HIMAN RIGHTS by Gil P. Tabucanon
Lifted from the Author
27 November 2025
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights within a State Sovereignty Regime
Gil Marvel Tabucanon
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights proclaims in 30 articles the fundamental freedoms inherent in all human beings: the right to life, liberty, freedom from discrimination, slavery, and torture, among them. According to the United Nations, the rights enshrined in the document serve as a “common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations”, regardless of colour, origin, religion or status. The rationale behind human rights draws upon what Nalinie Mooten calls a “commonality shared by humanity”, based on the idea of the “oneness” of all human beings across the globe.
Adopted by the United Nations on 10 December 1948, or 77 years ago, of which Australia and the Philippines are among the original signatories, the document is described by the Holy See as “one of the most precious and important documents in human history” since it proclaims the primacy of individual human rights which are “not a creation of the State but flow from the character and nature of humanity itself”. These rights are inherent in each individual solely for being human. Further, the rights are not pegged to the nation state, but are coterminous with humankind.
Though not legally binding under international law, the Declaration inspired the ratification of a host of binding international human rights treaties, among them treaties protecting prisoners of war (revised in 1949), refugees (adopted in 1951), women (1979), children (1989), migrant workers (1990), disabled persons (2006) as well as treaties prohibiting racial discrimination (1965), torture (1984) and preventing forced disappearances (2006), the latter a type of enforced disappearances defined by international law among acts constituting crimes against humanity.
In spite international law protections, unlawful aggression by one state against another, abuses on refugees, migrant workers, trafficked children and women continue to reverberate in the headlines. There are many reasons for these. But one obvious yet downplayed solution is that global problems require global responses. And the tool we have at present, starting with the nation state as the highest sovereign authority is an inadequate - if outdated - instrument to deal with transnational global challenges.
Our “modern” international system of sovereign states is not that modern. It is a spin off from a time right after late Middle Ages in the treaty of 1648 called the Peace of Westphalia. The treaty ended long-standing religious conflicts in Europe as well as established independent territories - in what we now call nation states - with each territory possessing equal and independent status subscribing to the principle of non-interference in the affairs of other states. The Treaty of Westphalia actualised into political reality the concept of state sovereignty developed in 1576 by French philosopher Jean Bodin. Article 2 of the U.N. Charter strengthened the plot by enshrining the “sovereign equality of all its Members” as a foundational tenet together with the principle of non-intervention in matters within a state’s jurisdiction, stating: “nothing ... shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state.” This means except for Chapter 7 powers of the UN empowering the Security Council to militarily intervene should a state commit acts of aggression, breaches of or threats to international peace, each state is left alone and sundry unto themselves under the principle of non-interference to determine how that country treats its citizens, as well as impose restrictions unto aliens within their territories.
Implications for human rights: Firstly, the non-interference principle gives states a carte blanche authority to commit extended violations of human rights on its citizens. While these do not always happen, they can happen: the 1994 Rwanda and 1975-1979 Cambodian genocide are examples. International law is rendered inutile in many state sponsored violence against its own citizens. The Cambodian genocide would have persisted until Vietnam took direct action by invading Cambodia in December 1988 and overthrowing Cambodia’s Khmer Rouge government a month later.
Secondly, state abuses on non-citizen refugees and migrants continue. Deterrent policies of potential host countries such as towing back refugee boats designed to prevent refugees from reaching the shores of haven countries often lead to mistreatment and human rights abuses, not to mention violation of the customary international law principle of non-refoulement prohibiting states from returning refugees to territories where they may be subjected to persecution.
While human rights flow from the character and nature of humanity which is an undivided natural unit, the bounded nation-states as principal actors in international relations are artificially divisive units. According to Benedict Anderson, states are an “imagined” and “limited” communities as “no nation imagines itself as coterminous with mankind”. The concept of artificially divided nation states as primary hosts in the protection of human rights is at best fraught and suspicious. At best it is inadequate to answer challenges which are becoming borderless: global warming, land grabbing by rouge nations, trans-national crimes. A solution no less global is required: world law instead of international law, a world parliament and world tribunal with binding powers of enforcement, unlike the current world court requiring consent of state parties to be sued.
According to Mooten, how can humanity “find its natural home in a unit that has given rise to xenophobia, genocide and nationalism?” Human rights can best be promoted through human solidarity, will to subordinate conflicting state sovereignties to a higher global sovereignty anchored on a wider loyalty to humankind.
Regional state conglomerations subordinating previously belligerent sovereignties under one regional law and court, like baby steps, are showing promise. A friend cited the European community law chapter as an illustration of that “type of system” as an “example of voluntary diminution of sovereignty” that still shows some success today in the regulation of European states, where supranational laws have the potential to regulate interstate relations effectively. He said the “next step is to figure out how to do that on a global scale” where the “entire world are its subjects”.
“Let your vision be world-embracing rather than confined to yourselves”, for the world is but “one country and mankind its citizens”, proclaim the holy writings of one of the world’s faiths. Boundaries need to be opened and the human heart and mind educated to become inclusive and world-embracing.
11 November 2025
gil.tabucanon@gmail.com
