The Extent of International Protection of Human Rights Impact on Member States Rights Fixed in the United Nations Charter

Abstract

The article examines the relationship between state sovereignty and the United Nations (UN) role in protecting human rights. Although international treaties established human rights, the UN Charter provided a guarantee of the rights of its members. Thus, interference in state sovereignty should occur only to fulfil protection mandated by the Charter.

However, a contradiction arises in practice: there is no alignment between the legal protection of member states' rights and interventions aimed at meeting social necessities. The UN invokes the threat to international peace and security to justify intervention, often relying on non-Charter rules that diverge from the rights and protections guaranteed by the Charter. This approach undermines the UN's functional scope and lacks procedural compliance, shifting its interventions from a legal to a political nature.

A descriptive-analytical approach reveals that the UN's reliance on achieving objectives and addressing threats to peace as the basis for intervention creates a disconnect between member states' Charter-based obligations and the non-charter provisions aimed at protecting international human rights. The UN's reliance on practical intervention is inconsistent with Charter procedural norms.

The article calls for international legislators to establish the right to intervene in human rights matters explicitly. This would resolve the existing contradiction between the right of intervention and the rights of member states, integrating non-Charter rules with existing Charter provisions. Such a framework would ensure that international obligations for human rights and the Charter's restrictive provisions are considered an indivisible whole, thereby enhancing the legitimacy of UN interventions.