Personally, I think it is difficult to draw a simple conclusion about the international debate on the relationship between sovereignty and human rights in international relations. We cannot simply say "human rights are above sovereignty" or "sovereignty is above human rights". Looking at this problem from different sides, we will have a more comprehensive understanding of this problem.

First, the historical perspective.

Historically, these two concepts both came into being in the west, and have gone through a long historical period, and their contents have also changed greatly. It should be said that the concepts of sovereignty and human rights are the products of social and historical development, and they all change with the development and change of social history. For a long time, these two concepts have developed in parallel, and the main thinkers in history have discussed the thoughts of human rights and sovereignty. As early as ancient Greece and Rome, there was the bud of human rights thought and sovereignty thought. The period of significant development of human rights thought and sovereignty thought basically coincides, that is to say, both sovereignty thought and human rights thought have made significant development in some important periods of history. The concept of sovereignty developed into a modern concept during the Renaissance. Jean Boudin, a French thinker in this period, clearly put forward the concept of sovereignty. The thought of human rights was also formed during this period, especially in the aspects of civil rights and property rights. During the "Enlightenment" period, human rights thought made great progress and formed a systematic theory, which became the core content of western human rights theory in the modern sense. During this period, the concept of sovereignty in the modern sense was also systematically developed in Europe in the17th century and put into international practice. The idea of human rights was also put into practice in America and France in the18th century. After the Second World War, great changes have taken place in the contents of human rights thoughts and sovereignty thoughts. After World War II, the principle of sovereignty was established as the basic norm of international relations, and its content was enriched and expanded. After the Second World War, international law also confirmed the principle of human rights. The concept of human rights has undergone major changes. In the west, human rights in the original sense mainly refer to civil rights and political rights. After World War II, it includes not only economic, social and cultural rights, but also collective rights such as national self-determination, development, peace and environmental rights. The development and changes of post-war concepts of sovereignty and human rights are inseparable from the important role played by developing countries in the international arena. Besides. In the process of the development and evolution of the two concepts of sovereignty and human rights, we find that their contents are both contradictory and overlapping. Contradictions are mainly reflected in two aspects: first, human rights in the original sense mainly protect individuals from state power violations, and second, international human rights protection in the modern sense has had a great impact on state sovereignty. The overlapping part is mainly reflected in the bourgeois revolution in 17 and 18 centuries. The emerging bourgeoisie uses the theory of human rights as a weapon to fight for national sovereignty. This combination of human rights and sovereignty is clearly reflected in the American Declaration of Independence of 1776. The overlapping part mainly means that the connotations of sovereignty and human rights are basically the same in some aspects after World War II. For example, the right of national self-determination overlaps with the principles of sovereignty and non-interference in internal affairs in a certain historical period. The concept of the right to development is also closely related to the content of national self-determination and economic sovereignty.

Second, the perspective of jurisprudence.

With the development of history, the principles of sovereignty and human rights have finally been confirmed by the international community, and their confirmation by the international community is mainly reflected in the provisions of basic international law documents. International law and its branch, International Human Rights Law, which regulate the relations between countries, all stipulate the principles of sovereignty and human rights and their related contents, and these provisions are constantly enriched and developed with the changes of time. But international law did not come into being in a vacuum. International law and international relations are always inextricably linked. The theory of power politics in international law holds that international politics dominates international law and the core of international politics is state power. The basis of the validity of international law should be found in international politics. As some scholars have pointed out, there is a profound and extensive background of international political struggle behind international human rights law, which inevitably reflects the tense relationship between different political forces on human rights issues in the international arena. Whether it is the different political opinions around the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or the long process of drafting two international human rights conventions; Both the political struggle between eastern and western countries and the fierce debate on human rights between northern and southern countries have seriously affected the development of international human rights law. In a sense, international human rights law is a compromise product formed under the influence of international political struggle.

