Sovereigntism and Nationalism: Consequences for the Fragmentation of International Law

Contemporary policies for implementing international human rights law within the domestic legal systems of a number of states and the EU's legal system reflect the sovereigntist and nationalist turn. This article focuses on the interplay between the international legal order and the domestic legal order in the sphere of human rights protection. Germany, Italy, the UK, and Russia are taken as examples. The analysis also includes the interplay between the international legal order and the legal order of the EU. I argue that the sovereigntist and nationalist trends in the implementation of international human rights law lead to fragmentation of international law, the emergence of multiple legal values and practices, different understandings and interpretations of law, and contradictions between the legal orders of states or international organizations and the international legal order. The examples explored in the text show that national (regional) interests prevail over international law irrespective of the international obligations agreed to by states previously. Resistance to the authority of international law and a dangerous interference with the rule of law constitute an alarming tendency since the internationally recognized and centuries-old set of rules experienced by generations familiar with the world wars, which introduced order and balance, mutual responsibility, and respect, is put in doubt. The dialogue of the actors in the international system is the most valuable way and the best possible way to overcome the challenges to contemporary international law