Since its foundation in 1945, the United Nations (UN) has served as the centre of international diplomacy in the hope of ensuring world peace, protecting human rights, and providing humanitarian aid. Australia, being a key ally during World War II, was among the establishing nations and has played an active role in promoting UN interests. While the goals of the UN are noble from a moral perspective, the existence of a global authority has significant implications on national sovereignty, the right of the state to rule autonomously and independently. The conventions signed within the UN General Assembly (UNGA) have no legal standing in a nation’s law unless ratified into legislation regardless of any binding agreements. Despite this, coordinated
…show more content…
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is enforceable in international law and considering that the legal ramifications of violating it cannot be avoided even if a nation is not a member of the UN this has significant implications on national sovereignty. Human rights are, to a certain degree, subjective to the values of a particular cultural group or an ideology, and thus states may be forced to adhere to laws that are not necessarily reflective of their moral perspectives. The most significant example relates to states which subscribe to Islamic Sharia Law which directly contradicts the UDHR in numerous areas thus technically placing every Muslim country in violation of international law for following their faith, which is a violation of freedom of religion in of itself. The UDHR is dominated by a western interpretation of morals and thus is fundamentally incompatible with states which hold different principles yet international law still applies to them regardless of their role in the international community. Due to these factors, the sovereignty of legislation in states can be called into question as nations can still be held accountable even in cases of conflict which is a major concern for autonomous statehood. The Bangkok Declaration built upon this issue by affirming that human rights are in fact an objective reality and suggested that law making sovereignty should be limited to economic, social, and cultural
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is enforceable in international law and considering that the legal ramifications of violating it cannot be avoided even if a nation is not a member of the UN this has significant implications on national sovereignty. Human rights are, to a certain degree, subjective to the values of a particular cultural group or an ideology, and thus states may be forced to adhere to laws that are not necessarily reflective of their moral perspectives. The most significant example relates to states which subscribe to Islamic Sharia Law which directly contradicts the UDHR in numerous areas thus technically placing every Muslim country in violation of international law for following their faith, which is a violation of freedom of religion in of itself. The UDHR is dominated by a western interpretation of morals and thus is fundamentally incompatible with states which hold different principles yet international law still applies to them regardless of their role in the international community. Due to these factors, the sovereignty of legislation in states can be called into question as nations can still be held accountable even in cases of conflict which is a major concern for autonomous statehood. The Bangkok Declaration built upon this issue by affirming that human rights are in fact an objective reality and suggested that law making sovereignty should be limited to economic, social, and cultural