Content area
Full Text
(ProQuest: ... denotes non-US-ASCII text omitted.)
Roundtable: The Future of Human Rights
I am skeptical of our ability to predict, or even forecast, the future--of human rights or any other important social practice. Nonetheless, an understanding of the paths that have brought us to where we are today can facilitate thinking about the future. Thus, I approach the topic by examining the reshaping of international ideas and practices of state sovereignty and human rights since the end of World War II. I argue that in the initial decades after the war, international society constructed an absolutist conception of exclusive territorial jurisdiction that was fundamentally antagonistic to international human rights. At the same time, though, human rights were for the first time included among the fundamental norms of international society. And over the past two decades, dominant understandings of sovereignty have become less absolutist and more human rights-friendly, a trend that I suggest is likely to continue to develop, modestly, in the coming years.
Sovereignty
Supremacy--especially supreme authority--is at the root of sovereignty. The Oxford English Dictionary defines "sovereignty" as "supremacy or pre-eminence in respect of excellence or efficacy" and "supremacy in respect of power, domination, or rank; supreme dominion, authority, or rule." Similarly, "sovereign" is defined as "of power, authority, etc.: supreme." International law replicates this understanding: "Sovereignty is supreme authority," write Robert Jennings and Arthur Watts; Black's Law Dictionary defines the term as "1) Supreme dominion, authority, or rule. 2) The supreme political authority of an independent state. . . . Supremacy, the right to demand obedience."
Internal sovereignty involves supreme domestic authority. External sovereignty is a principle and set of practices for regulating the interaction of those who claim internal supremacy. Given my focus here on the international law and politics of sovereignty, I will be concerned only with external sovereignty. My focus is further limited to actual sovereignty practices, not philosophical theories or ideal-type models. For reasons of space, I will simply assert four preliminary conceptual points.
First, sovereignty is primarily a matter of authority--of the right to regulate or rule--not material capabilities. We certainly have good reason to be interested in both the authority of international actors and their capabilities. But they are very different things.
Second, sovereignty (supreme authority) comes...