The power of the state may seem invincible and overwhelming considering its closeness but how do human rights limit the state powers successfully unhitched? I guess this is a question of comparison between the state and the people its govern. It is a common truth to realize that different philosophers and political scholars across the world had been trying to dissect the inseparable relationship between the state and its powers over the whole society.
To many, state powers and control of the people is not amenable to the will of the people. They stress that as a matter of fact the opposite is the case. On the other hand, others believe the contrary, that is, the state powers should be in favor of the people and of course answerable to the people of the state.
Human rights implies that all people regardless of nationality should be granted rights, human rights discourse has the potential to undermine governments traditional claims to the inviolability of state sovereignty.
When human rights are framed as more inviolable than state sovereignty, the human rights regime can claim humanitarian grounds to impinge on the state sovereignty and put the state’s treatment of its citizens under scrutiny.
The balance between state sovereignty and human rights is shifting in favor of increasing permissiveness towards cross-border action to protect human rights. In practice, however, this supposed primacy of human rights over state sovereignty is rarely applied.
The question of how do human rights limit the state powers remains a very controversial one. It is simply because the human rights are practically people-centered, and as so, it raises the point that ensures the invincibility of the people’s powers over the state’s. The survival and welfare of the people in terms of fair justice, equity, and freedom come first over aught else.
How Do Human Rights Limit the State Powers
The state powers could also be recognized as the power of a sovereign state to exercise authority within its borders. It can also mean the opportunity to wield social influence, or coercion over the people. That is why the police power is similarly identifiable with the concept of state powers.
Below are thenceforth some answers to the question, how do human rights limit the state powers:
Human Rights Are Inherent and Universal
First on the way to know how human rights limit the state powers is that human rights are inherent in all individuals irrespective of their caste, creed, religion, sex and nationality.
Just as there is the requirement and necessity of sovereignty for the existence of the state so as rights are important for the existence of the human beings in society as in absence of human rights, the moral, physical, social, and spiritual welfare of an individual is impossible.
Read Also: Power Limit in GPU and Why it is Important
No government has the power to curtail or take away the rights. Human rights are not a monopoly of any privileged class of people. Rights are universal in nature, without consideration and exception.
A Way to Freedom
Man is a social animal who lives in a civic society which always put certain restrictions on the enjoyment of his rights and freedom. This limitation however are like threats to the human rights of the people. However, human rights are dynamic and not static. It expands and compresses along with the nature or environment of society.
Human rights thus limit the state powers in that no government would pretend not to acknowledge the great chaos which the infringement of it may cause to the state. These may be in the form of negative restrictions, on the powers of the state, from violating the inalienable freedoms of the individuals, or like demand on the state.
Preserving the Rule of Law
Human rights are the cornerstone underpinning the rule of law and state sovereignty. They are an essential tool enabling states to ensure that every person can live with dignity, whatever their gender, race, nationality or another status.
This view, however, does no longer correspond to the requirements of the now existing legal situation since the freedom of the individual, forming part of international human rights, is now considered not to be subjected to every compulsory measure of the state power, if the sovereign would limit the free development of personality intolerably.
It’s an International Law
The mutual relationship between the sovereignty of the state and the freedom of the individual continually gains importance for the development of international law. The classical concept of unrestricted sovereignty necessarily results in a contradiction with individual rights if the latter is based on a legal justification finding its source beyond the power of the state.
No Responses