Sovereignty and Human Rights

Sovereignty is a fundamental concept in international relations and law, defining the authority of a state to govern itself without external interference. However, in the modern era, sovereignty is increasingly discussed in relation to human rights. This article explores the concept of sovereignty in the context of human rights and its significance in ensuring—or hindering—the protection of fundamental rights.

Sovereignty refers to the right and power of a governing body to regulate its own affairs without outside interference. Traditionally, sovereignty has been understood in two primary ways: (1) The authority of a state to govern itself, make laws, and enforce policies within its borders, and (2) The recognition of a state’s independence and autonomy by other states and international organizations.

Historically, sovereignty was considered absolute, meaning that states had the unrestricted power to decide their internal matters without outside interference. However, with the rise of international law and globalization, the notion of sovereignty has evolved, particularly in relation to human rights.

The expectation is that a sovereign state has the duty to protect the rights and freedoms of its citizens. Governments create laws, enforce justice, and establish institutions that uphold human rights, such as freedom of speech, equality before the law, the right to education, freedom from state-sanctioned or state-tolerated torture. The principle of sovereignty allows states to adopt and implement human rights frameworks that align with their social, cultural, and historical contexts.

Moreover, sovereignty enables states to resist external forces that may threaten their citizens’ rights. For example, a strong sovereign government can protect its people from exploitation, foreign domination, or economic manipulation by other nations or entities.

On the other hand, sovereignty is sometimes used as a justification for human rights violations. Some states argue that external actors have no right to interfere in their internal affairs, even when there is evidence of oppression, discrimination, or violence against social groups. This has led to situations where authoritarian regimes commit human rights abuses under the pretense of protecting national sovereignty.

International institutions, such as the United Nations (UN), often struggle with the balance between respecting state sovereignty and intervening to prevent human rights abuses. Cases such as genocide, war crimes, or systemic discrimination raise ethical and legal dilemmas about when and how the international community should intervene. Reacting to many internal and external pressures, systemic changes, and increased power differential among nation-states, the relationship between sovereignty and human rights has shifted over time.

Traditionally, the Westphalian system (established in 1648) emphasized non-interference in domestic affairs. However, after World War II, the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and subsequent treaties, such as the Geneva Conventions, created a relatively more robust international legal framework for human rights. However, because the national border limit legal actions in other countries without collective authorization, national legal systems remain the focus of efforts directed towards human rights protections. A sovereign state with a functioning legal and political system is crucial for the enforcement of human rights. Without sovereignty, a country may lack the ability to implement laws, uphold justice, and protect its citizens from external threats.

Sovereignty allows states to resist external pressures that may undermine their human rights progress. Historically, colonialism and imperialism often used the guise of “civilizing missions” to justify oppression and exploitation. In the modern era, sovereignty remains a safeguard against economic and political domination by more powerful states or multinational corporations.

Human rights are universal, but their implementation may vary depending on cultural, historical, and social contexts. Sovereignty allows nations to adapt human rights principles in a way that respects local traditions while still protecting fundamental freedoms.

Sovereignty and Indigeneity

Given the fact that powerful expansionist states often dominate other communities, especially those less powerful, sovereignty becomes a complex and complicated doctrine. For instance, for Native American tribes, sovereignty has been a crucial mechanism for maintaining their self-governance, cultural heritage, and legal rights. Tribal sovereignty refers to the inherent authority of Indigenous nations to govern themselves, make and enforce laws, regulate economic activities, and manage natural resources within their lands.

The U.S. government has recognized tribal sovereignty through treaties, court rulings, and federal laws, such as the Indian Reorganization Act (1934) and the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (1975). These laws allow tribes to govern themselves to a certain extent, operate judicial systems, and control education, healthcare, and land use on reservations.

While sovereignty has been a safeguard for Native American rights, it has also been historically manipulated to suppress Indigenous communities and other marginalized groups. For example, despite legal recognition of tribal sovereignty, the U.S. and other colonial powers have frequently violated it. The Doctrine of Discovery, a legal principle used by European colonizers, justified the seizure of Indigenous lands under the premise that non-Christian nations lacked sovereignty. This led to forced removals, such as the Trail of Tears, where Native Americans were expelled from their lands despite treaties recognizing their sovereignty.

The U.S. government has often restricted tribal sovereignty when it conflicts with national interests. For instance, the Supreme Court case Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe (1978) ruled that tribal courts cannot prosecute non-Native individuals, limiting their judicial authority. Additionally, the federal government still holds significant control over Native lands through the Bureau of Indian Affairs, restricting tribal decision-making on resource management.

Sovereignty is a double-edged sword. For Native Americans and other Indigenous groups, it has been a vital tool for preserving rights, self-determination, and cultural survival. However, powerful states have also exploited sovereignty to justify land dispossession, limit Indigenous rights, and evade accountability for human rights violations.

Sovereignty, Responsibility to Protect, and Human Rights

Sovereignty has long been a cornerstone of international law, affirming a state’s right to govern itself without external interference. However, this universal acceptance of the doctrine of sovereignty, and the universal abuse of human rights within nation-states’ borders, created a need for addressing human rights abuses through outside interference. Human rights scholars, activists, and NGOs have increasingly challenged this traditional notion with the principle of “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P)—the idea that sovereignty is not just about rights but also about responsibilities.

