Assignment task:
Topic: How can the international human rights regime (agreements/treaties/norms etc) be enforced without violating state sovereignty? Or can it? If one can't be implemented without encroaching the other, which one matters more? Why?
One of the well-known debates/dilemmas in the human rights literature is the tension between state sovereignty and international human rights enforcement or regime. On one hand, we have state's sovereignty rights over its territory and citizenry--allowed by its own citizens. State sovereignty is at the heart of the modern international system that depends on the Westphalian nation-state system and it is also protected under UN Charter. On the other hand, we have the emergence of the Liberal International Order, which among other things, aims to protect human rights and dignity as one of the defining goals of the United Nations. As we have addressed in our class this week, the emergence of international norms, conventions, treaties and agreements on human rights created nearly a religion-like principle of protection of human rights across the world, regardless of the fact that we have not been able to satisfactorily fulfill this goal. Maybe it is even due to the tension between international HR regime and state sovereignty. Or maybe it is not? Obviously, this is a debatable topic. Let's see what you think on this debate. You may take on any or all of the questions posted above. But, before doing so I encourage you to watch Ikenberry's take on this very dilemma: Ikenberry: Sovereignty vs. Human Rights
And, let me offer you another example to further provoke your thoughts. Consider Khashoggi Case, which is a relevant example for extra-judicial killings, a form of physical integrity rights violations. Moreover, this incident was unique in terms of its internationalized nature. Khashoggi was a Saudi Arabian national, but was also a US permanent resident* with three US citizen children. The killing was perpetrated by Saudi officials while it occurred within a third country, Turkey. On the other hand, it actually happened inside the Saudi Arabian Consulate in Istanbul, which is technically sovereign Saudi soil. However, you could also argue that some elements of the crime (planning, transportation etc) happened on Turkish soil. What we are more interested in is the aftermath of the killing in terms of the reactions from the actors involved (Saudi Arabia, the U.S., and Turkey) as well as the broader international community.
Tell us what you think on the fundamental dilemma between state sovereignty and implementation of international human rights regime. As I said, the Khashoggi case is presented for thought-provoking purposes. You don't necessarily have to reflect on it. In order to get full credit from this assignment, you are required to submit two posts: an initial post of your own and a response post to one of your classmate's posts.