Because the formulation of international law is deeply influenced by international politics, its provisions are often the result of international struggle and compromise between countries. This background makes some provisions of international law not invulnerable. Some important international human rights instruments of the United Nations have unclear definitions of some basic concepts, vague provisions on the rights and obligations of the state, disputes over the legal effect of some documents and even different views on the subject of international human rights law, etc., so that people who hold any views have their own basis and different reasons, and some subjective judgment factors can be mixed in, which has buried hidden dangers for later disputes.

The contradiction between the provisions of international law on human rights and sovereignty and the human rights practice of the United Nations once again proves the lingering influence of international politics on international law. The dilemma faced by international human rights law from the beginning is how to establish an effective balance between the rules of international law protecting individual rights and freedoms and the principles of national sovereignty and non-interference. During the period when international human rights law began to take shape, that is, before and after the adoption of the Charter of the United Nations, the view of adhering to the concept of sovereignty prevailed. Therefore, both the background of the Charter of the United Nations and its written provisions show that most countries at that time did not agree to directly undertake the obligation to respect human rights from the perspective of protecting sovereignty. The explanation given by the representative of the United States at that time proved this point in particular.

The post-war practice of the United Nations in dealing with human rights issues shows that it is precisely because of the defects and differences of international human rights law that the relevant provisions depend on the understanding of the executing agencies or even the executors, which has also become one of the reasons for the contradiction between the United Nations human rights practice and the jurisprudence of international law. The second reason for the contradiction between United Nations human rights practice and precedent is that the practice of the United Nations directly exceeds the provisions of international instruments. But in fact, it also shows that some people regard "respecting", "promoting" and "protecting" human rights as the obligations of Member States according to the human rights provisions of the Charter from the very beginning. It can be considered that in the comparison of international power at that time, the forces holding this view prevailed.

It is worth noting that the influence of United Nations human rights practice is enormous. It is making rules and forming mechanisms, and these rules formed by practice have broken through or even replaced the provisions of written international law to a certain extent, which constitute the internal law of the United Nations and are binding on the Member States of the United Nations. The new rules formulated by the practice of the United Nations in dealing with human rights issues include: Member States of the United Nations have the obligation to respect and protect human rights; The United Nations can deal with a country's human rights issues, and is no longer restricted by the principle of non-interference in internal affairs. The main executive bodies are the Security Council and the Commission on Human Rights. The International Bill of Human Rights is universally binding, even for non-treaty countries. According to the situation, double standards can be adopted; Wait a minute. Among them, the change of the role of Article 2, paragraph 7 of the Charter of the United Nations (the principle of non-interference in internal affairs) has the greatest impact on the relationship between human rights and sovereignty. The practice of the United Nations has actually broken through the restriction of the principle of non-interference in internal affairs on the human rights activities of the United Nations. It gives a new interpretation to the human rights provisions of the Charter, and actually cancels the original effect of the principle of non-interference in internal affairs. This reality that law is divorced from practice is an important reason why different countries have disputes on the relationship between human rights and sovereignty in real society. Because jurisprudence, practice and new rules formed through practice can be used as the basis of defense, different countries can choose the basis that is beneficial to them according to their own needs. Therefore, the dispute between sovereignty and human rights in the international community will exist for a long time.

In fact, the principle of sovereignty was not absolute when it was formed, because it was at least limited by international law. In addition, the content of domestic jurisdiction matters is constantly changing. Some matters that traditionally belong to domestic jurisdiction, such as how a country treats its own nationals, have changed to some extent with the birth of international human rights law. Because international human rights law requires countries to consider the existence of international human rights law and abide by the international norms that have been formed in the field of international human rights when treating their nationals. Specifically, when a country exercises sovereignty over human rights, it is subject to many restrictions:

First of all, some mandatory international rules have been formed in the field of international human rights law. All countries must abide by these rules when exercising their sovereignty. Compliance with these norms is not a prerequisite for countries to join relevant treaties. Such as slavery, apartheid, racial discrimination, genocide policy and so on. Are considered as violations of human rights and basic rights. Any country that commits the above-mentioned acts at home shall not evade its responsibility under international law on the grounds of national sovereignty.

