orporations as a tool to continue to violate individual rights. Critics have also expressed concerns that “[p]owerful states will determine whose human rights justify departure from the principle of non-intervention” (Macfarlane, Thielking and Weiss, 2004). This would consequently risk citizens protections for the sake of securing ‘powerful states’ interests – a threat seen in Palestine in the 2008-2009 Gaza War. There was no intervention undertaken by the international community despite 1,385 Palestinians and 12 Israelis deaths in the course of 22 days (Humanitarian Coordinator, 2009). Despite the term’s ‘genocide’, ‘war crimes’, and ‘crimes against humanity’ authorising military intervention through R2P (General Assembly, 2005), no intervention was undertaken. This again shows the dangers of human security and the effects of political science discourse, as powerful states are able to ‘pick and choose’ what countries to intervene in for their own political gain. However, despite some of the disastrous impacts human security has had, it allows for political scientists to establish other means and measures in order to prevent such crisis from reoccurring. This, along with other disciplines aimed at promoting and protecting human rights, may play a huge role in bringing fundamental change to human rights. To conclude, political science has provided various insights into the promotion of human rights. As law seems to play a crucial role in the promotion of human rights, political scientists have conducted studies to see how far international instruments truly work. Camp Keith’s study showed that despite ratification of the ICCPR and its Optional Protocol, there was no significant difference in rights before and after becoming state parties to the conventions. This shows that law does not necessarily guarantee the promotion and protection of human rights as there was no difference between parties to the treaty and non-state parties. Her research did, however, provide reasons for this such as international and non-international armed conflict being motivators of destabilising the state, thus national security takes priority. Vreeland, Hill and Cole studies also found that those who signed CAT were more likely to practice torture such as China in regard to minority groups such as the Uighurs. This again suggests that legal mechanisms do not necessarily promote human rights, and political science is able to observe greater on what kind of states are likely to conform. However, criticisms arise as political science fails to look at the cultural relativist approach to explain why some states may undermine human rights instruments – however even>