International Rights or Rights of the State? (Mod 2)

“Are human rights essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of the State? My answer is no, and a hundred times no.”
- Ricardo Alfaro (Lauren 199)

The idea of human rights has been successfully broken into two different, very debatable sectors: international rights and rights given through individual national governments. The establishment of the United Nations occurred with a purpose of creative a universal set of rights that would be implemented among every country and be consistent for every country. These rights would be international rights. The purpose would be to have a laid out and specific outline of human rights, what violates human rights, and what is permissible through the jurisdiction of the international rights. But is the institution of an international set of human rights imposing upon a State’s right to national sovereignty? No. Each State has a right to govern itself, but when the only way to protect peace is to specifically draw out rights and consider them international, it would be the only practical solution. By establishing a code of international rights, countries will be able to understand what is permissible, what violates, and what is considered human rights while at the same time retaining the ability to govern themselves. International human rights would simply be an outline of what human rights are and serve as a way to clarify the vagueness.


Many times, the problems that lead to tensions and wars between countries begin because of a violation of what is considered a ‘fundamental human right’. However, what is considered fundamental for one country might not be considered fundamental to the other. The contrast creates tension and often war. Specifically, the Gulf War is a perfect example. Iraq’s occupation of Kuwait violates Kuwait’s fundamental right to govern itself. At the same time, Iraq would not have considered Kuwait in a powerful enough position to govern itself and occupied it under the façade of being an imperialist power. The first violation of Kuwait’s rights led to more violations of the rights of Kuwait citizens at the hands of the Iraqi government, which created tension and eventual warfare (http://www.indepthinfo.com/iraq/iraq.shtml). The United Nations, by definition in their charter, are obliged to promote and maintain international law, “promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom, and for the ends to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbors” (Ishay 491). As ‘good neighbors’ both Kuwait and Iraq have a responsibility to abide to international law. By outlining the idea of international human rights along with international law, conflicts can be avoided and tensions can be resolved.


It is not the State’s decision on what to consider is a universal human right. For one country to decide what is good for their people and attempt to impose those rights among others who they do not govern is unjust. For broader rights, such as the rights to property, life, and liberty, international rights would make such ideals universal and understood that violations of these rights by one country to another are violations of international law and grounds for punishment. Too many times do human rights fall into a gray area, especially among neighbors. Property and liberty are disputed heavily, simply because of misunderstandings within countries. By outlining what is considered international, misunderstandings will not occur. At the same time, fundamental rights will remain the same and countries will have the freedom to create State rights that fall beneath in power when compared to international rights. State rights would apply only to citizens of the country to which they inhabit and cannot be applied to anyone else.


While tensions will always be present, international rights would do a great deal in lessening them and solving conflicts before they escalate into full out warfare. International rights would govern countries in general, while State rights would govern the citizens within those countries. It will both maintain a State’s right to govern itself all while clarifying what is unclear from country to country. The way that the United Nations declares international human rights is a perfect step towards a draft of what needs to be included, and now it is simply a matter of enforcement.