Redefining State Sovereignty

In the current nation-state system state sovereignty is often seen as a way for state officials to escape accountability. International tribunals in the 20th century have helped deliver accountability in certain regions: but how is state sovereignty affected by the formation of these tribunals? While new concepts such as the Responsibility to Protect have created the idea of a “contingent sovereignty” within the human rights regime, do tribunals replicate this line of thinking? What aspects of sovereignty have changed over time and which ones have been retained within the regime? To what extent do criminal tribunals represent a limitation on state sovereignty? My thesis evaluates and answers the question of how the jurisdiction of these tribunals is established, and how these tribunals have effected state sovereignty in the human rights regime.