Q 3 (c) “ The implementation of human rights is regarded as a matter of changing the conduct of States. ” Comment.

Treaty of Westphalia, 1648 recognized nation states as the principal actors in the global arena. It recognized the sovereign nature of state power. The evolution of human rights as intrinsic right has pitted it against state rights. Nation states claim sovereignty over their citizens and are wary of any external scrutiny.

World War II and the slaughter of millions using state machinery brought into focus brutal state atrocities. United Nations, tasked with preservation of global peace acknowledged human rights. This had opened the window for Humanitarian Interventions. However, such interventions have been criticized as to have been biased and selective. Interventions in Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan have been particularly disastrous.

The concept of Responsibility to Protect has to be coupled with the ‘responsibility to prevent’ and ‘responsibility to rebuild’. It has been suggested that responsibility to protect had to be invoked only when there is an imminent possibility of large scale killings or large scale genocide. International mechanisms such as International Court of Justice have been criticized as being prejudiced and biased. All the cases brought to prosecution have been from African Nations.

States with robust civil societies hold the state answerable and are active in countering rights abuses. All nations have tried to be perceived as upholding human rights in order to be accepted as members of the global society (as disguised from global system). States that are globally interconnected have been sensitive to global norms on human rights and made effort to stay clear of being accused of any violations. Such acquisitions harm the national pride and weaken international standing of a nation.

Some States have and shunned away any external scrutiny. States which are already isolated and have weak civil society presence are where maximum rights abuses have occurred. International Organizations such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and NGO’s act as watchdogs and bring to light cases of abuse. When the state could be held accountable either by domestic or international mechanism there is very less possibility for such excess.

Since states are the ultimate actors at the national level, human rights can be safeguarded by changing their conduct. Also strengthening civil society presence can boost accountability.