On Universal Human Rights: the United Nations’ Bureaucratic Barriers to Enforcement and Democratic Representation

Abstract

This research paper, with a particular interest in human rights seeks to address the alternative position on the following: The enhancement of a positive human rights culture can only come about with a forceful application of international law by duly constituted international organizations through democratic representation. The paper approaches answers to this with the following set of research questions: In what ways do statehood, sovereignty, and geopolitical considerations conflict with international conventions, treaties, declarations, pacts and the like? What are the limits of the United Nations as an effective bureaucracy? What ceases nation-states from cooperating as an international community when it comes to addressing human rights atrocities? Why do many states that belong to the UN continue to engage in torture? In brief, the paper will argue that states continue to favour the notion of state sovereignty above all other notions of international law, such as the principle of adherence to agreements (pacta sunt servanda). As will be analyzed, the primary factors that work to explain the inefficiency of the United Nations to operate as some centralized international authority force with substantial jurisdiction are; state sovereignty, nationalism, local contexts, Security Council dynamics, and systematic bureaucratic and structural challenges due to poor internal cooperation by member states. In terms of the ICC, its jurisdictional constraints and selective prosecutions also exhibit deficiencies in promoting a universal human rights culture. An analysis of the case studies of South Africa, Iran, Rwanda, as well as reference to the Augusto Pinochet case (1998) are in order.