The consequence is that sovereignty can be supreme within the Western world, but for the rest of the world, the Western countries can take human rights as an excuse to interfere in others' domestic affairs, to trample upon other countries' sovereignty, to practise their power politics and hegemony, and even to launch military strikes.

In his article, Jagland claimed that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights can serve as one of the supporting examples for the notion of "human rights above sovereignty," but he deliberately shunned Article 29 of the declaration which says that "in the exercise of his rights and freedom, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law..."

Law is an integral part of sovereignty, so the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has never supported such a notion as "human rights above sovereignty."

In short, Jagland has distorted the declaration.

Jagland has been an active politician in Norway for a long time, so there is no need to remind him of NATO's strikes against Kosovo in late 1990s which brought numerous disasters to people in the region, severely infringing their basic human rights.

As a matter of fact, when NATO launched the strikes, one of its excuses was "human rights above sovereignty."

In another case, the United States passed the Patriot Act after the Sept. 11 terror attacks, but quite a few human rights organizations and the general public strongly opposed it, arguing that the bill infringed upon people's privacy.

Obviously, the Nobel Committee has "forgotten" to grant a prize to these people. Where was Jagland's principle of "human rights above sovereignty" at that time?

Therefore, "human rights above sovereignty" is not the principle adhered to by Jagland. His genuine principle is to push into practice double standards, interfere in China's domestic affairs and defend his hypocrisy by the excuse of human rights.