Universalization of human rights is the result of reviewing World War II and the proof of the advancement of human civilization. Nevertheless, practice and protection of human rights have always challenged state autho...Universalization of human rights is the result of reviewing World War II and the proof of the advancement of human civilization. Nevertheless, practice and protection of human rights have always challenged state authority under the context of sovereignty. The expansion of the international human rights law has reflected a growing need to reexamine state authority in terms of sovereignty legitimacy, and to place further consideration on the legitimacy of multilateral efforts.This paper argues that(1) a unique attribute of the right to peace is that the subject to fulfilling the right is an individual as well as a state. It also drives a dilemma: while sustaining the right is the duty of a state, the state’s assisting its citizens to the practice of the right to peace might be conflicting to the fulfillment of state authority;(2) it results from the view that the state is regarded as the only subject to practice the right. As such, the state might be more likely to include individuals to practice the right from a higher vision, and deal with possible disputes between the personal right to peace and the common interest in society through the rule of law. The findings further suggest that(3) a main determinant of effect in practice of the right to peace concerns how multilateral and state actors addressing the legitimate problem determines the practice of human rights norms and the compatibility between international norms and state authority.(4) The evolution from military conflicts to peaceful development across the Taiwan Strait is a concrete practice of the right to peace.展开更多
文摘Universalization of human rights is the result of reviewing World War II and the proof of the advancement of human civilization. Nevertheless, practice and protection of human rights have always challenged state authority under the context of sovereignty. The expansion of the international human rights law has reflected a growing need to reexamine state authority in terms of sovereignty legitimacy, and to place further consideration on the legitimacy of multilateral efforts.This paper argues that(1) a unique attribute of the right to peace is that the subject to fulfilling the right is an individual as well as a state. It also drives a dilemma: while sustaining the right is the duty of a state, the state’s assisting its citizens to the practice of the right to peace might be conflicting to the fulfillment of state authority;(2) it results from the view that the state is regarded as the only subject to practice the right. As such, the state might be more likely to include individuals to practice the right from a higher vision, and deal with possible disputes between the personal right to peace and the common interest in society through the rule of law. The findings further suggest that(3) a main determinant of effect in practice of the right to peace concerns how multilateral and state actors addressing the legitimate problem determines the practice of human rights norms and the compatibility between international norms and state authority.(4) The evolution from military conflicts to peaceful development across the Taiwan Strait is a concrete practice of the right to peace.
