The critical turning point of the 20th century is marked by the shift from absolute state sovereignty to international accountability. This transformation weakened the power of states to act with impunity, as human rights became central. Yet, the remnants of colonial power dynamics continue to shape international institutions, where Global South voices remain marginalized. Only by confronting these imbalances can international human rights become a genuine tool for justice rather than a mechanism to maintain existing power structures.

From State Sovereignty to International Accountability

The 20^th century radically transformed the Westphalian model of state sovereignty. Absolute state sovereignty was a shield protecting nation states from external intervention in their domestic affairs. Scholars and authors have, however, criticized the Eurocentric roots of international law. The concept of state sovereignty, while ostensibly protecting all nations equally, was often selectively applied. Non-European countries were subject to interference and domination under the name of legal norms created by and for European powers.

A shift appeared in the aftermath of World War II, when the United Nations was created and human rights became inalienable. This transformation challenged the absolute sovereignty of states, as international human rights norms now demanded accountability for the protection of citizens’ rights. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) was a crucial step in this direction, aiming to hold states liable for human rights violations. However, the enforcement mechanisms, often dominated by Western interests within international organizations, have led to criticisms that these institutions selectively apply human rights standards, reflecting broader geopolitical dynamics.

The post-World War II era saw empires dismantled and independent states emerge, yet colonialism’s impact remains significant. Independence movements in the mid-20th century sought to reshape global organizations, challenging Eurocentric views and expanding the international human rights framework to be more inclusive. The 1960s marked a turning point, transforming human rights from selective privileges to a more universal agenda.

Critics like Chandra Mohanty argue that, while colonial legacies persist, Global South countries should move beyond a “victim narrative” and define their own paths. Efforts from the Global North, including acknowledgments of past harms and indebtedness for reparations, indicate progress toward mutual accountability and development opportunities across nations. A notable example is King Philippe of Belgium, who in 2020 wrote a letter to the president of the Democratic Republic of Congo, expressing his “deepest regrets” for the atrocities committed during Belgium’s colonial rule, making progress toward mutual accountability and development opportunities across nations.

The Colonial Legacy: Analyzing the Remaining Power Imbalance

Colonial power dynamics persist, even in forums such as the United Nations Security Council where Western countries hold disproportionate power with instruments like the veto. This structure of such organizations limits Global South’s representation and influence, perpetuating inequalities. Despite the formal end of colonialism, those power imbalances maintain alliances protecting the most powerful nation’s interest. Colonies are left with little support from their former colonial powers.

Human rights became institutionalized within global structures, shifting from a tool made to challenge an oppressive system to one that upholds the status quo. This had diluted its revolutionary roots with interventions, sometimes selectively enforced, based on the interests of powerful nations rather than a consistent humanitarian standard.

For instance, interventions justified by the “Right to Protect” often reflect Global North interests, mirroring colonial practices under the guise of humanitarianism. This dynamic is evident in cases like the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s (NATO) 1999 intervention in Kosovo, where the action both brought stability to Kosovo and limited Russian influence in the Balkans. NATO had every reason to participate in this conflict, to stop human rights abuses against ethnic Albanians by Serbian forces; however, it also helped to reassert its relevance post-Cold War and define its role beyond the collective defense against the Soviet threat. While this intervention had positive outcomes for local safety and governance in Kosovo, it underscores how such interventions can blend humanitarian goals with strategic motives, reinforcing existing power imbalances.

Toward a More Sustainable Legal Order

Countries in the Global South, while having gained independence from colonizing powers, still suffer from this era, in subtle and more obvious ways. This issue is an ongoing discussion in many organizations where solutions are considered in order to develop and preserve human rights.

To effectively dismantle the legacies of colonialism, efforts must come from powerful states, to establish the equal application of international human rights between them and countries from the Global South.

Many panelists argue that former colonial powers should provide compensation to nations and peoples affected by colonial exploitation and violence. This also includes the return of cultural artifacts looted during the colonial period, but also addresses the psychological and cultural damage inflicted on colonized societies. It is only by acknowledging the remaining legacy of colonialism and actively working against it that international human rights can become a tool for genuine justice and equality, rather than another battlefield for power.