Hi all, here is one topic which I wanted to discuss with you all. It goes about the concept of Human Rights versus State Sovereignty.

If a state is abusing human rights in the highest degree, does one state got the right to get involve in this state matters without regarding the state sovereignty. But the concept of State Sovereignty is that no one outside its borders have the right to get involved.

Only UN and AU or EU or any district organization have the right, but is also being hampered by individual states who have interests in the states which is doing the abusing of human rights.

Care to explain and discuss the topic? Any ideas on how to solve this problem?

The right answer I suppose is that human rights should always prevail over state sovereignty, however in the real world it is never as simple as that.

I guess that is why we have diplomats and organisations such as the UN.

Really interesting subject, not sure there is a short answer to your question.

Be interested in other peoples views

Cheers.

Karl

I suppose it depends on who is in power and how those entities define the limits of state sovereignty and the liberties that are considered human rights.

I don't see a problem. It is simply a matter of who carries the torch and how they want to run things.

__________________
"Democracy is a process by which the people are free to choose the man who will get the blame."

-Laurence J. Peter

Human rights always trump state sovereignty in my book... though each state is most responsible for protecting the rights of its own people. In fact, the justification of state sovereignty, is to defend rights. If a state is using its sovereignty to remove them, it is perverting its duties.
Responsible states have the right to make other states fix their human rights issues. But a responsible state is responsible to its own people first. That is why international organizations are good... They allow an interface between states... when they function properly.
Responsible states have a responsibility however not to profit off of the destruction of rights by other states. The people of a responsible state should not be themselves part of the oppression of others. But whether to step in and stop oppression by force is up to the people.
In a responsible state there is no division between human rights and state sovereignty.

__________________
"Conservatives say if you don't give the rich more money, they will lose their incentive to invest. As for the poor, they tell us they've lost all incentive because we've given them too much money."

-George Carlin

You have made a very strong point on that human rights must triumph over the sovereignty of the state. However, if each country is abusing its human rights and another country is meddling in, then the Peace of Westphalia will be nonexistent. Then each country can meddle in on the grounds of human rights abusing.

you said international organizations is good, but according to me, they never get involved in stopping the human rights from being abused from escalating until it is too late. For example, Rwanda Genocide, Balkan Genocide, and now, the Darfur Crisis. UN is taking too long to take action, due to weak teeth leaders, AU is also taking long due bad administration and in-conflict matters.

Therefore, to stop such things from happening, an agreement between members of the states must be reach to help stop the crisis, but what happens if one of the members states does not want to stop it, due to economical reasons?
Like China and Russia on the issue of Iran versus America and UK.

It should seem obvious that States rights is winning this debate as practiced in the world for, oh I don't know... since the dawn of man.

As far as what we "should" be doing about it. I doubt anyone has the answer.
In a perfect world, good ole America would swoop in and save all the oppressed people. But in reality, it really isn't feasable.

The only situation where I would like too see the US intervene today is in Darfur. Women and children being chopped up with Machettes by the thousands is something to evil to let continue. IMHO.

Ixtellor

I argue no because once you agree to humanitarian crap like that, you're opening the door for an agenda for a new world order. The reason why a new world order will never work is because people believe in things. People believe in things and different things and people have different histories and different elements of pride which is what makes Nationalism the best system. Nationalism is also a much freer system naturally, etc. No, I will not support a man who thinks we should get involved in other country's affairs just because we're strong enough to. I think people exagerrate how much of a leader the united states should play. If you play too much of a leadership roll and over extend your aid, America suffers and you're taken advantage of. America should in my opinion only be looking out for herself while respecting and acknowledging the principle of national sovereignty.

__________________
I'll never Forget. To pull You Closer is to Pull You Down. Ignorence can be an envy. Applaud us as the old American Power goes quietly into the night.