The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is considered by most to be inalienable and applicable to all human beings regardless of nationality, residence, gender, national or ethnic origin, religion etc and have served as the basis for numerous UN Human Rights declarations and agreements since 1948 (AO2). We may reach the judgement that the construction by the foremost political global body, the United Nations, of a body of global norms that apply to all human beings, no matter which state they occupy, inevitably weakens state sovereignty by undermining previous national norms, values and cultural perceptions of humans (AO3). The International Criminal Court was established in 2002 as a permanent international court with jurisdiction to prosecute individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity etc. The ICC is intended to support existing judicial systems but can exercise its jurisdiction when national courts are unwilling or unable to take action as was the case when it issued an arrest warrant for the Sudanese leader, Omar al-Bashir (AO2). We may conclude that the ability and willingness of the ICC to take legal action against the citizens of states, even without the support of states, is a clear erosion of the Westphalian concept of state sovereignty (AO3). UN Special Tribunals were created to deal with individuals accused of committing war crimes in Yugoslavia (1993), Rwanda (1994) and Sierra Leonne (2002) and led to the prosecution of numerous individuals for human rights abuses. The prosecution of key military and political leaders such as Mladic, Karazic, Milosovic and Charles Taylor suggested that the global community were willing to prosecute wherever and whenever human rights were abused (AO2). We may evaluate that the Yugoslavia, Rwanda and Sierra Leonne prosecutions which included state leaders like Slobodan Milosovic and Charles Taylor showed that no one was safe from prosecution and that state sovereignty was consequently eroded (AO3). The Responsibility to Protect political commitment was endorsed by UN member states in 2005. R2P is a commitment to address genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and ethnic cleansing even where a state leader is responsible for violations and has become an established international norm and expectation over the last two decades (AO2). This is important because it suggests that there is a developed global commitment and expectation to take action in protection of human rights even where it conflicts with the wishes of state leaders and of state sovereignty which inevitably weakens state sovereignty (AO3). 2023 Mock Q3B Evaluate the view that human rights institutions have significantly weakened state sovereignty. 30 Marks

Any agreement which lacks legal force is open to abuse as states decide to ignore elements of it and can’t be compelled to abide by it (AO2). We may conclude that, if states are able to choose whether or not they abide by the articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights then they clearly retain power and sovereignty (AO3). The Bangkok Declaration in 1993 emphasised the principle of sovereignty and non-interference whilst reaffirming commitment to the UNDHR, and the 1990 Cairo Declaration criticised the UNDHR for failure to take into account the cultural and religious context of non-western countries. Resistance to the concept of Universal Human Rights is clear in these declarations where a western-focused concept of Universalism clashes with other cultural interpretations and where states make clear their determination to hold to the principle of non-interference and state sovereignty (AO2). We may conclude that the concept of Universal Human Rights is open to debate and is rejected by some states who are determined to retain their own sovereign powers rather than accept a global and universal interpretation which would have weakened their sovereign powers (AO3). China has been accused repeatedly of committing human rights abuses, including against the Uighur people, Russia has been accused of committing human rights abuses in areas like Chechnya, and the United States has been accused of human rights abuses in Iraq and elsewhere. Major powers such as China, the Unites States, Russia and their client states have acted with impunity where they have been accused of committing human rights abuses because of their power and influence in global politics (AO2). This shows that the international community has limited ability to take action against states with the military and political power to resist any erosion of their sovereign authority (AO3). There are 123 member states in the International Criminal Court (2022). China, Saudi Arabia, Russia and the United States are not full member states and the African Union has debated withdrawal from the ICC, particularly given that its historic focus has been on prosecution of Africans. The ICC does not have universal membership and there are numerous states who have refused to recognise its authority and legitimacy, as well as states who have withdrawn their signature or threatened to do so if it challenges their sovereignty, whilst tribunals have only operated in a very small number of cases prior to the establishment of the ICC (AO2). We may conclude that the courts and tribunals responsible for human rights protection are unable to challenge certain states who are unwilling to accept the authority of courts and tribunals where the courts and tribunals have the potential to undermine their sovereignty (AO3).