human rights protection

• Sovereignty vs. Global Norms

  • Realist View:
  • States are sovereign and should not be judged or interfered with based on internal human rights issues.
  • Thinker: Mearsheimer – warns against destabilising the system by making domestic rights a basis for foreign policy.
  • Example: Western pressure on China over Uyghur Muslims risks international tensions.
  • Liberal View:
  • Sovereignty can be overridden when rights are violated; global institutions must enforce norms. - Immanuel kant - "The law of world citizenship shall be limited to conditions of universal hospitality"
  • Thinker: Liberal institutionalists – advocate for international law and multilateral action.
  • Example: UN sanctions on Myanmar over the Rohingya crisis justified by human rights concerns.
• Point 2: Cultural Relativism vs. Universal Rights

  • Realist View:
  • Human rights are culturally biased; Western concepts shouldn't be forced globally.
  • Thinker: Realist critique of humanitarianism – sees it as neo-imperial.
  • Example: Russian opposition to Libya intervention (2011) – West pushing its own norms.
  • Liberal View:
  • Human rights are universal and legally binding for all states.
  • Thinker: Liberal cosmopolitans – support international human rights law (e.g., UDHR).
  • Example: ICC charges on Sudanese leaders for Darfur – enforcing universal standards.
• Point 3: Interventionism & Judging State Legitimacy

  • Realist View:
  • Humanitarian intervention is often a pretext for power politics and leads to instability.
  • Thinker: Mearsheimer – says human rights should not determine a state's legitimacy or inclusion.
  • Example: Iraq War (2003) – framed as liberation but caused long-term chaos.
  • Liberal View:
  • Intervention may be necessary to protect human rights; democratic states uphold rights better.
  • Thinker: Fukuyama – liberal democracies are the end-point of political development.
  • Example: NATO in Kosovo (1999) – moral duty to prevent ethnic cleansing.