Within the contemporary international legal system, the full realization of human rights depends on states recognizing and implementing the fundamental principles of human rights. However, the interplay among national, international, and human security often compels states to take measures that jeopardize both peace and the full realization of human security. This study directly addresses the central question: how does conflict between different levels of security result in violations of fundamental human rights? Using the Copenhagen School's theoretical framework and a case study method, the article clearly argues that when states consistently prioritize their own authority over that of individuals or the international community, this imbalance violates fundamental principles of human rights. The findings of this study reveal that, although human rights discourse emphasizes human security, the persistent influence of state-centric Westphalian criteria often leads to conflicts between individual security priorities and those of states or the international community. As a result, decisions on human security continue to prioritize state and international interests over individual rights, leading to ongoing violations of fundamental human rights.