Despite the state sovereignty principle, why have some states improve their human rights practices in response to international pressures?

Résumé du document

For World War II, a large majority of states had been involved in international organisations, like the UN, and they have been linked by international conventions and treaties. Obviously, because of the increase in international relationships, states always have an eye on anothers politics, which means that they are more or less compelled to act as the others want them to. That is why we can wonder if the state sovereignty principle can be challenged by the international pressures coming from more influent states, international organisations or non governmental organisations, or, more explicitly, if some 'non- democratic' states can be forced by different means to adopt measures in favour of human rights, whereas those very states used to violate them before, even if they had ratified treaties protecting human rights. That kind of situation may concern a lot of countries throughout the world, moreover, it is believed that the developing countries are more susceptible to be involved in human rights abuses. However, even the most developed countries like the United States have violated some human rights and have eventually respected them due to international pressure.

Extraits

[...] However, the recent waves of releases let the NGO and the occidental states hope that the situation of human rights in the island will improve thanks to their pressure. In June 2004, two main opinion prisoners were released: Manuel Vasquez Portal and Juan Roberto de Miranda Hernandez because of medical reasons. Indeed, they have already been cured in jail for serious illness. These prisoners were in fact the 9th and 10th released those last two months: four of them were detained for two years without having a trial. [...]

[...] Indeed, the Cuban government wanted to lead this action the most discreetly possible, but the whole international political scene heard about it. The European Union, which just settled a representative in Cuba when the crackdown occurred, showed its disapprobation by inviting dissidents to national holiday's celebration and by reducing the cultural and diplomatic exchanges, but it maintained the economic relationships. As for the United States, the government tightened the travels between Florida and Cuba, it decided to create a commission for democracy in Cuba and it increased the financial help to the dissidents. [...]

[...] Besides, the non governmental organisations tried to interfere in favour to human rights in Cuba's society, but they were not really authorized to do so. Only the local associations could be active, and they were not really free to act as they wanted because they were watched by the state police. Moreover, Cuba invoked the sovereignty principles and its bad relationship with the United States (which exert pressure on Cuba) to refuse to adopt democratic measures; Fidel Castro tried also to put the responsibility of thee deplorable situation of the human rights in Cuba upon the United States: in fact, for the Cuban dictator, the US embargo is responsible of the extreme repression in the island. [...]

[...] Until nowadays, the sovereignty principle has almost always triumphed of the international right, whose respect is at the moment only based on the own countries' willingness. However, if we don't want the UN to be as useless as the Society of Nations (and the case of the US intervention in Iraq could be one evidence of the UN ineffectiveness), we do have to create juridical order superior to any national jurisdiction, coupled with real means of actions on the non- democratic states, in order to provide all the world citizens with the same fundamental rights. [...]

[...] Despite the state sovereignty principle, why have some states improve their human rights practices in response to international pressures? For World War II, a large majority of states have been involved in international organisations, like the UN, and they have been also more and more linked by international conventions and treaties. Obviously, because of the increase in the international relationship, the states always have a look on one another's politics, which means that they are more or less compelled to act as the others want them to. [...]