Capabilities of Rights-Based Global State for Maximal Implementation of Human Rights

Document Type : Original Article from Result of Thesis


1 PhD Student of Public Law Department,, Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran.

2 Assistant Professor, Department of Public Law, Isfahan Branch (Khorasgan), Islamic Azad University, Isfahan , Iran.

3 Assistant Professor, Department of Law, University of Isfahan

4 Assistant Professor, Department of Public Law, Isfahan Branch (Khorasgan), Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran.


According to some philosophers, it is feasible and inevitable to establish a rights-based global state (i.e., the unity of humanity under a common political power committed to the norms of human rights) considered the ultimate goal of the nation-state anarchy construct. It is used as the presumption to explain the capabilities of this state to maximally implement human rights. This study aims to determine what attractions a global state should have to maximally implement human rights. For this purpose, a descriptive-analytical method was employed to explain the capabilities of a global state and discuss the characteristics of this state in implementing the norms of human rights separately for the three generations of human rights. The research results indicate the unique attractions of the global state in terms of the exclusive and legitimate use of force (i.e., a Weberian state), mutual identification of all activists (i.e., a Hegelian state), correlation of humanity through control of conflicts and international coordination (i.e., a Kantian state), minimal and essential functionality (i.e., guarantee of negative rights), and establishment of distributive justice and worldwide redistribution of wealth (i.e., guarantee of positive rights). Therefore, such a state can maximally implement human rights.



The modern Westphalian state has now become the modern rights-based state in response to the norms of human rights. Regarding the requirements of the globalized era, it has to erode in favor of transnational institutions and global governance. According to the writers, the integration of these three entities will finally form the rights-based global state (i.e., the unity of humanity under a common political power committed to the norms of human rights), as different philosophers (e.g., Zheng and Vannette) have described the global state as inevitable. In the current anarchic nation-state order (i.e., the political order without the presence of any superior institution and based on the equilibrium of forces), the human rights cannot be implemented maximally due to the absence of a superior regulator or supervisor with a balancing power as well as constant and pervasive structural inequalities on a global scale (both domestically and internationally). Presenting an eschatological framework for the nation-state anarchy, Vannette argued that the global state would not be free of a Hegelian structure and would depend on the identification of all activists characterized by the features of a Weberian state (with the exclusive use of legitimate force and violence) through the control of conflicts and international coordination (i.e., a Kantian state). According to Vannette, this is the only ultimate and favorable outcome for the nation-state anarchy. Based on the above hypotheses, the formation of a rights-based global state will not be far-fetched in the future and has been used as a presumption by the authors to raise the main research question. What capabilities will a rights-based global state have in the maximal implementation of human rights? The research hypothesis is the maximal implementation of human rights in the light of unique features of this aspect of a global state. This study aims to explain the capabilities of this public state with the quality of being rights-based (i.e., the final version of a pervasive state) within the area of human rights for its three separate generations.



In this paper, a descriptive-analytical approach was employed to collect the topics regarding a nation state and the features of this state in relation to the norms of human rights by reviewing 34 up-to-date scientific references such as reputable papers and books. The features were then described and analyzed to extract the necessary results and findings to address the main research questions.



The idea of political integrity has been presented as different forms throughout history. Instances include the formation a global empire under the reign of a unified church in the ideas of Aquinas in the Middle Ages, the formation of a utopia consisting of all human beings and communities on Earth in the ideas of Islamic philosophers such as Al-Farabi and Mulla Sasdra, the belief of Grossius in the necessity of forming a global state to implement international laws, and the support of ISA for the empowerment of the United Nations and other interstate organizations towards a “global government”.

Regarding the maximal implementation of the first generation of human rights (i.e., civil laws, political laws, and social laws), the pervasive rights-based state innately adopts the negative rights approach guaranteeing the maximal implementation of this generation of human rights due to minimal emergence and occurrence as well as termination of national governances. In fact, establishing a global nation means eliminating antihuman unity tools, terminating geographical and ideological borders and unreal distances between humans, implementing the wisdom-driven human unity scheme, identifying all people as global citizens, maintaining human dignity based on the right to destiny, and preserving the interests of all humans. These features will lead to the maximal implementation of the first generation of human rights.