The Responsibility to Protect doctrine emerged in the early 2000s in response to mass atrocities such as genocide, ethnic cleansing, and war crimes. It asserts that when a state fails to protect its population from severe human rights abuses, the international community has a duty to intervene. This intervention, some argued, could take various forms including diplomatic pressure, economic sanctions, and even military intervention.

R2P is based on the belief that sovereignty is not an absolute shield against outside involvement, but a conditional privilege tied to the protection of human rights. This principle was first widely applied in Libya (2011), where NATO-led forces intervened to prevent mass killings by Muammar Gaddafi’s government, although NATO’s involvement ended with the removal or the regime, but did not address the atrocities and violence that persisted after the fall of Gaddafi’s government.

Does R2P Increase the Risk of Instrumentalizing Human Rights

While R2P provides a framework to prevent large-scale human rights abuses within sovereign states through the involvement of outside forces, critics argue that powerful states can instrumentalize human rights rhetoric to advance political and economic agendas rather than genuinely protect people. Since R2P does provide for a principle-based mechanism and clear process guided by international law and international institutions, powerful states could use (and some have used) R2P to invade countries without UNSC resolutions.

Recent events have shown that powerful nations do not apply R2P consistently. For example, while NATO intervened in Libya (2011) under R2P, but similar crises in Syria and Yemen did not lead to the same level of international action, raising questions about political motivations. Similarly, the Russia’s Special Military Operation in Ukraine (2022) was justified by the Kremlin as a “humanitarian intervention” to protect Russian-speaking populations—essentially invoking R2P principles. When Russian leaders were criticized by Western governments that accused Russian of “unprovoked invasion of a sovereign state,” Russian leaders pointed out similar actions taken by Western governments including:

• US invasion of Iraq (2003), which was framed as a mission to remove a dictator (Saddam Hussein), promote democracy, protect the human rights of ethnic minorities (Kurds), and rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction.
• The NATO bombing of Serbia (1999) was justified as a humanitarian response to ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, but critics argue it served Western military and strategic interests in the Balkans.

Responding to critics who identified the impact of war on human rights, some R2P supporters argued that they do not favor military interventions and that they prefer other means that can secure compliance, like diplomacy and sanctions. However, sanctions, too, disproportionately harm ordinary citizens while having little impact on ruling elites. For example, the U.S. sanctions on Venezuela and Iran were imposed under the pretext of human rights violations, but many argue that they were designed to weaken political adversaries rather than genuinely improve human rights conditions. The same can be said about the longest sanction regime imposed on a sovereign state: Cuba’s decades-long embargo has caused economic hardship for millions of Cubans but has not led to major political changes.

R2P can be manipulated to justify intervention in weaker nations while allowing powerful states to avoid scrutiny. The U.S., China, and Russia, for example, frequently veto UN resolutions that challenge their own human rights records while supporting interventions against weaker nations.

The tension between sovereignty and human rights is not easily resolved. While R2P aims to prevent atrocities, it also creates opportunities for powerful states to instrumentalize human rights as a geopolitical tool. While the Responsibility to Protect has been a significant advancement in international law, its application remains deeply politicized. When used appropriately, R2P can prevent humanitarian disasters. However, when misused, it becomes a convenient excuse for military interventions, sanctions, and regime change operations disguised as moral imperatives.

The Need for New Frameworks for Defining and Protecting Human Rights

The tension between sovereignty and the responsibility to protect (R2P) has long been a challenge in international relations. On one hand, sovereignty affirms a state’s right to govern itself without external interference; on the other, R2P argues that the international community has a duty to act when a government fails to protect its citizens from mass atrocities. One of the principles of systems thinking stipulates that lasting change within the border of one system can only be powered by a force that is from outside that system. This principle reaffirms the validity of R2P, including its appeal to outside actors to intervene to stop persistent human rights abuses within the border of a sovereign state. The problem, then, is in defining the nature and process of “intervening”. The Systems Thinking Framework alone, can provide guidance to make sure R2P or any other call to action to stop atrocities are applied in a principled manner.

Systems thinking framework (STF) is an integrated knowledge approach to problem-solving that relies on identifying the appropriate universal principles to specific events (cases). One of the many principles of STF, interconnectedness, calls for a holistic approach, not for considering an event in isolation. Instead of seeing sovereignty and R2P as opposing forces, systems thinking recognizes them as interdependent components of a larger global governance system. By understanding the complex relationships between state authority, human rights, international law, and global power dynamics, we can develop more effective, principled processes of intervention that neither infringe on sovereignty nor enable human rights abuses.

Moreover, a key insight from systems thinking is that many conflicts leading to R2P interventions result from systemic failures rather than isolated crises. Instead of waiting for humanitarian disasters to justify external intervention, the international community should address root causes—such as economic inequality, political exclusion, and resource conflicts—through proactive diplomatic, economic, and development-based measures. The principle of Interconnectedness holds the key to solving complex problems, and human rights abuses are rarely a simple problem.

Another principle of the Systems Thinking Framework is the fact that all events are outcomes of the Work performed by the system and driven by some external force. In this sense, a Systems Thinker would recognize that not all failures to protect human rights stem from malicious intent—some governments lack the capacity to enforce protections. The international community should differentiate between unwilling and unable states and tailor its response accordingly. Importantly, when intent is present, a systems thinker must identify the proper driving force behind a human rights abuse event. In general, the Systems Thinking Framework calls for avoiding seeing an event in binary terms, and resisting linear thinking when addressing complex problems