international arena and its influence is linked to the proper realization of the obligations regarding the protection of the human rights. Before the WW2, the majority of the states stand to the position that the provision of the special guarantees to the population in form of the protection over the human rights is covered by the internal jurisdiction of the states. However, this approach has been changed dramatically since the human rights has become the universal concept. With that, this paper addresses the correspondence of the human rights as the notion of the international law system with the jurisdiction of the states.
Overview of State Sovereignty and Human Rights
The majority of the experts in sphere of the international law stand to the position that the international human rights conventions have the purpose to limit the state sovereignty. Besides, this position is challenged by another group of the experts that believe that these legal norms in relation to the concert of human rights have no impact over the power of the state. This argument lies on the fact that any state as the actor of the international relations has the freedom of choice regarding the adoption local policy towards the enforcement of human rights obligations and procedures of the adjudication of supplementary infringements. In fact, the Sovereignty of the states may be considered on different levels depending of the legislation enforces. With regard to the global level, one should state that Sovereignty of the states represents the unity and integrity of the actions of all state bodies within the territory of the state in order to achieve national policy and objectives in the manner that no other external actor may infringe it. However, the situation differs in terms of the regional existence of specialized human rights courts that have primary impact and force over the decisions of the state. In this respect, the jurisdiction of the state within its sovereignty is limited by the binding decisions of the judicial institutions. Consequently, the theoretical framework of the human rights concept and state sovereignty reassures that the notion of sovereignty has primary force over the human rights. This implies that the aim of the states is to keep internal sovereignty with the further realization of the human rights obligations.
Meanwhile, the contemporary society has entered the new stage of development where the ability of the states to control any sphere of the life of the individual is challenged to significant extent. In particular, such events and tendencies as globalization, technological developments, dilution of the borders within the countries result in the fact that the countries are vested with special obligations as the responsibility to protect, based on which the scope of sovereignty is not clear today. Given the diversity of the definitions of the state sovereignty, the general meaning of this notion should be understood as the state autonomy where the external subjects do not have special functions as to the regulation of the internal activity of the population within the country. In addition, the state sovereignty covers the international legal sovereignty and the interdependence sovereignty. Under the first one, it is accepted that the power of the state represents the equality of the jurisdiction between the actors so that the right of the state authorities in one state should be respected by the relevant bodies in another state. With that, the concept of the interdependence sovereignty implies that the state has the legal standing to govern the movement of the goods, people, capital and other spheres of the life which are essential to the proper functioning of the state. Besides, the another dimension of the state sovereignty as the domestic one is regarded as the functions of the state bodies of the state to conduct control over the internal and external activity of the country. In this regard, the question lies in the fact as to whether the human rights may transgress the state sovereignty or it facilitates the development of the respect to this notion. Furthermore, the challenge of the state sovereignty is applicable to the limits of the Westphalian sovereignty as the notion that is maintained within the international legal system. In general, the experts of the international law dwells that the human rights obligations do not have influence over the sovereignty of the state. In this regard, the compromise of the sovereignty may take place in case any country faces the necessity to enforce the decision of the human rights court in order to comply with undertaken obligations as the actor of the international relations. However, there is an opinion that state sovereignty may decrease the extension and scope of the protection of the human rights in the global scale. Under this statement one should understand that it is up to the state authorities within the territory of the country to establish the process of the enforcements of the decisions, adoption of the biding decisions, elaboration of the measures against the violation of the legal norms. This kind of the activity falls within the scope of the notion of the state sovereignty. The practice in the internal law system presents the evidence that the state sovereignty has primary impact and priority over the human rights. Moreover, this approach is seen in the state of the affairs in such countries and emerging markets as Thailand, China. Within the territories of these countries, the level of the protection of the human rights is not high enough due to the fact that state authorities are concerned with the economical development of the countries for the welfare of the population. Besides, the situation is different in the United States and other developed countries where the realization of the international obligations regarding the protection of the life, health of the individual poses the main sphere of the interest.
In terms of the state sovereignty, the human rights concept received primary importance since the adoption of the international conventions after the end of the World War II. The significant amount of the states has ratified these conventions so that these countries accepted the importance and role of the human rights in the contemporary society. In addition, with the adherence to the international conventions the state shows to the rest of the world that it should adopt certain measures for the protection of the human rights and prevent their infringement. Accordingly, the ratification of the international human rights conventions confirms the fact that primary international human rights organizations has the legal standing to observe over the realization of the obligations of the state and identify the flaws in the activity of the country. From this perspective, the sovereignty of the state is limited to particular extent as the state authorities should comply with the provisions of the international conventions and act accordingly towards the individual so that the actions of the country can no be blamed by the international community. Furthermore, in case the infringement of human rights principles take place, the international judicial institutions have the right to prosecute the country or its state authorities for the infringement of the obligations under the international conventions in order to impose the biding decision over the state for the adoption of particular actions. Therefore, the country should be obliged to enforce this decision for the prevention of the occurrence of supplementary remedies in form of financial compensation, block in the international arena in the relations with other countries and other forms of legal consequences.
