Human Rights after the Cold War

Abstract

The central thesis in this article is that international concern with human rights will remain what it has already become: one of the major issues on international law. The end of the Cold War has had a dual impact on international human rights, contributing both to violations of rights and renewed efforts to ameliorate those violations. The complexities of the subject are discussed according to these paradoxes and a synthesis. The first paradox is general: the increasing consensus not only on the notion and core definition of universal human rights, but also on the propriety of certain types of international action to push for their implementation is joined by the fact that human rights remains one of the most controversial aspects of world affairs. The next two paradoxes are derived from, but more specific manifestations of the first. The second paradox consists of: while the international community continues to confer legitimacy on public authorities through bilateral and multilateral political acceptance, it also flirts with awarding legitimacy because of moral factors. The third paradox is that the territorial state retains the most power and legal authority relative to other actors on public policy, but at the same time its jurisdiction is being penetrated and its operative authority weakened.

The dominant principle of present concern is the traditional emphasis in world affairs on state independence, combined with pursuit of state security and wealth. The competing principle is on international emphasis on universal human rights. The resulting synthesis entails an advance for human rights and a concomitant reduction in the absolute values of national independence especially as translated into state security and economic policies, but in a very uneven and ‘ragged’ way that does not completely undermine the territorial state and its sovereignty.