• Anant Jain

Today, however, human rights provide a standard of moral legitimacy that has been incorporated into the rules of the international society of states. But human rights concerns have been only incompletely incorporated into the contemporary international relations and usually remained subordinated to considerations of power and sovereignty. This tension is characteristic of the current state of international human rights. The future of international human rights activity can be seen as a struggle over balancing the competing claims of sovereignty and international human rights and the competing conceptions of legitimacy that they imply.2 There are three models regarding the State position vis-à-vis of human rights in International relations, each with its own conception of the international community and its role in international human rights.  Statist Model insists that the human rights remain principally a matter of sovereign national jurisdiction and of a largely peripheral concern in international or interstate relations. For this model there is no significant, independent international community. In particular, there is no international body with the right to act on behalf of human rights.  Cosmopolitan Model starts with the individuals rather than the states, which are often “the problem” for cosmopolitans. Cosmopolitans focus on challenges to the state and its powers both from below, by individuals and NGOs, and from above, by a truly global community, not merely international organizations and other groupings of states. They often see international organizations, and even some transnational NGOs, as representatives of global community of humankind above the society of states. International action on behalf of human rights is relatively unproblematic in such a model.  Internationalist Model stresses upon the evolving a consensus, among states and non-state actors alike, on international human rights norms. Without denying the continued centrality of states, internationalists focus attention on the international society of states, which imposes only limited restrictions on states. The “international community,” in an internationalist model, is essentially the society of states, supplemented by NGOs and individuals. International human rights activity is permissible only to the extent authorized by the formal or informal norms of the international society of states.3 Each model can be viewed as resting on descriptive claims about the place that human rights do have in contemporary international relations or prescriptive claims about the place they ought to have. Statist might argue (descriptively) that human rights are in fact peripheral in international relations. The cosmopolitan model, however, revolves around the issue of human rights.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE ,HUMAN RIGHTS

"CRIMINAL JUSTICE ADMINISTRATION AND HUMAN RIGHTS INTERNATIONAL AND NATIONAL PERSPECTIVE", International Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (www.jetir.org), ISSN:2349-5162, Vol.10, Issue 1, page no.e501-e526, January-2023, Available :http://www.jetir.org/papers/JETIR2301472.pdf

"CRIMINAL JUSTICE ADMINISTRATION AND HUMAN RIGHTS INTERNATIONAL AND NATIONAL PERSPECTIVE", International Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (www.jetir.org | UGC and issn Approved), ISSN:2349-5162, Vol.10, Issue 1, page no. ppe501-e526, January-2023, Available at : http://www.jetir.org/papers/JETIR2301472.pdf