Intervening in a Sovereign State

Unfortunately, serious human rights violations still occur at this point in time. We see much of this in third world countries led by dictators. Although all sovereign states govern themselves, there is a point when others must intervene for the sake of humanity. When it becomes an issue of several people's lives, it is necessary that something be done to stop the spread of these violations. At a dangerous point, human rights violations are reason enough for outsiders to intervene in a sovereign state.

However, with this said, there are many key factors that affect this point of view. By saying that one can intervene if human rights violations exist would be approving of an issue much too vaguely. In this paper, we will first outline what may be classified as human rights violations. Then we will look at which situations it is necessary to intervene, taking into account the different aspects each party may bring forth. Also discussed will be what parties are justified to intervene and why. And lastly, we will look at the appropriate methods of intervening in these particular situations.

Violations of a person's rights happen every minute of every day. It can be anything from a racist employer choosing one employee over another because of their skin color, to plagiarizing another author, to rape and murder. The United Nations is often referred to when regarding topics such as human rights. This is because the United Nations is recognized as the most universal organization in the world who takes into consideration every nation as equally as known possible. For example, we could not assume the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to pertain to every person in the world, as that would be unfair to every citizen that is not Canadian. (Ghandi, p210)

The United Nations has been the main arena within which the international politics of human rights has been played out. It was through the United Nations that the international norms regarding the rights of individuals and groups were established. The roots of the efforts of the United Nations in the promotion of individual and group rights are to be found in the UN Charter. (Economist, p38) Within this charter, the UN also developed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, an important document outlining international human rights. Now existing for more than fifty five years, this document was officially adopted on December 10, 1948 and has been accepted internationally ever since. It was also through the United Nations that the institutions and mechanisms which give concrete expression to these norms were created. (Chronicle, p94)

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights contains thirty Articles of human rights. The following examples are the first five articles of the thirty in the declaration.

"Article 1.

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2.

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it is independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 3.

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 4.

No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

Article 5.

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." (Ofuatey-Kodjoe, p320)

These articles just give a brief idea of what the Universal Declaration of Human Rights entails. In turn, when discussing violations and intervening, there are disagreements about which issues fall under human rights violations, as they contain some ambiguity so not to pertain only to one issue. (Soares, p26)

The difficulty with human rights violations is that there is such a broad scope of interpretations from one nation to the next, and even from person to person. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights created by the UN is likely the closest the global community will come in terms of significance and impact. As the UN is the most recognized supranational organization with one hundred and ninety one member states, it has the best chance of implementing the agenda of all nations. (Ghandi, p233)

Because the declaration can be open to interpretation, an eighteen member human rights committee exists to clarify contentions over the document. (Chronicle, p94)

When clarifying these contentions, the United Nations often has to decide if the situation is substantial in terms of taking action. This is the first step in deciding if it is necessary for them or any other parties to intervene. Article one of the declaration states that human beings should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. One might then suggest that cursing at another human being violates his or her dignity and rights. Most people would not find this as a serious human rights violation and especially not to consume the act to intervene. However, under certain circumstances other would argue, grounds to intervene by a certain party would be legitimate. For people to curse at one another might normally be considered an argument, but for one human being to consistently call another down could be considered emotional abuse, in which case officials and the courts would have the right to intervene. This is just an example of a scenario between a small number of people (say two or three).

Yes, primarily is it individuals who need the primary protection from coercive powers of certain groups (often the state itself). However, groups also need human rights protection, especially when the victims become an ethnic group or activists are targeted. When these violations move to this larger scale, it often becomes too large for the criminal law system to handle. This becomes especially difficult when our topic of sovereign states comes into consideration. No two states will have identical laws, therefore making it difficult for all nations to agree on the subject of human rights violations.

However, intervening is only acceptable under the right circumstances. If capable institutions intervened every