ABSTRACT

Traditionally, the protection and promotion of Human Rights and the concept of State sovereignty have been fundamentally opposed. Sovereignty of States understood as their supreme authority and independence is being identified as the major factor responsible for such a lamentable State of affairs with regard to the internationally controlled implementation of human rights. Sovereignty entitles States to non-interference in their internal affairs. States are the primary or main subjects of international Law and most if not all have adopted one treaty or the other centered on the protection and promotion of human rights but the promotion of Human Rights has embarked upon a successful challenge to the concept of State sovereignty. However, as it is not necessarily the case that the two concepts are incompatible. Human Rights, far from challenging or even undermining State sovereignty, are embedded within the very concept of sovereignty itself. Dominant understandings of sovereignty and Human Rights have indeed been significantly reshaped. The overall goal of this work is to analyze how States hide under the canopy of sovereignty to commit Human Right violations especially in Cameroon. In order to achieve this objective, the work adopts the qualitative research methodology. It makes use of the doctrinal research method which is largely content analysis. Information are collected from both primary and secondary sources. The work found out that the concept of sovereignty can be used to protect and promote human rights and at the same used by most States as a shield for human rights violations. This means that most States as a result of their sovereignty always put in front the principle of non-interference when they violate human rights. The concept of sovereignty is strongly recommended to be used for the promotion and protection of human rights at all times. For States to do so, they should make sure they respect the principle of responsibility to protect in all their internal affairs.

CHAPTER ONE

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

• BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY

Traditionally, the protection and promotion of Human Rights and the concept of State sovereignty have been fundamentally opposed. The rights of states and the 1648 Peace of Westphalia pitted against the right of the individual and the 1969 Universal Declaration of Human Rights[1]. The very definition of sovereignty entitles States to non-intervention in their domestic affairs. The idea of Universal Human Rights and the protection of an individual within a State would appear to come into direct conflict with this very definition. As such, International Human Rights obligations are regularly seen as “eroding State sovereignty[2].

Sovereignty of States understood as their supreme authority and independence is being identified as the major factor responsible for such a lamentable State of affairs with regard to the internationally controlled implementation of human rights[3].

The  concept  of  sovereignty  is  often  associated  with  the  notion  of  absolute  power or authority of governments  and States[4]. The Bodin  formula, which  defines  sovereignty  as  the  “potestas  legibus  soluta”  or  which describes  the monarch  as  being  “legibus  solutus”  (as not bound  by  law), often  is  invoked  to  corroborate  the  understanding  of  sovereignty  as  absolute  power. From this  understanding,  it is inferred  that a State which is  sovereign in  this  sense by definition  could not be envisaged  as  subject to  any  higher  (international) norms  such  as  human  rights  norms, unless it has  consented  to  them  and remains  in control  of  their application  and non-application[5].

State sovereignty in simplicita, refers to the ability of a State has, to make laws for its citizens and the powers it has in regulating the internal affairs of its territory without external interference or dictatorship.

The concept of state sovereignty is at the very center of international law. This is because when States have sovereignty, they obtain the status of subjects in international law[6]. This concept has certain parameters, in which another state cannot interfere in the activities of another and thus becoming problematic, especially when States use their sovereignty in committing human rights violation.

Human rights are the cornerstone underpinning the rule of law and State sovereignty. They are essential tools enabling States to ensure that every person can live with dignity, whatever their gender, race, nationality or other status. The traditional approach to human rights, largely influenced by Lockean political philosophy, usually has some strong antigovernment or anti-state overtones.  This  is  especially  true  of  the  classical  liberal  concept  of  the political and  civil  rights which  are designed  to check  government encroachments  on the individual’s freedom. Economic and social rights, on  the other hand,  stemming  from  the  very  different  philosophical  background  of socialist philosophy,  depend  on implementation  by government  agencies[7].

There are several treaties which have been adopted by States for the protection and promotion of human rights. Some of them include: the Charter of the United Nations[8] , the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights[9], International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)[10], International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR)[11], Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT)[12], Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW)[13], Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC)[14], International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination[15].

The gross violation of human rights by many States may seriously  intrigue  observers,  and  while  one  may  be  inclined  to  feel  deep  sympathy with  those who  try  to  develop  strategies  for  the  implementation of  human  rights  which  bypass  or  try  to  overcome  the  sovereign  State, one nevertheless  has  to recognize  that, at least as  of now,  no mechanisms for  the adequate  enforcement  of human  rights  other  than governmental ones  have  been  devised[16]. 

Human rights which refer to the freedom, immunities and benefits which all human beings should be able to claim as a matter of right in the society in which they find themselves can be promoted or violated using the concept of sovereignty. States have supreme powers in managing their internal affairs and because of the wide powers accorded to States in the management of the affairs of their territory with no interference by other States, many States tends to violate and infringe on peoples human rights, which becomes so problematic. This research seeks to bring out the relationship between State sovereignty and human rights.

• STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

Sovereignty and human rights typically are seen as fundamentally opposed:  the rights of States pitted against the rights of individuals. Sovereignty entitles States to non-interference in their internal affairs. States are the primary or main subjects of international Law and most if not all have adopted one treaty or the other centered on the protection and promotion of human rights but the promotion of Human Rights has embarked upon a successful challenge to the concept of State sovereignty. However, as it is not necessarily the case that the two concepts are incompatible. Human Rights, far from challenging or even undermining State sovereignty, are embedded within the very concept of sovereignty itself. Dominant understandings of sovereignty and Human Rights have indeed been significantly reshaped. Nevertheless sovereignty remains strong and, at least with respect to Human Rights, largely unchallenged. In all practicality, Human Rights are not legally binding upon States and are not practically enforced in any way. Put simply, both politically and legally, Human Rights hold very little power as they are always undermine by States and these States would always use their sovereignty as a shield to avoid liabilities. The worry of the researcher is to know how these two concepts can be compromised.

• RESEARCH QUESTIONS

1. What is the relationship between State sovereignty and human right?
2. How can State sovereignty be used to promote and protect human rights?

• How is State sovereignty used as a shield for human rights violations?

1. Are there policy recommendations for the protection of human rights generally and particularly in Cameroon?

• OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
  • Main objective

The overall goal of this work is to analyze how States hide under the canopy of sovereignty to commit Human Right violations especially in Cameroon.

• Specific Objectives

1. To examine the relationship between State sovereignty and human right.
2. To investigate how State sovereignty be used to promote and protect human rights.

• To assess how State sovereignty is used as a shield for human rights violations.

1. To propose policy recommendations for the protection of human rights generally and particularly in Cameroon.

.