Secondly, when a country joins a human rights convention or treaty, it assumes the corresponding obligations of international law and must fulfill these obligations. In this case, the sovereignty of this country must be limited by its international obligations.

Third, customary international law formed in the field of human rights is also binding. If a certain aspect of human rights protection has formed customary international law, and the relevant countries have explicitly or implicitly recognized this customary law, then this rule is also binding.

Finally, although the resolutions of the General Assembly are not legally binding, they can also play a role in the behavior of countries in human rights. Especially when the resolutions adopted by the General Assembly clarify the customary rules of human rights law, expound and explain the existing effective human rights law, or expect the due international human rights law, its legal influence does exist. As one of the resolutions of the General Assembly, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is widely respected, which is an example. When the United Nations General Assembly resolutions on human rights are unanimously or overwhelmingly adopted, it shows that Member States have reached an agreement in principle on human rights issues. If a Member State of the United Nations votes for the human rights resolution of the United Nations General Assembly, but does the opposite in human rights practice, it will lose its international credibility. General Assembly resolutions are not legally binding, but this does not mean that countries can ignore them.

Therefore, in a sense, international human rights law does involve restrictions on national sovereignty. This restriction is not aimed at the country's right to external communication, but at its supreme sovereignty at home. Moreover, with the development of international human rights law, the scope of international human rights protection is getting wider and wider, and the restrictions on national sovereignty are getting wider and wider. Human rights can no longer simply fall into the category of national sovereignty. One-sided adherence to the view that human rights belong to the sovereign jurisdiction of a country can no longer explain the objective reality.

However, the role of national sovereignty in the formulation and implementation of international human rights law is also unquestionable.

First of all, sovereign States are the makers of international human rights law. From the development of international human rights law, we can see that all international human rights conventions are formulated by sovereign countries through agreements, and the final written documents are the result of compromise of the will of many countries. Some important human rights instruments, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the two International Covenants on Human Rights, have experienced fierce struggles in the process of formulation. The current system of international human rights law is actually the result of years of struggle and compromise on human rights issues by sovereign countries.

Second, the international protection of human rights is mainly the result of sovereign countries' obligations under existing international human rights instruments. The process of confirming and fulfilling international human rights obligations by sovereign countries clearly reflects the decisive role of national sovereignty in the implementation of human rights. Because sovereign countries can decide whether to join international human rights conventions, even if they do, they can make some reservations, that is to say, they can not abide by some of its provisions.

Furthermore, human rights protection is mainly solved through domestic channels. International human rights protection measures are mainly implemented through sovereign countries. This is mainly manifested in the fact that the implementation of human rights, especially judicial protection, mainly or basically relies on domestic mechanisms. The most obvious example is: after a national's right is violated, even if his country has undertaken treaty obligations on this right, he can't go to foreign courts to seek relief, nor can he go to The Hague International Court of Justice, which simply doesn't accept individual lawsuits; The only legal way to solve the problem is to resort to domestic courts. Although there are some ways in international human rights law, individuals of a country can sue their own country, such as countries that have acceded to the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the prerequisite for its entry into force is that sovereign countries must join the Protocol. In addition, the protocol is not mandatory. The role of international organizations and various human rights NGOs in protecting human rights is mainly to urge. There is no universal human rights court with compulsory jurisdiction in the world. Although there are already regional human rights courts, such as the European Court of Human Rights and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, the first way to solve the violation of relevant conventions is the domestic courts, and only after exhausting local remedies can the issue be appealed to the above-mentioned regional courts. Judgments made by the European Court of Human Rights are also enforced through "fair compensation" provided by the domestic institutions of the countries concerned. Only a few countries have declared their acceptance of the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.

