Symposium

• Bennoune, Karima

Abstract

Increasing use has been made by some international lawyers of a simple binary opposition, holding that the preservation of sovereignty inherently vitiates concepts of human rights while conversely the erosion of sovereignty is a bell‐wether of progress for human rights. Developments in and around Iraq during the last decade have shown this to be, at best, an unhelpful simplification. It is unquestionable that, when misused, the concept of sovereignty can shield perpetrators of human rights violations from international reaction or even scrutiny. However, the erosion or violation of sovereignty can also occasion grave abuses. In the instant case, the Iraqi government has trounced most of the rights of its people and has sought to shroud this reality in a cloak of sovereignty. Simultaneously, the actions of others, including governments and the United Nations, have also given rise to violations of the human rights of the Iraqi people. This has happened, in particular, through the use of force and the imposition of sanctions, both so‐called penetrations of sovereignty. Hence, it is time to reassess our understanding of the role of sovereignty in the human rights equation, retrieving what benefits it can offer, even while remaining wary of the risks it can pose.