Niccolo Machiavelli argued that one of the most difficult tasks for a ruler is the introduction of new modes and orders, in other words, the rules by which we govern society. There has perhaps never been a bolder attempt at such a shift than in 1948, when the United Nations set forth their principles for a future global order in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Intentionally or not, the UN created a conflict between the formerly dominant concept of state sovereignty and the currently popular idea of universal human rights. Only one could legitimately dictate the direction of international politics.

The concept of state sovereignty has its roots in the state of nature proposed by 17th century philosophers Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. Their central theorem was that all men were created equal, living in a state of nature where they were locked in competition with all other men, and unable to secure themselves from violence. In order to protect themselves and their property, men would unite together and surrender their right of self-rule to the state. The state thus received a monopoly on violence and power. In return for this surrender, the state is responsible for protecting its citizens, their property and rights, while the citizens are expected to serve the good of the state. The state is the sole arbiter of its own affairs, accountable only to its own citizens.

This situation is dissatisfactory for several reasons. First, nations owe nothing to each other. This disregard for other nations tends to result in war and the exploitation of weaker powers, since not every state is equally capable of protecting its citizens. Second, Christians are called to serve not the state but God, whose love extends to all people. Third, state-sovereignty does not seem adequate enough to face the challenges of an increasingly interconnected world; because it was designed in a time when technology which might facilitate global cooperation did not exist, the possibility was never seriously considered. State-sovereignty is thus an imperfect proposition.

In entirely different ways, however, universal human rights are equally problematic. The rights set forth in the 1948 Declaration, namely the core principles of protection of life, freedom from slavery, freedom from torture and freedom from retroactive legal penalties, regardless of race, colour or creed, are admirable. But when setting aside the manifold issues of cultural imperialism and different understandings of what constitute rights, two huge – and related – issues remain: from where do universal human rights derive their authority, and who has the right to enforce them?

State-sovereignty derives its authority from its citizens’ surrender of power. The current framing of universal human rights within the UN bases its authority solely in the assertion that all people are born equal. While there is talk of “inalienable rights” and “inherent dignity,” there is no mention of their source. Such a declaration, neither based in natural law nor descended from a higher power, is an amalgamation of many beliefs that its founders hoped might mesh together. The international community is varied in nature; it does, after all, constitute everybody. Thus universal human rights have never been able to settle on a philosophical foundation acceptable to everyone. Without an agreed basis, it threatens to degenerate into a matter of opinion, which can only be settled by power.

The UN, in and of itself, has no military or economic power to speak of. It relies upon its member states for support, which comes disproportionately from the West. These states tend to promote their own interests and values. As self-interested actors, they cannot provide the even-handed enforcement that universal human rights require. Even if that were possible, the costs of playing “world police” are prohibitive. Even a country as rich and powerful as America has struggled with pacifying Iraq and Afghanistan.

Universal human rights is a noble and beguiling ideal; for the moment, however, their enforcement remains beyond us. Until their philosophical basis is clearly established and a neutral force dedicated to their protection exists, this will remain true.