Regarding the maximal implementation of the second generation of human rights (i.e., economic and welfare laws), a pervasive state can provide humans with their welfare rights for a satisfactory life by distributing welfare among the people of the world, eliminating poverty, granting access to global wealth, and using the chance to divide the peaks of wealth into the faults of poverty in the world. The global state should have the following capabilities for the maximal implementation of this generation of human rights: reducing the health-threatening factors worldwide, providing the public health and care services, separating health from opportunistic business, eliminating educational discriminations, constraints, and bans, and realizing educational freedom.

Regarding the maximal implementation of human rights solidarity (i.e., the third generation of human rights), the following goals will be feasible only through the formation of a pervasive state: the philosophy of territorial wars, domestic armed conflicts for the acquisition of power or international armed conflicts to the development or conquer of power, production and accumulation of arms, separatism, and discrimination of minorities based often of territorial and geographical conflicts. The cancelation of realization of the final anarchy status, emergence of a global regulator to maintain the equilibrium of systemic forces, and the public sustainable peace will all emerge in a collective life based on the public common good. It is now feasible to protect the world and the Earth to have a healthy ongoing life only through global unity achieved by an executive legislative institution. The global state will bear the highest guarantee of implementation due to its integrated governance to manage and run the common human legacy appropriately as a common asset to fairly distribute this public wealth.



The authors assumed the realization of a level of a global state to achieve high goals of human rights in order to analyze the capabilities and attractions of this state for the maximal implementation of human rights. The appropriate form of a pervasive government, which we consider the rights-based global state, can guarantee human life and security by preserving personal freedom and improving citizenship quality in the global community through the establishment of a collective security system, mutual correlation and identification of states and humans, and social-religious pluralism. The global state implements the first generation of human rights through an often negative rights approach. It also guarantees the maximal implementation of the second generation of human rights by identifying and mobilizing public economic facilities and distributing the wealth of Earth fairly based on the needs of global citizens (i.e., globally distributive justice) through a positive rights approach. Since it has a collectivism nature, it also guarantees the implementation of the third generation of human rights by objectifying the solidarity right and identifying the requirements to collective life of humans. With its unique features, a global state is a definitive solution to human-related problems such as war and development of mass destruction weapons, poverty and global inequality, pandemics, and environmental destruction. Accordingly, the research hypothesis regarding the maximal implementation of human rights will be proven through the capabilities of a global state. Establishing a legitimately global political authority within the norms of human rights can be considered the main approach to the global government of human rights and universality of its values (i.e., objective human rights for all, everywhere, and always). 


