State Sovereignty vs. Human Rights: Amnesty International’s Role in Kashmir and Palestine

Abstract

Using Kashmir and Palestine as examples this paper investigates the ongoing disputes that exist between state sovereign powers and international human rights norms. Governments throughout both regions have pursued military occupations combined with political oppression and extensive rights violations while using national security together with territorial integrity as reasons for justification. The research utilizes Realism alongside Liberalism and Constructivism alongside Responsibility to Protect (R2P) tostudy Amnesty International's documentation services and its support for justice procedures and worldwide discussion promotion. Amnesty receives strong criticism from Israel and India through governmental actions which include legal limitations and shutdowns as well as charges of partisanship against the organization. The investigative reports released by the organization have brought important outcomes such as international courtroom cases as well as United Nations resolutions and grassroot level popular movements. States exercise sovereign power to protect national interests but Amnesty International serves as a vital force to expose acts of impunity and maintain public as well as legal scrutiny of human rights violations. The paper employs both case evidence and theory analysis to explore the potential boundaries as well as advantages of foreign advocacy activities in challenging circumstances that have political dimensions