Broadly speaking, the sovereign refers to state sovereignty. Opinions vary as to define human rights, for what is a sovereign, semantics in the field of modern international also think differently in the sense of the definition, is not unified:
“The time of absolute sovereignty and exclusive sovereignty…has passed; its theory was never matched by reality” -Boutros-Ghali 1992
Meant of sovereignty
The concept of sovereignty has long been seen as a “fundamental pillar of the international system” (Badescu 2011:20) and even a “grundnorm of international society” (Reus-Smit 2001:519). Some scholars have argued that certain aspects of the contemporary international system, like globalization, have led to its erosion (Krasner 1999:1). For some, the greatest challenge (or perhaps threat) posed to sovereignty stems from international human rights obligations (Donnelly 2004:1). Human rights and sovereignty are often seen as juxtaposed, competing and contradictory regimes. Krasner, for example, argues that human rights compromise conventional notions of sovereignty (1999:125), suggesting that the two ideas are opposed and irreconcilable. The relationship between human rights and sovereignty has often been viewed in zero-sum terms – “the stronger the principle of sovereignty, the weaker norms of human rights, and vice overshot” (Reus-Smit 2001:519).
From the above list of foreign scholars point of view, it is not hard to see from the semantic interpretation, define the sovereignty, their differences are not great. The problem is that conversion of the sovereign, attributes, such as understanding and explanation, but there exists a big difference.
There is no denying the fact that for the conversion of the sovereignty, sovereignty in jun, sovereignty, sovereignty or the people in the country's sovereign in parliament, its essence is not the same meanings. Sovereignty in jun, the monarch sovereign, its value orientation and the existence, form of exercise, is fundamentally at odds with human rights, and therefore could not truly effective safeguard human rights. For the sovereignty, international human rights scholars advocated more support for the people to exercise their right to self-determination for a new system of protecting human rights. Sovereign namely narrow sense of national sovereignty in the country, according to the nation's basic properties to determine its relationship with human rights. Because the country has the opposite of individual phase separation or intrinsic properties (especially under the condition of private ownership), therefore, in the countries that can't actively the effective protection of human rights, national sovereignty and international human rights are not harmonious and even diverge. Popular sovereignty or the people's sovereignty and human rights in nature are unified. China's human rights and sovereignty belongs to this relationship. Some international human rights scholars argue that whether sovereignty in people, basically see its people can effectively protect their rights through the exercise of sovereignty. If the people's sovereignty can truly effective protection of individual human rights, the international cannot intervene on its domestic human rights issues, or interfere in the internal affairs of other countries.
Sovereignty theory is the product of the special social and economic conditions. "For most of the civilized, sovereign has not determine the characteristics of political life. Mainly related to organize Africa and Oceania tribal society, the concept of not much meaning. The nations in ancient China, emperors and governors, subtle and multilateral relationship between the doctor and cannot be described as a sovereign state system. The Greek cities due to the territorial dispute, trade, and the population continued into the war, but its interior is not according to the logic of sovereign. Hegemony principle can be used to explain Egypt, Persia, and the rise of the Roman empire, but it with modern multiparty, competing with each other, but the concept of the sovereign state of equality of there is very little in common. Also, medieval German political community and the principality of medieval European kingdoms, also is not a sovereign state." Sovereign this symbol because people need (such as for safeguarding national relations, need to solve the contradiction between countries, between internal rule for national construction of power system, restore the need of political authority, etc, because of the need for power legitimacy origin explanation), because people believe (faith) and exist, because are endowed with moral rationality and legitimacy of the law and be binding.
Sovereignty During War
Walker criticized the modern unlimited authority theory (this Clausewitz) of war, war is hell, in extreme cases about the legitimacy of war's moral judgments does not exit, because war is not benefit to point to "abstract necessity", but the free choice of human beings. Human free will have the ability to control the war limited scope: human must be responsible for development for unlimited size of war; At the same time, the system of the human, customs and habits can also form the war. Agree with freedom of choice of political self-determination (20 century) is the basis of all just war, but is forced to fight will be exempt from war guilt no crimes (choice), introduce war authoritarian unjust war force will be responsibility.
Agree with freedom, which is the basis for just war lasted for the 17th and 18th century social contract tradition of natural rights and the founding of the tradition. The rationality of the war as to establish the rationality of the government, both based on the freedom of citizens to agree, forced war as authoritarian government is a serious violation of individual rights and freedom. Thus, Walker in the laws of war level of sovereign state legitimacy of the political system's common request, if the government is not based on public opinion, cannot obtain proper position in the laws of war, war of justice and thus impossible: national sovereignty will be review in the war.
National sovereignty is the most important rights in international law level against illegal invasion, threatened by invasion of personal statement and its creation of the community that is the only legitimate reasons of rebellion. Aggression theory is the essence of the executive to give independent sovereign state, in the war for the final relief means to keep on the basis of the sovereign state of the international law order, its purpose lies in the formation of national sovereignty, flatly denies the sovereign unlimited supreme status (to extreme is unrestricted right to the use of force war, see Schmidt), resolution on the basis of the "reason" state sovereign war privileges (tile at Mansfield and Blenheim). Aggression theory, on the other hand, as well as restriction and interfere in sovereignty, defended the national sovereignty is limited by multiple in the theory of aggression.