It is worth noting that international law is constantly developing and changing. In the development of international law, the development of treaty law is important, but the influence of international practice cannot be underestimated. Because among the sources of international law, customary international law is also an important source of international law. Many international customary laws have developed from international practice. Although the formation of international customary law requires some conditions, no one can be sure that it is not an international practice of international customary law today and will not become international customary law in the future. Once these international practices are recognized as international customary laws, they have the effect of international law and can regulate the behavior of countries.

Since the war, there have been many practices in the field of human rights that go beyond the written provisions of international law, and these practices have affected the principle of national sovereignty since the day they occurred. Moreover, new practices are still taking place, such as NATO air strikes against Yugoslavia, which is also an internationally recognized "humanitarian intervention". Because the international community has a fundamentally opposed view to these practices, if these practices have become or will soon become international customary law, they will not only receive insufficient support, but will also be resolutely opposed by some countries. But the far-reaching impact of these practices cannot be underestimated. Because customary law is formed in practice, with more practice, it may become a rule. No wonder some people in the United States suggest that justice should be achieved by force first, and then there is no need to worry that the law will not work. Taking "humanitarian intervention" after the cold war as an example, the frequent use of "humanitarian intervention" by the international community and the changes in its content and form will fundamentally bring about changes in international law. This point should be paid enough attention to.

Third, the perspective of international political reality.

In order to study the relationship between sovereignty and human rights from the perspective of international political reality, this paper first analyzes it from the macro international level, and then from the micro national practice level.

At the macro-international level, the reality we see is that the international community is seriously opposed to the relationship between sovereignty and human rights. During the Cold War, this opposition mainly occurred between the eastern and western countries, that is, between socialist countries and capitalist countries; After the cold war, this opposition mainly occurred between the north and the south, that is, between developing countries and developed countries. Of course, there are differences between socialist countries and capitalist countries after the cold war. However, since the existing socialist countries are all developing countries, their views are basically the same as those of other developing countries except for ideological factors.

No matter during or after the Cold War, the views of the opposing sides are strikingly similar. One view emphasizes the principle of sovereignty and opposes interfering in other countries' internal affairs with human rights issues. Those who hold this view are the socialist countries during the Cold War and many developing and socialist countries after the Cold War. Another point of view is that human rights issues have become an issue of international concern, and no country can use sovereignty as an excuse to oppose the interference of the international community. It is the western developed countries that hold this view. Their views remained basically unchanged before and after the Cold War, mainly because of the reasons and forms of intervention.

The reasons why there will be objections on this issue are complicated. In this paper, I list six main factors that affect the formation of my views: ideological differences, political needs, historical background, different interests in economic development, cultural differences and changes in the international environment. These factors have played different roles in different historical periods and different countries. For example, in the differences between eastern and western countries during the Cold War, ideology played a more prominent role; Although ideological factors will also play a role after the cold war, they are far less important than during the cold war. For another example, after the Cold War, for developing countries, the consideration of economic development interests and the factors of international environmental changes (especially the impact of globalization on sovereignty) played a relatively big role. Because human rights is a highly politicized issue, political factors continue to play a role in both the cold war and the post-cold war period, and their role will not diminish in the foreseeable future. Compared with these factors, historical factors and cultural factors belong to deeper factors, which subtly affect people's way of thinking and behavior, and then indirectly affect the country's views on international affairs and foreign policy.

Different from macro-international analysis, micro-national analysis mainly studies the international practice of sovereign countries on the relationship between sovereignty and human rights. I chose the United States as a case, because the American approach not only fully shows this issue, but also because the contradiction reflected by the American approach reflects the complexity of this issue.

