Abstract
Today, it seems self-evident that human rights are enshrined at the international level because they protect universal human dignity—a cosmopolitan entitlement that cannot be left to the contingencies of domestic law. The prevalence of this received wisdom, however, masks a fundamental transformation in the idea of human rights over the last century. When human rights were first enshrined in international law—during and following the Second World War— their international status was not seen to be justified primarily by the inherent dignity of persons, but by the instrumental role human rights were understood to play in securing interstate peace. This article uncovers the history of these dual justifications for the international status of human rights and the interactions between them. And it shows that as one justification and then the other dominated prevailing thinking over the last century, this had a significant effect on both human rights law and the structure of the contemporary international legal order as a whole. As it concludes by observing, by better understanding the arc of the relationship between human rights and interstate peace over the past century, we can better understand challenges that have emerged for this relationship today.
Recommended Citation
Ryan Liss,
Human Rights, Between Peace and Dignity,
47
Mich. J. Int'l L.
159
(2026).
Available at:
https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjil/vol47/iss2/2