This research investigates the paradoxical relationship between state sovereignty and the universality of human rights within international law. It examines how sovereignty, traditionally rooted in absolute independence and non-interference, has evolved into a framework that entails responsibilities toward protecting human rights. Using qualitative legal analysis of historical and contemporary sources—including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine—this study explores how states balance domestic autonomy with international human rights obligations. Findings reveal that while sovereignty once emphasized unrestricted state authority, modern practice increasingly ties legitimacy to the protection of human rights. This transformation underscores the paradox: sovereignty is both a shield against external interference and a responsibility to uphold universal rights. The research highlights that maintaining this balance is crucial for safeguarding individual freedoms in an interconnected global order. The interaction between state sovereignty and human rights is dubious, ambiguous and contradictory. They are not incompatible with each other, though they do compete and clash. State sovereignty and human right are two distinct matters in theory that are studied independently but the issue begins in reality since human rights are articulated through the positive law of nations.
Nishtiman Othman Mohammed (Sun,) studied this question.