Why Do States Accept International Human Rights Standards?

After World War II and especially after the Cold War, the international protectionof human rights has achieved unprecedented development.Human rights treaties, which are the core and main part of international humanrights standards, are fundamentally different from other international agreements suchas those concerning tariff or trade, offering very few tangible or reciprocal benefits forthe treaty parties. And what is more, human rights treaties do not regulate relationsbetween states, but instead, between a state party and its own citizens, which hastraditionally been regarded as a domestic affair. However, the tension betweensovereignty and human rights is inherent in the structure of global protection of humanrights. Whether seen from the traditional perspective of international relations, whichconcentrates on power and interest, or discussed from the typical perspective of legaltheory, which pays much attention to the relationship between sovereignty and humanrights, the dramatic increase in the ratification of human rights treaties by most statesis puzzling.Why do states ‘abandon’ a part of sovereignty,‘accept’ international human rightsstandards, and ‘commit’ themselves to an international human rights protectionmechanism? Or, to make an analogy, why did the sovereign rulers cede some of theirpowers to give individuals some rights? This old tension between sovereign powersand individual rights has puzzled many scholars in international politics, internationalrelations as well as international law. However, it seems that there is very littleliterature regarding to this topic in Chinese academia.The motivations for states to accept international human rights standards derivefrom the comprehensive influence of both internal factors from the domestic situationand external factors from the international society. The development of internationalhuman rights protection stems from the increased awareness of the importance ofinternational protection, the irretrievable loss caused by the two world wars, and thesignificant development of international organizations. International human rightsstandards, which are mainly based on nine core international human rights treaties inthe United Nations system, have been well established and gradually accepted by statesaround the world. From the perspective of the theory of sovereignty, John Locke andJean-Jacques Rousseau suggest that it is the national mission and obligation for statesto respect and protect individual rights within their sovereignty encourages the statesto accept international human rights standards; from the perspective of state practice,the internal motivation comes from the improvement of the governing idea of moderngovernments and the enhancement of the awareness of individual rights. When itcomes to the influence of the international society, the legitimacy of internationalhuman rights discourse and the depth of states’ participating in international affairs aregradually increasing, which put more normative pressure on states’ attitude towardshuman rights protection. The pursuit of political power, the stimulation of economicinterest and the requirement of international socialization constitute the externalmotivations for states to accept international human rights standards. The underlying social contract and the national commitment it entails by the rulertowards the people constitute the core meaning of international human rights standards.Moreover, to accept international human rights standards is now an importantrequirement for a state to be a legitimate member in an international society stronglyinfluenced by globalization which depending of many uncertain factors could lead togrowing importance of international human rights standards. International humanrights standards have played a significant role in improving the human rights situationinternationally and nationally in many countries. However, it is said that the practice ofthe existing standards is far from satisfactory and that the relationship betweensovereignty and human rights should be revisited in light of the matures ofglobalization. It is submitted that to better design human rights protection mechanismsand promote the practical operation of international human rights standards willcontribute to the realization of ‘All human rights for all’.