ROUNDTABLE: THE FUTURE OF HUMAN RIGHTS
State Sovereignty and International Human Rights Jack Donnelly
I
am skeptical of our ability to predict, or even forecast, the future—of human rights or any other important social practice. Nonetheless, an understanding of the paths that have brought us to where we are today can facilitate thinking about the future. Thus, I approach the topic by examining the reshaping of international ideas and practices of state sovereignty and human rights since the end of World War II. I argue that in the initial decades after the war, international society constructed an absolutist conception of exclusive territorial jurisdiction that was fundamentally antagonistic to international human rights. At the same time, though, human rights were for the first time included among the fundamental norms of international society. And over the past two decades, dominant understandings of sovereignty have become less absolutist and more human rights–friendly, a trend that I suggest is likely to continue to develop, modestly, in the coming years.
Sovereignty Supremacy—especially supreme authority—is at the root of sovereignty. The Oxford English Dictionary defines “sovereignty” as “supremacy or pre-eminence in respect of excellence or efficacy” and “supremacy in respect of power, domination, or rank; supreme dominion, authority, or rule.” Similarly, “sovereign” is defined as “of power, authority, etc.: supreme.” International law replicates this understanding: “Sovereignty is supreme authority,” write Robert Jennings and Arthur Watts; Black’s Law Dictionary defines the term as “) Supreme dominion, authority, or rule. ) The supreme political authority of an independent state. . . . Supremacy, the right to demand obedience.” Ethics & International Affairs, , no. (), pp. –. © Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs doi:./S
225