Main Subjects

  1. Akfi Ghaziani, M., Akfi Ghaziani, M. (2019). The Performance of the United Nations Collective Security System Resorting to Force with the Prescription of the Security Council. International Studies Quarterly, 17(65), 115-139. (In Persian)
  2. Bagheri, Y., Zakarian, M., Beluri, P., Hermidas Bavand, D. (2017). The Right to Health and Public Health from the Perspective of Fundamental Human Rights with Emphasis on the 2030 Document of UNESCO. Medical Law Quarterly. 12(46). 177-205. (In Persian)
  3. Baloy, M., Bayat, M. (2016). The Government has the Right to Foundation (Analysis of Meaning, Explanation of Meaning). Tehran: Majd Publications. (In Persian)
  4. Biparva, A. (2017). Genocide, A Crime Against Human Rights, Ghezavat Quarterly, 23(91) 121-124. (In Persian)
  5. C. (2008). The Resurgent Idea of World Government. June Ethics & International Affairs, 22(2), 133-142,
  6. Du For, R. )2017). Must a World Government Violate the Right to Exit?.Ethics & Global Politics. 10(1). 19–36.
  7. Firozi, M. (2016). Obstacles and challenges of the right to development. Journal of Islam and Social Studies, 5(3), 70-94 (In Persian).
  8. Fraticelli, M., Victor. M. (2014). The Structure of Pluralism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  9. Habibzadeh, T., Mansouri, F. (2012). Rereading the Principle of the Common Heritage of Mankind and Its Differences with the Concept of Common Concern of Mankind. Islamic Law Research, 14(38), 120-91. (In Persian)
  10. Hemat, M., Habibi, A. (2017). The Impact of the Characteristics of the Procedure of Periodic Evaluation of Human Rights Council on Promotion of Respect for Human Rights by Governments, Postgraduate in Political Science, IAU, Shahreza Branch, (35)163-186. (In Persian)
  11. Jang, J., McSparren, J., Rashchupkina, Y. (2016). Global Governance: Present and Future Palgrave Communications, 2(15045).
  12. J. (2020). Paradox of Hierarchy and Con´Čéicts of Values: International Law,
    Human Rights, and Global Governance, Northwestern Journal of Human Rights, 18(1).
  13. D (2021).COVID-19 and Global Governance.Journal of Management Studies 58:2 March
  14. Mohammadi Almouti, M. (2015). The Concept of Global Society and the Analysis of Globalization Process. Higher Institute of Management and Planning Education and Research. (In Persian).
  15. Motlagh Parande, A., Porhashmi, A., Shirazian, Sh. Zare, A. (1400). Implementation of International Environmental laws in Iran's Legal System, Opportunities and Challenges. International Studies Journal, 18(69), 121-138. DOI: 10.22034/ISJ.2021.260906.131 (In Persian)
  16. Najandi Menesh, H., Daneshfar, P. (2019). Examining the realization of Kantian peace through the international rule of law. Scientific Journal of Philosophical Researches of Tabriz University, 14(33), 129-118 (In Persian).
  17. Otto, N., Norden, H. (1960). Einstein on Peace. New York: Avenel.
  18. Qandov, B., Alimukhammedova, N., Zamira, M. (2020). Human Rights are a Social Phenomenon: The Principles of Globalization and Personal Liberty. International Journal of Psychosocial Rehabilitation, 24(1).
  19. Qari Seyyed Fatemi, m. (2016). Human Rights in the Contemporary World. Tehran: Contemporary Press, Fifth edition (In Persian)
  20. Rahmatolahi, H., Shirzad, A. (2018). Perfectionism and Impartiality and its Effects on the Structure of Power and Public Rights. Tehran: Majd Publications, Second edition. (In Persian).
  21. Rasakh, M., Ameri, F. (2012). A Theoretical Approach to the Concept of the Right of the Third Generation. Public Law Research Quarterly (39) 168-193 (In Persian).
  22. Shaw, M. (2000). Theory of the Global State: Globality as Unfinished Revolution, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  23. Solhchi, M., Dargahi, R. (2014). Investigating the nature of Solidarity rights of Collective or People's Rights. Public Law Research, 15(41), 144-168. (In Persian)
  24. Soodmandi, A. (2015). Components of Freedom of Expression in the International Human Rights System. Journal of Legal Studies of Shiraz University, 8(2), 88-114. (In Persian)
  25. Talai, F; Poursaid F. (2012). Investigating the Mutual Influence of Human Rights and Peace on Each Other. Journal of Human Rights, 8(1-2), 122-85. (In Persian)
  26. Tallberg, J., Zürn, M. (2019). The legitimacy and legitimation of international organizations: introduction and Framework. The Review of International Organizations,  14, 581–606,
  27. Tinnevelt, R. (2012). Federal World Government: The Road to Peace and Justice?, Cooperation and Conflict, 47(2), 220–238.
  28. Vaezi, A., Hatami Kia, M., Fakhrizadeh, M. (2015). The Right to a Healthy Environment and the Third Generation of Human Rights. The Third International Science and Engineering Conference. (In Persian)
  29. Walzer, M. (2004). Arguing About War. New Haven: Yale University Press.
  30. Weiss, T. (2009). What Happened to the Idea of World Government.International Studies Quarterly. 53(2),  253–271,
  31. Wendt, A. (2003). Why a World State Is Inevitable. European Journal of International Relations, 9(4), 491–542.
  32. Wendt, A., Salimi, H. (1400). Why the World Government is Inevitable. Tehran: Scientific Publication. (In Persian).
  33. Zakarian, M. (2014). The Globalization of Dialogue and the Universality of Human Rights. Globalization Strategic Studies Quarterly, 5(13) 50-63 (In Persian)
  34. Zürn, M. (2010). Global Governance as Multi-Level Governance. In: Enderlein. H. Wälti, S. Zürn, M. (eds) Handbook on Multi-Level Governance. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 80-99.