Nobel Committee Chairman Thorbjorn Jagland has recently published a signed article titled "Why We Gave Liu Xiaobo a Nobel" on the New York Times.

This is so far the most complete explanation that the committee has made since the international community condemned its decision to confer the Nobel Peace Prize to Liu Xiaobo, a convicted criminal in China.

But the explanation was filled with Jagland's fallacious arguments and distortions.

It is known to all that Liu's conviction for agitation aimed at subverting the government is a sheer law issue that concerns China's judicial sovereignty, and it is by no means an issue about human rights.

However, in his article, Jagland presented a fallacious notion of "human rights above sovereignty," using it to defend the Nobel Committee's decision to grant Liu a Nobel prize and even taking it as an excuse to vehemently slam China.

What Jagland has said is apparently wrong and groundless as his notion stemmed from a partial value system.

It's groundless to assert "human rights above sovereignty"

In his article, Jagland asserted that "international human rights law and standards are above the nation-state, and the world community has a duty to ensure they are respected."

The assertion is groundless from the perspectives of logic, law and practice.

The notion, "human rights above sovereignty," preached by some Western nations, have been opposed by a majority of countries in the international community.

In essence, the notion puts aside the fact that a nation-state provides a basic and substantial protection for the human rights of its citizens.

Moreover, the notion argues that it is foreign nations, not a nation itself, who decide on how a human rights issue in this nation is dealt with. This overtly rejects the basic international principle of respecting a nation's sovereignty.