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 sovereignity. 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?

A very difficult issue.

In Europe its btw not the EU, its the Council of Europe. They both have the same flag, but are distinctive organisations. The main job of the Council of Europe principally is to run the European court for human rights.

This court stands above national sovereignity of every state that is member of the Council of Europe. And all European states excluding Belarus are members, even Russia if I remember correctly.

The very issue you are referring to, arose already a few times in conflicts between the Court above with the UK. With the result that the UK had to give in.

The EU as such would get Human Right competences with the Constitution, but as this Constitutions future remains very very uncertain everything around it is pure speculation.


Regarding a global perspective, we have already seen a major step forward with the creation of the ICC. A court where you can put those who abused human rights in the outmost severe way, and that is not set up ad hoc by the victoruious power.

Of course the question remains how to extradict the wanted people. And your point above, how to stop those war crimes that are in progress. The sole possibility international law foresees currently would be that the security council decides that intervention is legitimate in order to stop it.

__________________
"Every country gets the cuisine it deserves"

Wow, i totally forgot about the Council of Europe and that is standing above the sovereignty of European countries. It is actually very interesting to see that the members states have already integrated in a European community where the human rights are protected and are willingly to give up their national identity to serve Europe. I will actually say that the European model of law above a single sovereignty is good, but on a global scale, it is not that effective? UN with its various branches, which among is the Human Rights branch is not so effective due to this issue of state sovereignty above all else. This debate is now starting in my country in newspapers regarding the matter of Mugabe and how South Africa as a powerhouse state in Africa must deal with the issue. We are in conflict of the right of the state sovereignty outweighing the right of Human right and therefore this issue came to my mind.

We do not want to get involve in states who abuse human rights due to the protection and respect of the concept of state sovereignty, but violation of human rights is bothering us. Not only in Zimbabwe, but also on a global scale.

I see your point. Its in fact very difficult to say what to do.
Are there any attempts to bring this to the UN security council. And if so, are there powers who would oppose actions against Zimbabwe due to human rights violations?

And how does the African Union fit into the whole picture? Does it have any competences when it comes to Human Rights violations?

PS:
Its not that the nation states are too enthusiastic to give up that part of sovereignty. But not doing so would cause severe diplomatic damage. The political costs of undermining the court would be too high to dare it, at least for members of the EU.
In fact, I would say, that Europe is the sole region where today effective supranational law exists, ie law with teeth.

__________________
"Every country gets the cuisine it deserves"

well, the issue of Zimbabwe was brought to the attention of the SADC organization and called for our president, Mr Mbeki to mediate the talks between the parties. The problem is, he wants that Zimbabwe must solve its own issues and that we cannot get involved due to the concept of state sovereignit, it is in conflict of our constitution.

It was also brought to the attention of the United nations, but you know how ineffective it was in the past.

Well, does Zimbabwe have the support of any of the 5 permanent security council members? If not, the UN could give you a powerful legitimation. As the security council has the right to make a war against a country legal when the UN says its to prevent crimes against humanity.

I think the sovereignity would be gone then for Zimbabwe.

__________________
"Every country gets the cuisine it deserves"

China would vote against that. Zimbabwe does horrible things to its own people, but affects no one else. China wouldn't want to set a precedent of intervening to protect human rights.

__________________
... I am surprised at your insolence in writing to me at all. You know, as I know, that I bought this constituency... may God's curse light upon you and may it make your women as open and as free to the excise officers as your wives and daughters have always been to me while I have represented your scoundrel corporation.
I have the honour to be... your obliged humble servant, Anthony Henley
- MPs reply to constituent, mid 1700s

Right I totally forgot the Chinese ambitions in Africa. They will vote probably against everything to secure the dictatorships they can in that way establish marvellous relations with.

Ok, then you can probably forget the UN on this issue.

__________________
"Every country gets the cuisine it deserves"

Now you see what I mean by UN is not effective in this matter? But the UN is the only legitimate organization to stop the crisis in Zimbabwe, Sudan, and elsewhere. UN is pledged to protect the human rights as is stand so in it's Human Charter. Therefore UN is failing on this one. That is why I thought, when does one state have the only authority to intervene in another state affairs in conflict of the rights of the sovereignty of the state?

In regard to the international law I would say never in theory. Not without the backing of the UN.

I'd say this is a fucked up situation. But it seems Africa is already used to those kind of situations, as sad as this might be.

__________________
"Every country gets the cuisine it deserves"