American Foreign Policy Ideology And The International Rule Of Law

Demonstrates American legal policymakers hold competing conceptions of the 'international rule of law' structured by foreign policy ideologies.

Seminar paper from the year 2005 in the subject Politics - International Politics - Region: USA, grade: A, American University of Central Asia, language: English, abstract: This research focuses on the United States’ foreign policy in the Third World (meaning here not industrialized, mainly poor countries) and its use of words (internetional law and diplomacy) and deeds (coercive diplomacy and military intervention). The numerous historical examples reveal the treacherous nature of American Foreign Policy, because the USA prefers the law of force rather than the force of law for the sake of its own interests. The examples of the invasion of Grenada, Libya, and Nicaragua support the argument that the USA is ready to use force and go against international law to pursue its own national interest. Contrary to its claims of being the fighter for democracy and human rights in the world, America does protect it only when it is convenient to it and when it can somehow benefit from spending money on the liberation operations. However, it is vital to keep in mind that being a rational player the USA invaded only militarily weak countries.

This “eye-opening analysis” explains how and why America’s culture wars and partisan divide have led to dysfunctional US policy abroad (The Atlantic). In this provocative book, Peter Gries challenges the view that partisan elites on Capitol Hill are out of touch with a moderate American public. Dissecting a new national survey, Gries shows how ideology powerfully divides Main Street over both domestic and foreign policy and reveals how and why, with the exception of attitudes toward Israel, liberals consistently feel warmer toward foreign countries and international organizations—and desire friendlier policies toward them—than conservatives do. The Politics of American Foreign Policy weaves together in-depth examinations of the psychological roots and foreign policy consequences of the liberal-conservative divide; the cultural, socio-racial, economic, and political dimensions of American ideology; and the moral values and foreign policy orientations that divide Democrats and Republicans. Within this context, the book explores why Americans disagree over US policy relating to Latin America, Europe, the Middle East, East Asia, and international organizations such as the UN.

The focus of this law school casebook is on constitutional law as it relates to the conduct of foreign relations, primarily with that subfield dealing with the "separation of powers." Foreign relations law refers to the rules, principles, practices and procedures which structure the formation and execution of U.S. foreign policy, including it's participation in international law and institutions.

On a global scale, the central tool for responding to complex security challenges is public international law. This handbook provides a comprehensive and systematic overview of the relationship between international law and global security.

The United States spearheaded the creation of many international organizations and treaties after World War II and maintains a strong record of compliance across several issue areas, yet it also refuses to ratify major international conventions like the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. Why does the U.S. often seem to support international law in one way while neglecting or even violating it in another? The United States and International Law: Paradoxes of Support across Contemporary Issues analyzes the seemingly inconsistent U.S. relationship with international law by identifying five types of state support for international law: leadership, consent, internalization, compliance, and enforcement. Each follows different logics and entails unique costs and incentives. Accordingly, the fact that a state engages in one form of support does not presuppose that it will do so across the board. This volume examines how and why the U.S. has engaged in each form of support across twelve issue areas that are central to 20th- and 21st-century U.S. foreign policy: conquest, world courts, war, nuclear proliferation, trade, human rights, war crimes, torture, targeted killing, maritime law, the environment, and cybersecurity. In addition to offering rich substantive discussions of U.S. foreign policy, their findings reveal patterns across the U.S. relationship with international law that shed light on behavior that often seems paradoxical at best, hypocritical at worst. The results help us understand why the United States engages with international law as it does, the legacies of the Trump administration, and what we should expect from the United States under the Biden administration and beyond.