Explain why there may be tension between human rights and state sovereignty

Human rights are rights that people are entitled to by the virtue of being human. They are said to be indivisible, absolute, fundamental, and universal. These rights are either positive rights (usually ‘freedom to’ rights that arrive due to political activity), or negative rights (‘freedom from’ rights) that are created due to a lack of activity, typically within government. State sovereignty is the absolute power, and autonomy that comes with being a state. This implies that government has the power and resultant influence over the area defined in it’s territory. 
The key tension between human rights and state sovereignty is the absolute nature of human rights, particularly as laid out in the UN Universal Declaration of Human rights (1948). Article 30 of this binding document states that the previous articles are ‘not to inference’ of ratifying states. This therefore interferes with state sovereignty, more specifically internal state sovereignty, due to it overriding the power and not being subject to the jurisdiction of the governing body. The absolute nature of human rights reflects modern tension with the concept of state sovereignty. 
Furthermore, human rights are universal. This means that they are the same across the world, and not specific to any state, or nation state. This means that defining factors of a nation state, such as its wealth, nationality, dominant religion or democratic status, do not effect human rights. This leads to protection and universality of human rights, but causes tensions with state sovereignty due to the independence that comes with sovereignty, and the identity of the citizens being ignored. Therefore, this caused tension as the state’s sovereignty is impeded upon for the purposes of human rights protection. 
Finally, human rights can be protected by humanitarian intervention, however this causes tension with state sovereignty. The entering of other state’s borders is counted as an act of war, however, according to just war theory, it is justified if it is for self defence or to protect innocent (usually civilian) lives. Critics of just war theory argue that no war is just. In the US’ intervention in Haiti (named Operation Uphold Democracy), the US intervened in order to protect innocent lives from the Coup D’etait. However, this conflicted with state sovereignty as the 50,000 US troops entered their border without permission from the head of state. Since sovereign states are autonomous, they believe that they are able to protect themselves within their borders, causing conflict with the US trying to help. Therefore, there was massive conflict between the protection of human rights and state sovereignty.