Two developments associated with globalization challenge the way we think about rights, sovereignty and international law. The first is the increasingly influential discourse of international human rights. This discourse has led cosmopolitan legal and moral theorists to argue that the "sovereignty" and external legitimacy of governments should be contingent on their being both non-aggressive and minimally just. A radical idea is at stake: that the international community may enforce moral principles and legal rules regulating the conduct of governments toward their own citizens. The second development is the expanding reach of global governance institutions that make authoritative policies and coercive legal rules regulating the actions of state and non-state actors. The global political system centered in the U.N. now acts in response to the proliferation of new threats to international peace and security coming from civil wars, failing states, transnational terrorism and the risk that private individuals will acquire weapons of mass destruction. The dangers these threats pose to "human security" seem to indicate the necessity to transcend the state centric, sovereignty oriented model of international relations and international law. Indeed many have argued that we are witnessing the constitutionalisation of international law, and that the decoupling of that law from the state, means that the latter has lost legal as well as political sovereignty. Sovereignty is deemed an anachronistic concept, inadequate for understanding the new world order characterized by global politics and global law. Developments such as humanitarian intervention, transformative occupation regimes, and legislation by the United Nations Security Council to counter the "emergency" posed by global terrorism are seen as the key constitutional moments in the development of a new world order
![](/themes/custom/cdf_theme/dist/images/banners/chair/chair_360.webp)