AO1: There has been a significant increase in the number of human rights institutions responsible for human rights law, including the UN special tribunals and the International Criminal Court which take actions that impact on state sovereignty including prosecutions. AO2: The UN Special Tribunals for Rwanda and Yugoslavia were created in the 1990s and the International Criminal Court was established in 2002, building on the establishment of the ECHR which led to the creation of the UK Human Rights Act as well as numerous UN treaties including the 1948 declaration of Human Rights and 1951 Refugee Convention, all indicating that there is an increasing amount of law that states are under pressure to recognise and accept AO3: We may conclude that an increase in the amount of human rights legislation , treaties and agreements inevitably impacts on state sovereignty and ability to take actions which conflicts with these agreements AO1: There has been an increase in the number of actions taken by human rights institutions responsible for human rights law including the European Court of Human Rights which impact on state sovereignty. AO2: The ECHR currently (2023) has a backlog of approx. 150,000 applications from individuals seeking redress for alleged violations of the European Convention on Human Rights and the ICC to 2023 had had 31 cases before the court and had issued 38 arrest warrants which illustrates the increasing involvement of human rights courts in human rights cases involving states or individuals usually subject to state law and protection AO3: We may conclude that the increasing involvement of judicial bodies, courts and tribunals at a global level, acting within the jurisdiction of states, is a clear indication that state sovereignty is being significantly impacted AO1: There is a view that organisations responsible for international law in relation to human rights are western dominated and that they act as a form of neo-colonialism with the intention of controlling sovereign states. AO2: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights has received criticism from numerous quarters for having a western focus and perspective and indeed the Bangkok Declaration of 1993 and Cairo Declaration of 1990 outline concerns that western perspectives in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and generally do impact on state sovereignty AO3: We may conclude that such open statements condemning the impact on state sovereignty make clear that there is a significant impact on state sovereignty AO1: States feel more and more willing to accept the judgements of international law and human rights institutions or feel obliged to obey them because of interconnectedness and state norms including R2P. AO2: R2P serves as an example where states are required to intervene despite the concept of state sovereignty and in an interconnected world based on complex interconnectedness, it is very difficult for states to ignore human rights condemnation, often because adherence to human rights laws, treaties, norms and agreements is often tied to trade and other agreements which benefits states AO3: We may conclude that states are forced to accept concepts like R2P and adhere to human rights agreements in order to receive other benefits or to avoid damaging action and that this clearly undermines their decision making and their sovereignty

AO1: There are many examples, including recent examples such as Ukraine, where states simply ignore human rights law and institutions. AO2: Russia has been accused of human rights violations in Ukraine and the USA was accused of violations in Afghanistan and Iraq whilst China has been accused of human rights violations against the Uyghurs within China but they are able to block any proposed action in bodies such as the UN Security Council (AO2) We may conclude that states being able to ignore existing human rights law or block actions against themselves and/or allies makes clear that state sovereignty is not significantly impacted.Human rights law and human rights institutions tend not to be backed up with enforcement powers as states retain control over such powers.International law and institutions lack any standing force to carry out arrest warrants or to take military or enforcement action without the support of states who would have to supply such forces and prosecutions tend only to have taken place where sovereign states have decided to allow for prosecutions of their citizens such as Milosevic in Yugoslavia AO3: We may conclude that if prosecutions and similar actions only take place on the decision of sovereign states then state sovereignty is not being significantly impacted AO1: Sources of rights are disputed with sources of authority ranging from conventions to custom, general principles and judicial decisions which allows states to pick and choose when to accept. AO2: Disagreements over human rights including definition, legitimacy of sources, universality and right of the international community to act within states means that states pick and choose when to acknowledge and accept certain human rights international law and when to ignore it AO3: If states are able to decide when to acknowledge and when to ignore then they are retaining state sovereignty AO1: The most significant global powers often refuse to engage with international law, bodies and institutions where they decide that they don’t wish to or arrange opt outs. AO2: The ICC is a clear example where states have decided not to fully engage with the absence of key states like the USA, China, Russia and India as well as criticism from groups like the African Union making it very difficult indeed for the ICC to take any action which states are not willing to accept AO3: We may conclude that the lack of support from the major global powers so reduces the ability of bodies like the ICC to act that they are unable to significantly impact on state sovereignty