A simple question then arises: what is more important, protecting civilians’ human rights or respecting a state’s sovereignty?
hat many Syrian civilians and innocent people were treated inhumanely by their own government through the use of chemical weapons would never be imagined, let alone accepted by the Indonesian people. That the United States, supported by the United Kingdom and France, responded by launching missile attacks against Syria is similarly intolerable to most Indonesians and the government alike.
A simple question then arises: what is more important, protecting civilians’ human rights or respecting a state’s sovereignty? The discourse was and is ongoing over whether it is legally and ethically acceptable to protect human rights for the sake of state sovereignty. As anticipated, the discussion is not likely to reach a unanimous agreement by all students studying conflict resolution, nor would it in global politics. Contrasts are quite clear.
Liberalist like-minded students highlight the importance of protecting human rights upon which the state was naturally and culturally established and for which the state is relevant and significant. They argue that failure to provide security and protection to its own people renders the state meaningless.
On the other hand, realist like-minded students argue that the primacy of state sovereignty is the fundamental principle of international relations. They further say that any form of intervention in domestic affairs of other countries is against international law and such practices will lead to anarchy.
Share your experiences, suggestions, and any issues you've encountered on The Jakarta Post. We're here to listen.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts. We appreciate your feedback.