Sovereignty limited to the result; Ethical consequentialism

Human catastrophes, repeated human rights violations have shown the superiority of the interests of governments. This created tension in the nature of the concept of sovereignty. Sovereignty in the realistic view is still in place. Absolute sovereignty does not mean taking any decision to implement and implement them. This idea is a consequence that shows that governments are not unrestricted in their decisions. The conflict between rights and sovereignty can be resolved on the basis of ethics. In this approach, the author seeks to determine the place of ethics and ethical mechanisms in government decisions. Efforts to separate morality from political decisions have led to irreparable catastrophes. This is not to say that paying attention to the idea of ​​morality alone is the only solution to prevent the recurrence of human rights violations, but rather to show the importance of the idea of ​​morality in government decisions. Ethics is not out of politics and its decisions, but taking it into account and making it important will produce better results. Moral consequentialism shows that sovereignty has retained its absoluteness in essence, but as a result and in practice this limitation is based on the moral view that governs the decisions of governments.