However, with the absence of the special enforcements procedures applicable to the states, the provisions of the international conventions may not infringe the scope of the sovereignty. The conventions as legal instruments may impose the obligation over the external bodies to observe over the actions of the state with regard to the realization of the human rights obligations. Meanwhile, the states are direct subjects that may change the situation in the international law system as to the scope of the notion of the human rights and their meaning. Moreover, the states are the only subjects rather than individuals that should interact with the realization of the human rights obligations in the international level in relation to the state sovereignty. Thus, the limitation of the state sovereignty under the primary international documents in terms of the human rights presents the instrument for the control of the activity of the state. In case of the absence of such form of the limitation, the democratic structure of the society will not exist.
Simultaneously, the human rights are regarded as integral part of the state sovereignty. In addition, it is clear that the obligations of the states under the human rights conventions have the aim to exercise the control over the life of the nationals of one country, while the rights of the foreigners are not protected. With that, the considerable monitoring of the performance of the international human rights obligations take place. The international community is regarded today as the venue for the activity of the extremely sovereign states. Despite the fact that some experts consider that the states do not have power to adopt final decision regarding the proper exercising the surveillance over the realization of the human rights, the state itself should be treated as the final authority to define the applicability of the human rights norms within the territory of the state. In this regard, the state authority may not be given to any other subject or actor in the international arena so that the limitations and consenting to the human rights obligations may be defined only by the state.
Consequently, some experts have provided analysis of the compliance of the states with the obligations under the human rights conventions and came to the following conclusions. First, the states where the human rights ratings are relatively small favour the adoption of the international human rights conventions while the countries with higher level attempt to resist to this process. Besides, with the adoption of the international human conventions, the transgression of sovereignty occurs. In this case the state is not able to maintain the autonomy and supremacy in the international arena in the relations with other subjects with relevant sovereignty. At the same time, the sovereignty of the states does not have absolute scope as the it is limited by the nominal and substantive arrangements in form of the internal regulations, international obligations. Furthermore, the experts do not take into account the sovereignty-respecting approach in relation to the power of the states. Given the fact that the international human conventions do not contain the provisions regarding the enforcement of the obligations, the states should rely on the personal reasoning during the implementation of the obligations and exercising protection over the human rights and obligations.
Consequently, it is highly important to states that the power of the sovereignty over the human rights is not linked to particular group of countries. In order to assess the interaction of the sovereignty and human rights, the first one should be regarded as the state body with the relevant supreme authority, while it may be transferred to another actor of the international relations upon the infringement of the international obligations by the state. If the state does not comply with the personal obligations and functions as the state in terms of the international law system, its sovereignty may be controlled by any external authority operating at the another level. Therefore, it is possible to state that adherence to the international conventions do not result in the appearance of the international legal sovereignty. In this respect, the states have the legal standing to decide as to whether the proper conduct towards the population of the nationals. Meanwhile, the international legal instruments create limitations over such type of the sovereignty as interdependence one. Accordingly, one should agree with the fact that the human rights as the legal concept can not limit significantly the scope of the sovereignty as these notions represent the parallel and related sphere of the activity of the states. With that, this paper concludes that sovereignty is not widely constrained by the human rights concept and relevant legal documents. Furthermore, the existence of the human rights conventions provides the room for the extension of the sovereignty of the states upon the proper realization of the human rights obligations and other functions vested upon the states as the defenders of the legal order. However, the regional conventions in relation to the human rights concept may define the limitation over the sovereignty of the states due to the certain adjudication procedures. Therefore, the difference between the interaction of the human rights concepts and the state sovereignty takes place in different levels, while one should agree with the fact that the human rights only represent the source of the benefit for the activity of the states in the international arena.
Bibliography
Duke, S. 1994. "The State And Human Rights: Sovereignty Versus Humanitarian Intervention". International Relations 12 (2): 25-48. doi:10.1177/004711789401200203.
Gandhi, Utsav. "State Sovereignty As A Major Hurdle To Human Rights". SSRN Electronic Journal. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2234573.
Meyer, William H. 2012. "Indigenous Rights, Global Governance, And State Sovereignty". Hum Rights Rev 13 (3): 327-347. doi:10.1007/s12142-012-0225-3.
Vedovato, Luís Renato and Samyra Haydêe Dal Farra Naspolini. 2015. "State Sovereignty, International Human Mobility And Human Rights". Revista De Direito Brasileira 12 (5): 198-226. doi:10.5585/rdb.v12i5.341.
