Despite these signs of nonstate actors’ gaining recognition at the international level, formally the international system still treats states as the relevant actors, and others enjoy status
only to the limited degree to which states choose to confer it upon them.
Empowering International Institutions
When states consider the prospect of empowering an international agency to serve as a
forum for setting and administering global rules, they face the danger that they will create an
institution that will eventually gain enough credibility that it in effect becomes freestanding. As
that new authority amasses influence at the international level, its authority is no longer consciously considered to derive from the agreement of the individual member states that comprise it, and instead this authority is simply presumed to accompany the institution. At this
stage, the authority of the member states themselves may even be questioned if their direction deviates from the central institution’s course.
8 Indeed, this tendency is apparent in many
people’s conceptions today, where international law is perceived to have moral authority due
to its international quality. It is no wonder, then, that a state may be wary of assigning powers
to an international institution in the first place.
Public International Law and Modern Human Rights
Human rights law in large part concerns the relationship of the individual and groups of individuals to the state. At a fundamental level, it carries questions concerning the source of
rights. For example, some people contend that human rights are ‘‘natural rights’’ that are universal as part of the world’s inherent nature, or that derive from higher, religious authority and
do not stem from mere human beliefs or actions; people subscribing to this view tend to believe that natural rights exist regardless of what a government or society might establish and
enforce. Others, such as utilitarian thinker Jeremy Bentham, have categorically rejected the
notion of natural rights.
9
Debates on the source of human rights multiply when considering the application of these
rights in an international context. International legal instruments relating to civil and political
rights were heavily influenced by the West in the midtwentieth century and reflect a JudeoChristian heritage. As such, human rights were presented as stemming from the fact that all
people have been created by God, and hence all should be on equal footing. Because other
regions (e.g., Asia) have not historically had this orientation, there has been an ongoing debate as to whether the rights are truly ‘‘universal’’ at all.
In essence, this international twist is a variation of the question of whether human rights
stem from natural rights or from positive acknowledgment of them by the state. If human
rights are thought to stem only from their recognition by the state, international human rights
are just a matter of negotiation among states as to what they deem priorities to be in light of
state interests. On the other hand, if human rights are thought to exist independently of the
state, they have a place of their own in the international system and therefore should not be
subject to horse trading.
Filtering and the International System
75
only to the limited degree to which states choose to confer it upon them.
Empowering International Institutions
When states consider the prospect of empowering an international agency to serve as a
forum for setting and administering global rules, they face the danger that they will create an
institution that will eventually gain enough credibility that it in effect becomes freestanding. As
that new authority amasses influence at the international level, its authority is no longer consciously considered to derive from the agreement of the individual member states that comprise it, and instead this authority is simply presumed to accompany the institution. At this
stage, the authority of the member states themselves may even be questioned if their direction deviates from the central institution’s course.
8 Indeed, this tendency is apparent in many
people’s conceptions today, where international law is perceived to have moral authority due
to its international quality. It is no wonder, then, that a state may be wary of assigning powers
to an international institution in the first place.
Public International Law and Modern Human Rights
Human rights law in large part concerns the relationship of the individual and groups of individuals to the state. At a fundamental level, it carries questions concerning the source of
rights. For example, some people contend that human rights are ‘‘natural rights’’ that are universal as part of the world’s inherent nature, or that derive from higher, religious authority and
do not stem from mere human beliefs or actions; people subscribing to this view tend to believe that natural rights exist regardless of what a government or society might establish and
enforce. Others, such as utilitarian thinker Jeremy Bentham, have categorically rejected the
notion of natural rights.
9
Debates on the source of human rights multiply when considering the application of these
rights in an international context. International legal instruments relating to civil and political
rights were heavily influenced by the West in the midtwentieth century and reflect a JudeoChristian heritage. As such, human rights were presented as stemming from the fact that all
people have been created by God, and hence all should be on equal footing. Because other
regions (e.g., Asia) have not historically had this orientation, there has been an ongoing debate as to whether the rights are truly ‘‘universal’’ at all.
In essence, this international twist is a variation of the question of whether human rights
stem from natural rights or from positive acknowledgment of them by the state. If human
rights are thought to stem only from their recognition by the state, international human rights
are just a matter of negotiation among states as to what they deem priorities to be in light of
state interests. On the other hand, if human rights are thought to exist independently of the
state, they have a place of their own in the international system and therefore should not be
subject to horse trading.
Filtering and the International System
75