Examine the relationship between state sovereignty and Human Rights in the Present day international politics.

In contemporary international politics, the relationship between state sovereignty and human rights remains complex and subject to ongoing debate and evolution. Historically, state sovereignty has been viewed as a foundational principle of international relations, emphasizing a state's authority and autonomy within its own territory. However, the promotion and protection of human rights have increasingly challenged traditional notions of sovereignty, leading to a dynamic interplay between state authority and international human rights norms.

1. Human Rights as Universal Norms:
   International human rights principles, enshrined in treaties, conventions, and customary law, are considered universal and binding on all states. This challenges the notion of absolute state sovereignty by asserting that states have responsibilities to respect and protect the rights of individuals within their jurisdiction. The global consensus on human rights norms has shifted the discourse from exclusive state sovereignty to a shared commitment to uphold fundamental rights.

2. Responsibility to Protect (R2P):
   The concept of Responsibility to Protect (R2P) represents a significant departure from traditional sovereignty norms. R2P asserts that states have a primary responsibility to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity. However, if a state fails to uphold this responsibility, the international community has a collective duty to intervene through diplomatic, humanitarian, or, in extreme cases, coercive measures. R2P reflects a redefinition of sovereignty based on the idea of accountability and the protection of human rights.

3. International Human Rights Enforcement:
   International institutions and mechanisms, such as the United Nations Human Rights Council and regional human rights courts, play a critical role in monitoring state compliance with human rights obligations. These bodies provide avenues for individuals and groups to seek redress when their rights are violated by state actors. The existence of international oversight mechanisms underscores the idea that state sovereignty is not absolute and must be exercised in line with human rights standards.

4. Challenges to Sovereignty:
   Despite progress in human rights enforcement, many states continue to prioritize sovereignty concerns over human rights obligations. Some governments invoke sovereignty as a shield against external scrutiny and intervention, especially when facing criticism for human rights abuses. This tension between sovereignty and human rights underscores persistent challenges in achieving meaningful and universal respect for human rights.

In conclusion, the relationship between state sovereignty and human rights in present-day international politics is characterized by a delicate balance between state autonomy and international obligations. While sovereignty remains a fundamental principle of the international system, it is increasingly understood as contingent upon states' fulfillment of their human rights responsibilities. The evolving landscape of international law and norms reflects a growing consensus that state sovereignty must be exercised in a manner that respects and upholds the inherent dignity and rights of all individuals, thereby redefining the boundaries of state authority in the context of human rights protection.