Argument: National sovereignty ends when human rights are systematically violated.

States violate their right to non-intervention through systematic human rights abuses by violating the contract of their state.

States derive their rights of control and on the monopoly of violence through what is called the ‘social contract.’ A state gains its right to rule over a population by the people of that state submitting to it their rights to unlimited liberty and the use of force on others in society to the state in return for protection by that state [1] . The individual is sovereign and submits his rights to the state who derives sovereignty from the accumulation of an entire population’s sovereignty. This is where the legitimacy and right to control a population by force comes from. When a state is no longer protecting its people, but rather is systematically removing the security and eroding away the most basic rights and life of those citizens, they no longer are fulfilling the contract and it is void, thus removing their right to sovereignty and immunity from intervention.

The necessity of intervention in such a case comes from the desperation of the situation. Regimes that use the machinery of the state and their enriched elite against their populations hold all the wealth, power and military might in the country. There is no hope for self-protection for individuals facing a powerful, organized, and well-funded national army. In such a case, the sovereignty of the individuals need to be protected from the state that abuses them.

Candidate 1: "Referring back to counterargument one, this again assumes the a priori existence of individual rights. Moreover, following this logic, as all individuals would, behind a "veil of ignorance", most certainly choose to live is a developed, prosperous nation, all developed nations would have the moral obligation to literally relocate the entire population of the developing world into their own countries. Simply because something may be seen as "preferable" to some people does not a moral imperative create.

Further, this experiment assumes universality of any conception of rights or "human rights". The subjective nature of what it means to be a human being between different faiths and cultures leads to different conceptions of what "dignity" means to humanity and thus enforcing the conception of "dignity" held by the militarily powerful on other states does not necessarily protect it, but in many ways can erode it."
Candidate 2: "Individual rights are created by the state and do not exist in a vacuum, nor do they exist outside of the realm of the existence of a state. To argue that a “social contract” exists where one gives up their “rights” to the state is to suggest that these rights somehow exist outside of the scope of the state existing, which they do not. States empower individuals to have the capacity to do things and thus allow for practical rights to exist. The rights they allow or disallow, whether “human rights” or otherwise, are simply constructions of the state and its denial of certain rights is therefore in no way a breach of any contract or trust [1] . No state or external organisation has any right to decide what a state should or should not construct as its citizen’s rights and therefore has no basis for intervention.

[1] Burke, Edmund. "Reflections on the Revolution in France." Exploring the French Revolution. N.p., n.d. Web. 7 Jun 2011. &lt; http://chnm.gmu.edu/revolution/d/563/&gt; ."

Referring back to counterargument one, this again assumes the a priori existence of individual rights. Moreover, following this logic, as all individuals would, behind a "veil of ignorance", most certainly choose to live is a developed, prosperous nation, all developed nations would have the moral obligation to literally relocate the entire population of the developing world into their own countries. Simply because something may be seen as "preferable" to some people does not a moral imperative create.

Further, this experiment assumes universality of any conception of rights or "human rights". The subjective nature of what it means to be a human being between different faiths and cultures leads to different conceptions of what "dignity" means to humanity and thus enforcing the conception of "dignity" held by the militarily powerful on other states does not necessarily protect it, but in many ways can erode it.
