ABSTRACT
This chapter argues that the selectivity in the application of human rights norms, and their use to justify interventions, is undermining the perceived legitimacy of these tools and is stunting the potential norm transference capabilities of the United Nations. It demonstrates the key role the Security Council plays in this selectivity, and the negative consequences this is having on the long-term feasibility of continuing operations mandated on the basis of protection of Human Rights. It also explores the evolution of the concept of sovereignty. The chapter examines the implied conditionality which exists today and the extent to which this is enforced. Academics such as Weiss argue that with the development of global governance 'sovereignty's status and relevance are contested increasingly within international organisations and forums'. Many of the changes in the way in which sovereignty is understood can be directly attributed to the developments in the concepts of humanitarian intervention and human security.
