top of page
Logo _ bfac84.png

Human Rights as an Issue in World Politics

Emily Park

There is a global, wide spread struggle for human rights with a reported 60% of nations and 40% of the world’s population systematically and violently subjected to discrimination and displacement. Yet, many transgressor states argue that infringing human rights standards on them is a violation of their sovereignty, political, and decision-making systems. The global nature and magnitude of this problem as well as unclear enforcement standards, make it obvious that an international organization – such as the United Nations – must be involved. 


Existing today and for many decades are clear international human rights standards best codified in the United Nations’ Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). There are other globally recognized standards such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. 


However, the primary roadblock to enforcement lies in a conflict with perceptions of sovereignty by states, and a plethora of factors such as lack of consensus on how to apply human rights laws, nations not having a legal framework to enforce the laws, and moral relativism based on political cultures. Furthermore, individual states cannot be entrusted to enforce violations, primarily because they will serve their national interests first. China epitomizes this idea - it has been oppressing Uyghur Muslims to achieve their national interests of countering separatism and maintaining territorial integrity.


In spite of these factors, the U.N. is singularly, the natural international organization to provide enforcement, monitoring and surveillance, especially since human rights is one of its founding, guiding principles and reason for being. Moreover, the U.N. has 193 member nations, and has a long history of political, diplomatic, and military influence. UN led enforcement on human rights could take the form of sanctions, travel bans, and arms embargoes, which would directly impact a nation’s economic and reputational standing on the global stage. 


In general, international organizations can be trusted to make the political choices involved in human rights issues as a result of their “impartial stance” and intrinsic composition and mastery of multilateralism. The U.N. is tasked with representing the collective will of the international community, bringing together a diverse range of country interests and perspectives. Such multilateralism results in balanced decision-making when making political choices that pertain to human rights issues. As a result– the risk of rejection by a violator state is reduced. Below are a few of the highlighted gains from U.N. (or proxy international agency) enforcement:

  1. Power, decision-rights, and accountability. The UN has major influence to provide global enforcement through a variety of tools and influencing factors, such as sanctions and peacekeeping missions. 

  2. Long-term gains. A system of long-term UN enforcement of human rights policies will hold actors accountable, because violators know that the UN has power to influence their standing on the world stage. Knowing there would be repercussions, states will deter future violations and have adherence to human rights norms, preventing human rights abuses in the long run.


Despite such gains, there are sacrifices that U.N. enforcement would entail:

  1. Sovereignty. Many countries may perceive increased global agency intervention as an infringement on their sovereignty. This could lead to tensions between nations and the UN, undermining global stability. Historically, this has been the largest claim of violator states. 

  2. Integrity of Political Neutrality. Enforcing human rights would often involve appearing to take sides in conflicts or the criticism of governments. This means that the UN could face accusations of bias, undermining the UN’s perceived impartiality and effectiveness.  


International organizations (such as the UN), are the best arbiters and political systems to make choices on human rights issues due to their multilateral composition and impartiality. It is the individual states where trust issues arise, due to states’ national interests being put ahead of upholding human rights. 





bottom of page