Editor's note: Amin Bagheri is a Research Fellow at the International Studies Association in Tehran. His primary research interest lies in international relations, transnational governance, international peace, and conflicts in the Middle East. The article reflects the author's opinions, and not necessarily the views of CGTN.

For centuries, the concept of sovereignty was the complete immunity of governments from making any decision in the internal affairs and control of their people. Repressive governments used sovereignty as a defensive shield and were not held accountable for their brutal policies or for what was happening inside their country.

But gradually the international community felt compelled to address gross human rights abuses. After that, the legitimacy of governments that saw belligerence as a means of maintaining their sovereignty was evaluated in accordance with the norms and principles of human rights.

Therefore, the issue of humanitarian interventions to help and save the people in governments that violate human rights became serious, which was in conflict with the principle of sovereignty. The argument that humanitarian intervention is a violation of a country's territorial integrity and political independence has created a rift in the implementation of this international norm.

Even in the 1990s, the international community failed to make the right, rational, and timely decisions for humanitarian intervention to stop or prevent genocide and mass atrocities. Consequently, this dilemma of humanitarian intervention prompted the United Nations to adopt a new mechanism to break the deadlock.

It can be said that since then, the international responsibility to protect has been formed on the basis that sovereignty is not just a privilege and a right of control over the people, but a responsibility to the people. This responsibility, which can be considered a doctrine, is based on the responsibility and accountability of each state to the international community regarding the treatment of its citizens.

This doctrine is the product of an attempt to unravel the inherent tension between sovereignty and the preservation of human beings, which states that sovereignty is a responsibility shared between the state and the international community.

Prior to World War II, individual rights were very limited. Individuals were not mentioned in international law, and only governments had an international character and concluded treaties to regulate their relations with each other. But during the Cold War, the two principles of "sovereignty" and "non-interference" in theory and practice were observed by governments to some extent, the logical result of which was to preserve the independence of countries.

Conversely, these principles were a very strong deterrent for governments against the commitment to respond effectively to the situation of individuals and the violation of their rights within the country. This situation did not remain stable and the international community gradually turned its attention to human rights and regime change. 

Two important developments in the field of individual rights were to be considered: one was the establishment of a global treaty regime and a region that considered individual rights, including the birth of the United Nations Charter, which provided for the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms for all (UN Charter: Article 55).

Also, the Convention on the Rights of Women and Children, taking into account the rights of certain groups of human beings, paved the way for the promotion of human rights in the international dimension. The ratification of these treaties reflected an international awakening and consensus on the acceptance of individual rights as an important part of the principles of international law.

The second development in the field of the human rights movement began with the formation of the Nuremberg tribunal to investigate and prosecute heads of state who committed war crimes and crimes against peace and humanity, and it became clear that the perpetrators of mass atrocities could not hide behind the sovereignty wall.

Humanitarian intervention to the doctrine of international accountability

Since the 1990s, the protection of human rights and the obligation of governments to comply with it have been at the center of international debate. With the end of the Cold War, there were changes in international relations: First, international conflicts and wars turned into large-scale domestic violence, mostly accompanied by human catastrophes.

The outbreak of ethnic and racial conflicts in Yugoslavia and the widespread catastrophes in Kosovo, Rwanda, Somalia and Liberia raised an intellectual and moral concern for the international community and led to a general consensus on the need for governments to take human rights seriously. Therefore, the duty of the international community to support the oppressed people was strengthened.

Second, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Security Council described domestic strife and violence as a threat to international peace and security, and linked internal peace to international peace.

Accordingly, the Security Council felt obliged to take responsibility for incidents such as gross and systematic violations of human rights and human catastrophes in the territory of states, and considered human suffering at the borders as a threat or a violation of international peace and security.

In the meantime, humanitarian interventions faced problems and criticisms. During the Cold War, the United Nations was virtually paralyzed by rivalry between the Soviet Union and the United States, and the Security Council never reacted strongly to widespread human rights abuses.

With the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the end of the Cold War, there was growing hope that this global pillar would be able to play the predictable role envisioned by its founders. But that hope soon turned to despair as it became clear that the role of the Security Council was not clear.

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com.)