Human rights have always challenged the meanings and legitimacy of state authority under the context of sovereignty. The expansion of the international human rights law has reflected a growing need to reex-amine state authority in terms of human rights protection, and to place further consideration on the legitimacy of multilateral efforts. More im-portantly, state compliance with international human rights law varies greatly; yet scholars know little about why some states adhere more closely than others. Therefore, this paper is to assess why states have chosen to ignore or comply with the human rights legal instruments available to them to deal with multilateral pressures on human rights advocacy, and what are the exact factors that exert an influence on the practice of international human rights law on the setting of potential tension between international norms and state authority. This paper, thus, places emphasis on how conflicts pertaining to the domestic and international legitimacy of authority greatly account for the nature of multilateral responses to human rights protection, and provides explana-tions on how the dynamics of legitimacy affect multilateral efforts in a state. This paper (1) argues for the centrality of legitimacy as a driving force for fulfillment of international human rights law. The findings fur-ther suggest that (2) a main determinant of effect in international human rights law concerns how multilateral and state actors addressing the le-gitimate problem determine the practice of human rights norms. (3) In-ternational human rights law and regime will continue to play an impor-tant role in international relations because of the way in which they constitute political legitimacy and a source of legal power for human rights protection. (4) The legitimacy of state authority is a more impor-tant determinant of state compliance. Multilateral pressures with norm legitimacy are more effective than direct lobbying and persuasion, and international efforts should be finely tuned to the state’s compliance to international law, if it is in line with its authority, as well as the building of multilateralism. As a result, (5) scholars should be cautious about claims that enforcement is central to the domestic implementation of international human rights law. As for the implication to human rights studies, (6) many human rights researches from the political perspective are associated with the logic of appropriateness while legal approach places emphasis on the logic of consequences. Future researches might bridge the falsely rationalist-constructivist dichotomy by accepting both logics. As such, richer explanations emerge for determining why states sometimes comply with legal norms and under what conditions.