Models of International Human Rights - Statist, Cosmopolitan, and Internationalist - Essay Example

The major issues that the theories seek to address include civil wars, conflict prevention as well as resolution. Humanitarian interventions have not been fully explored as far as human rights models are concerned. However; it is an area that greatly provides strong themes as far as human rights models are concerned.

Statism is one of the models that are very important as far as human rights are concerned in the international regime. Under this model, it is the responsibility of the nation to ensure that human rights are adhered to. This model is similar to that of internationalism and cosmopolitanism. They both hold to the treaties of the universal declaration of human rights universalism. The treaty states that all nations should ensure that the needs of their citizens are met. This model has one weakness; it is the state that takes precedence before any human right can be recognized. Nevertheless, statism is seen as the most appropriate as far as issues regarding politics are concerned. Statism has also resulted in stronger states harassing weaker ones. Therefore, as much as statist is an international regime that looks at the rights of citizens, internationalism and cosmopolitanism looks at the welfare of citizens of a nation with more than statism

Statism is very conservative. As a result, it leads to impassivity in debates regarding humanitarian interventions. In addition, it is inhospitable for persons with just empathy with war victims and other buses of humans. This is because the model has arguments that are in opposition to fellow feelings for other humans. As much as statism rejects interventions that are humanitarian, it is very influential across the world. Statism does not fully oppose international interventions of human rights. The only challenge is that it does not fully support interventions as is seen in cosmopolitanism and internationalism.

The internationalism model on the other hand corresponds to international theory. Internationalism and statists acknowledge that states are central as well as sovereign. Internationalism further focuses on how relations between states are regulated by international communal practices. This aspect is not well manifested in statism. Statists are greatly opposed to states that encourage good relations between member states. As a result, they don’t have feelings for war victims or nations that have witnessed serious crimes against humanity. According to internationalists, if the recipient state authorizes an intervention, they highly encourage it. Statism on the other hand does not fully welcome interventions.

However, both statism and internationalism were used during the First World War and are still applicable today. In exceptional cases, statism allows interventions especially a government collapses. All three models of human rights face major challenges. For example, they have to be approved by a national government of any country before they can be applied to any nation. Thus; the main priority in both cases is the rights the states have as far as any law is concerned. Thereafter, the issues of human rights as far as international laws are concerned then follow later. This comparable conclusion means that there is no major difference in relation to some issues of international contexts.
Cosmopolitanism is also a human rights model that is issued worldwide. Under this model, the international system looks keenly to the factors that affect individual members of a state rather than the state itself. This model is similar to both internationalism and statism.

All of them focus on the states. In fact, internationalism and cosmopolitanism lay great emphasis on the positive aspects of the citizens of a nation. Statism on the other hand looks at the welfare of individuals of a nation with less emphasis on the interventions of victims of war or misfortunes. Thus, in cosmopolitanism, sovereignty is set aside. The major objective is to ensure that needs of citizens of the globe are addressed. Any inhuman acts are grouped along with anyone who opposes international interventions.
In conclusion, the classical view is that sovereignty of all nations should be protected by international law. The major focus should be the sovereignty of citizens but not that of the state. However, there are important themes that people should be knowledgeable about. One of them is that sovereignty of a nation can be interfered with not only by domestic citizens as well as external forces.