In the article, I first analyzed the attitude of the United States to international human rights conventions. Although there are provisions on human rights and the principle of sovereignty in international law, the practice of sovereign countries undertaking international human rights obligations shows that the principle of sovereignty takes precedence. When sovereign interests conflict with international human rights obligations, sovereign countries will sacrifice international human rights obligations. The United States, listed as the world's "human rights judge", often accuses other countries of failing to fulfill their international human rights obligations and violating human rights, but stubbornly insists on the supremacy of American sovereignty in undertaking international human rights obligations, refuses to ratify international conventions that run counter to American sovereign interests, measures international human rights conventions by American human rights standards, and belittles the efforts of the international community to promote human rights. The United States has long refused to ratify international human rights conventions. The main reasons are as follows: if it ratifies the international human rights conventions, it may damage the sovereign interests of the United States, including the legal system of the United States as the core of sovereign interests, resulting in the alienation of national sovereignty, lowering the human rights standards of the United States and damaging the political system of the United States. Although the policy of the United States was adjusted later, it also took various measures to protect its sovereign interests to the maximum extent, while doing everything possible to weaken the influence of international human rights conventions on the United States and avoid fulfilling its international human rights obligations. Therefore, the choice made by the United States in the face of international human rights obligations is absolutely the supremacy of American sovereignty. In the final analysis, it is the national interest that plays a decisive role. In this sense, it is understandable that other countries safeguard their own interests and emphasize sovereignty on human rights issues. Why does what the United States can do become a big violation in other countries?

The reason why the American case is thought-provoking lies in the contradiction of American policy. When American sovereignty faces international human rights obligations, American sovereignty is supreme; When the sovereignty of other countries faces international human rights obligations or American human rights standards, it becomes the supremacy of human rights, and human rights are higher than sovereignty. This is manifested in the long-term use of human rights issues by the United States to intervene in foreign countries. American foreign interference in human rights has a profound historical background, which stems from the strong sense of mission generated by American exceptionalism in American cultural tradition and idealism in American diplomacy. After the war, successive American governments have used human rights issues to intervene in foreign countries. After the Cold War, the American government actively promoted "new interventionism", and the means of intervention changed greatly, mainly using the United Nations to intervene in foreign countries on the grounds of "humanitarianism". More importantly, in the name of the United Nations, American intervention has been put on a legal coat. The powerful military strength possessed by the United States is irresistible to other countries. Therefore, the great impact of "new interventionism" on the principle of sovereignty is unprecedented. The vast number of developing countries, especially those with ethnic problems at home, are the main targets of American intervention. The sovereignty of these developing countries is facing the biggest threat since the principle of autonomy came into being.

Four. On the Rational Relationship between Sovereignty and Human Rights in International Relations

First of all, the inherent relationship between human rights and sovereignty shows that they are inseparable. In more than half a century after World War II, the international community has formed some universal principles on human rights, which are mainly embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and international human rights conventions. Therefore, it can be said that human rights are universal. However, due to the different national conditions of different countries, this determines that the ways, methods and roads to realize the ideal of human rights are different in different countries. In other words, the ideal of human rights is the same, but the means and process of realizing human rights are different. These means and processes are decided by each specific country, which is sovereignty and internal affairs. In this sense, the ideal of human rights is realized through sovereignty, and sovereignty is the guarantee for the realization of human rights.

Secondly, for a country, human rights and sovereignty can take into account and promote each other. Sovereignty and human rights are both principles of international law, which are generally accepted by the international community. It can be seen that both are very important. Therefore, the reasonable relationship between sovereignty and human rights should be balanced and mutually reinforcing. A country's exercise of internal jurisdiction and sovereignty includes the protection of its citizens' basic human rights, and the people's full enjoyment of human rights will in turn promote the country's development, thus further strengthening the country's sovereignty. Therefore, the ideal model of a country should be to effectively exercise sovereignty and gradually improve human rights.

