Despite international laws and norms, states frequently violate human rights. In IB Global Politics, this issue is central to understanding the limits of law, the role of power, and the tension between security and justice. Human rights violations are rarely accidental; they usually result from political decisions, structural pressures, and competing priorities.
One of the most common reasons states violate human rights is national security. Governments may restrict freedoms such as speech, movement, or privacy in response to perceived threats like terrorism, internal unrest, or war. While some restrictions may be legally permitted during emergencies, states often exceed these limits. Security is frequently prioritised over individual rights, especially during crises, making violations more likely.
Another key factor is regime survival and power preservation. Authoritarian governments may use repression to silence opposition, control media, or prevent challenges to authority. Human rights violations such as arbitrary detention or censorship are used to maintain political control. From an IB perspective, this shows how power can override legal and moral constraints.
Weak institutions and lack of accountability also contribute to violations. Where courts are not independent, media is restricted, or corruption is widespread, governments face few consequences for abuse. Without effective checks and balances, human rights protections exist only on paper. Institutional weakness makes violations easier and more persistent.
Economic factors can also play a role. Governments facing poverty, inequality, or resource scarcity may neglect economic and social rights. In some cases, development priorities are used to justify displacement, poor labour conditions, or environmental harm. This highlights how violations are not limited to civil and political rights.
International factors matter as well. Limited enforcement of international law and geopolitical interests often protect violators from consequences. Powerful states may avoid accountability, while strategic allies are shielded from criticism. This uneven enforcement reduces incentives for compliance.
Finally, cultural and ideological justifications are sometimes used to defend violations. Governments may argue that certain rights conflict with tradition or social stability. While culture shapes context, it is often used selectively to legitimise abuse.
For IB Global Politics students, strong answers recognise that human rights violations are the result of interacting political, institutional, and international factors. High-level analysis avoids simplistic explanations and instead evaluates why states choose power, security, or stability over rights protection.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Do states violate human rights intentionally?
Often, yes. Violations are usually the result of deliberate political choices. They may be justified as security measures or stability efforts. IB students should link violations to decision-making.
Is security a valid reason to violate human rights?
Security concerns can justify limited restrictions, but not systematic abuse. The line is often crossed in practice. IB answers should evaluate proportionality and legality.
Do all states violate human rights?
Violations occur in all regions, though scale and severity vary. No state has a perfect record. IB responses should avoid singling out only one type of system.
Why aren’t states punished more for violations?
Enforcement of international law is weak and selective. Political interests often override accountability. This reduces deterrence. IB evaluation should highlight this gap.
How should this topic be answered in exams?
Students should identify multiple causes and explain interactions between them. Linking domestic and international factors strengthens answers. Balanced evaluation leads to higher marks.
