Attitudes towards sovereignty and individual rights tend to be highly polarized. On one side of the spectrum are those who believe that the most emphasized aspect of international law should be the protection of sovereignty while others hope for individual rights to be promoted and protected. International lawyers Kofi Annan and Martti Koskenniemi, offer their contrasting perspectives.
Martti Koskenniemi believes that sovereignty since its inception has played a vital role in developing international relations, he notes that, “The pattern of influence and decision-making that rules the world has an increasingly marginal connection with sovereignty.” He expresses frustration at how globalization has contributed to the demise of state sovereignty …show more content…
Humanitarian interventions are the use of force by one or more states to protect another state 's citizens from serious and widespread abuse of human rights. Basically, violations of state sovereignty in favor of individual sovereignty. International lawyer debated the legality of humanitarian intervention and the pro-side developed specific vocabulary and legal theories to justify it. Scholars have promoted the idea that humanitarian intervention is not directed against a state 's territorial integrity or political independence and thus should not be deemed contrary to the UN Charter 's Article 2(4). Another argument put forth by the pro-scholars is that a theory of necessity permits the use of force to avert a humanitarian disaster as the lesser of two evils. Because states exist to further the rights of their citizens, state sovereignty depends on the rights and responsibilities it has for its citizens. They conclude that states that attack their own people, or fail to protect them, should forfeit the legal protections associated with statehood. This allows for state sovereignty to be overlooked in favor of individual sovereignty. Similarly, in the Kosovo case, government officials, human rights groups, philosophers, and legal scholars alike vigorously debated the compatibility of NATO 's military intervention with Article 2(4) of the UN
Martti Koskenniemi believes that sovereignty since its inception has played a vital role in developing international relations, he notes that, “The pattern of influence and decision-making that rules the world has an increasingly marginal connection with sovereignty.” He expresses frustration at how globalization has contributed to the demise of state sovereignty …show more content…
Humanitarian interventions are the use of force by one or more states to protect another state 's citizens from serious and widespread abuse of human rights. Basically, violations of state sovereignty in favor of individual sovereignty. International lawyer debated the legality of humanitarian intervention and the pro-side developed specific vocabulary and legal theories to justify it. Scholars have promoted the idea that humanitarian intervention is not directed against a state 's territorial integrity or political independence and thus should not be deemed contrary to the UN Charter 's Article 2(4). Another argument put forth by the pro-scholars is that a theory of necessity permits the use of force to avert a humanitarian disaster as the lesser of two evils. Because states exist to further the rights of their citizens, state sovereignty depends on the rights and responsibilities it has for its citizens. They conclude that states that attack their own people, or fail to protect them, should forfeit the legal protections associated with statehood. This allows for state sovereignty to be overlooked in favor of individual sovereignty. Similarly, in the Kosovo case, government officials, human rights groups, philosophers, and legal scholars alike vigorously debated the compatibility of NATO 's military intervention with Article 2(4) of the UN