Third, in the process of realizing human rights, the role played by national sovereignty is still irreplaceable by any other international and domestic institutions. The responsibility for protecting human rights is mainly borne by the governments of sovereign countries. Because not only the content of human rights is mainly stipulated by domestic laws, but also the realization of human rights must rely on domestic laws. Individual human rights in international law can only be realized if they are transformed into the citizenship of a country. Many western scholars also agree with this. For example, John Humphrey, a Canadian who drafted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, pointed out that the state and its legal order should bear the main responsibility for protecting human rights. The main purpose of the state and its legal order is to protect these rights. Because the country and its legal order are closer to individual citizens than the organized international community, protecting human rights is not only the goal of the country and its legal order, but also the country is in a more favorable position in protecting human rights. Customary international law has recognized that countries have priority in protecting human rights, because only when domestic or national remedies have been exhausted and the problem has not been solved can international institutions have jurisdiction over disputes involving individuals. Jack Donnelly, an American scholar, also pointed out: Fundamentally speaking, the international human rights obligations of all countries are always realized through state behavior. Although international behavior has had and will continue to have a great impact on the fate of human rights, fundamentally speaking, its role is still auxiliary. The fate of human rights-realization, deprivation, protection, infringement, implementation, refusal to recognize or enjoy human rights-is a national act, not an international act. This means that universal human rights have a particularity, that is, the particularity of the way countries implement international norms. The real basis for protecting human rights from infringement should be the fundamental political changes in the country. It is almost certain that international supervision is only an external factor contributing to this change.

Fourthly, on the controversial issue of whether human rights are internal affairs, we can also try to explain it by "dichotomy". In this regard, Macra's views are very enlightening. He pointed out: "Obviously, legislation to promote political, civil, economic, social and cultural human rights is no longer a matter that is essentially within the domestic jurisdiction. However, it is also obvious that the measures to implement human rights lack normative provisions. Therefore, even if the country has acceded to the relevant conventions according to strict procedures, the protection of human rights is basically still a matter under the jurisdiction of the state. It is wrong, or at least inaccurate, to confuse the promotion and protection of human rights recognized by relevant conventions. " Therefore, in general and in specific circumstances, the protection of human rights, especially economic, social and cultural rights, remains a matter that basically falls within the domestic jurisdiction. Promoting human rights is the common goal and ideal of the international community, which obviously does not belong to the internal affairs of a certain country.

Fifth, respect the objective reality and treat the relationship between sovereignty and human rights dialectically. Although the principle of sovereignty faces many challenges, it is still the basic principle of international relations. But we should also see that sovereignty is no longer absolute. With the development of international human rights law, the country's commitment to international human rights obligations and the implementation of international human rights protection, it is unrealistic to insist that human rights are purely domestic jurisdiction or sovereignty is absolutely superior to human rights. The development of international human rights has indeed become a factor that weakens the absoluteness of sovereignty, because with the development of national international human rights obligations and international human rights protection, the "sovereignty" of a country in managing domestic human rights is no longer absolute. But if the principle of sovereignty is out of date, it would be extreme. Because, after all, sovereign States are still the basic actors in the international community today, and as long as this remains unchanged, the principle of sovereignty will not be outdated. Therefore, a certain balance should be found between sovereignty and human rights so that they can coexist harmoniously. Any one-sided view is not desirable.

Sixth, we should look at the relationship between sovereignty and human rights from the perspective of history and development. Both sovereignty and human rights are products of history, and the development of history has created the present situation of sovereignty and human rights and the differences among countries on this issue. The concepts of sovereignty and human rights in developed and developing countries have their historical rationality. The human rights situation and emphasis on sovereignty in developing countries are caused by the objective environment caused by history. Developed countries have a historical responsibility for this. It is unrealistic to expect developing countries to realize democracy and human rights in a short time after hundreds of years of development in developed countries. Developing countries can only improve their own situation step by step. Foreign interference from the West can not only fail to achieve good results, but may also be counterproductive. What developed countries can do is to understand more and give more practical help. With the economic development and social progress of developing countries, their human rights situation will get better and better, and their understanding of human rights will change at that time. The international community's understanding of sovereignty will also change with the development of the times and the further evolution of sovereignty thought.