During the Cold War period
During the Cold War period, military intervention in the affairs of another state, regardless of the rationale that underpinned it, was regarded as a violation of the non-intervention norm. Wheeler and Morris cite three instances of intervention during the Cold War: India’s intervention in East Pakistan (1971); Tanzania’s in Uganda (1978) and Vietnam’s in Cambodia (then Kampuchea) (1979) that were seen to be violations of the non-intervention norm (1996:142). They argue that “the international community chose to condemn… [them] as breaches of the principles of non-intervention and non-use of force” (ibid). Although they issue a caveat that the international response was influenced by overarching Cold War imperatives (ibid). Each of these instances of intervention arose as a response to genocidal violence (ibid), but nevertheless was perceived as an infringement of the stasis, non-intervention norm.
During the 1990s
The response of the international community to (some) instances of mass human rights violations during the 1990s demonstrated that state sovereignty was no longer sacrosanct and that leaders no longer had a free hand to act with impunity on their own territory. A new norm of military intervention for humanitarian purposes emerged which suggested that the apparent era of ‘sovereignty without responsibility’ – to borrow Glanville’s turn of phrase (2011:247) – was over. Sovereignty was no longer conceived of as an inherent right, and crucially, states that did claim this right had to recognition the accompanying responsibilities for protecting their citizens (Wheeler 2004:37).
Globalization
In the 21st century, globalization has indeed constitutes a serious challenge to the nation state and its sovereignty, the power of the international political pattern is under reconstruction, the contents and forms of national sovereignty is undergoing profound changes, the strategy of safeguarding state sovereignty must also make a corresponding adjustment. Continue to organically internal reform and opening to the outside world, enhance the country's comprehensive national strength and national cohesion, more actively participating in global governance, and establish a new overall consciousness of national security, is under the background of globalization to consolidate national sovereignty and the fundamental path of national independence. However, based on the needs of economic globalization and the economic cooperation between the nations, the international community the limitation on the sovereignty principle. But this does not mean that sovereignty as the basic principles of international law will disappear. Countries will still exist, the principle of national sovereignty (including economic sovereignty) will still exist, as the basic principles of international law will still be continuing for the foreseeable future, but its form and content will continue to change, and will continue to receive more restrictions.
Conclusion
To conclude, greater instances of intervention demonstrate that the nature of sovereignty is changing. The fact that intervention has occurred with greater incidence since the end of the Cold War, and is increasingly permissible as a policy tool, underscores the notion that sovereignty has changed. All in all, the principle of national sovereignty in the contemporary international law has the core status, it requires countries to respect each other's sovereignty, in its relationship respect each other's international personality, can not have any form of infringement. In other words, the country is independent, equal and countries independently rights should be respected in their internal and external affairs, all countries to decide their own destiny, the freedom to choose their own social and political system and national form of rights should be protected, other countries may not make any forms of aggression and intervention. The principle of national sovereignty to the country and the international law has important significance, its international society has been generally accepted.
References
Arend A., & Beck R.J., (1993) International Law and the Use of Force: Beyond the UN Charter Paradigm, London: Routledge
Barry Buzan, Richard Little(2000). International Systems in World History: Remaking the Study of International Relations. published 2000
Stéphane Beaulac(2004): "The Westphalian Model in defining International Law: Challenging the Myth", Australian Journal of Legal History Vol. 9 (2004),
Badescu C.G., (2011) Humanitarian Intervention and the Responsibility to Protect: Security and Human rights, Oxon: Routledge
Bellamy A.J, (2009) Responsibility to Protect, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Byers M., (2005) High Ground Lost on UN’s Responsibility to Protect, dated 18/9/2005, Winnipeg Free Press, available at http://www.ligi.ubc.ca/?p2=/modules/liu/news/view.jsp&id=142, accessed on 5/4/2013.
Deng F.M., Kimaro S., Lyons T., Rothchild D., & Zartman D., (1996) Sovereignty as Responsibility: Conflict Management in Africa. Washington: Brookings Institution Press.
Norris, Cochrane, Charles (1929). Thucydides and the Science of History. Oxford University Press. p. 179.
Baylis, John; Smith, Steve (2001). The globalization of world politics : an introduction to international relations (2. ed.). Oxford [u.a.]: Oxford Univ. Press. p. 149. ISBN 0198782632.
Deng F. M., (2004). The Impact of State Failure on Migration. Mediterranean Quarterly, Vol 15:4, pp16-36
Freedman L., & Boren D., 1992, ‘safe havens’ for Kurds in post-war Iraq, In Rodley N.S., To loose the bands of wickedness: International intervention in defence of human rights, Brassey’s: UK
Glanville L., (2006) Norms, interests and humanitarian intervention, Global Change, Peace & Security, Vol 18:3, pp153-171
Glanville L., (2011). The Antecedents of ‘Sovereignty as Responsibility’, European Journal of International Relations, Vol 17:2, pp233-255.
Wheeler N. J., (2000) Saving Strangers: Humanitarian Intervention in International Society, Oxford: Oxford University Press
Wheeler N.J., and Morris J., (1996) Humanitarian Intervention and State Practice at the End of the Cold War In: Fawn R., and Larkins J., International Society After the Cold War, Basingstoke: Macmillan Press Ltd.
Zaum Z., (2007) The Sovereignty Paradox: The Norms and Politics of International Statebuilding, Oxford: Oxford University Press.