Human Rights In American Foreign Policy

Although our era is marked by human rights rhetoric, human wrongs continue to be committed with impunity, and the idea of human rights is becoming impoverished.

Is the US really exceptional in terms of its willingness to take universal human rights seriously? According to the rhetoric of American political leaders, the United States has a unique and lasting commitment to human rights principles and to a liberal world order centered on rule of law and human dignity. But when push comes to shove—most recently in Libya and Syria--the United States failed to stop atrocities and dithered as disorder spread in both places. This book takes on the myths surrounding US foreign policy and the future of world order. Weighing impulses toward parochial nationalism against the ideal of cosmopolitan internationalism, the authors posit that what may be emerging is a new brand of American globalism, or a foreign policy that gives primacy to national self-interest but does so with considerable interest in and genuine attention to universal human rights and a willingness to suffer and pay for those outside its borders—at least on occasion. The occasions of exception—such as Libya and Syria—provide case studies for critical analysis and allow the authors to look to emerging dominant powers, especially China, for indicators of new challenges to the commitment to universal human rights and humanitarian affairs in the context of the ongoing clash between liberalism and realism. The book is guided by four central questions: 1) What is the relationship between cosmopolitan international standards and narrow national self-interest in US policy on human rights and humanitarian affairs? 2) What is the role of American public opinion and does it play any significant role in shaping US policy in this dialectical clash? 3) Beyond public opinion, what other factors account for the shifting interplay of liberal and realist inclinations in Washington policy making? 4) In the 21st century and as global power shifts, what are the current views and policies of other countries when it comes to the application of human rights and humanitarian affairs?

Human Rights And Comparative Foreign Policy Is The First Book In English To Examine The Place Of Human Rights In The Foreign Policies Of A Wide Range Of States During Contemporary Times. The Book Is Also Unique In Utilizing A Common Framework Of Analysis For All 10 Of The Country Or Regional Studies Covered. This Framework Treats Foreign Policy As The Result Of A Two -Level Game In Which Both Domestic And Foreign Factors Have To Be Considered. Leading Experts From Around The World Analyze Both Liberal Democratic And Other Foreign Policies On Human Rights. A General Introduction And A Systematic Conclusion Add To The Coherence Of The Project. The Authors Note The Increasing Attention Given To Human Rights Issues In Contemporary Foreign Policy. At The Same Time, They Argue That Most States, Including Liberal Democratic States That Identify With Human Rights, Are Reluctant Most Of The Time To Elevate Human Rights Concerns To A Level Equal To That Of Traditional Security And Economic Concerns. When States Do Seek To Integrate Human Rights With These And Other Concerns, The Result Is Usually Great Inconsistency In Patterns Of Foreign Policy. The Book Further Argues That Different States Bring Different Emphases To Their Human Rights Diplomacy, Because Of Such Factors As National Political Culture And Perceived National Interests. In The Last Analysis States Can Be Compared Along Two Dimensions Pertaining To Human Rights: Extent To Which They Are Oriented Toward An International Rather Than National Conception Of Rights; And Extent To Which They Are Oriented Toward International Rather Than National Action To Protect Human Rights.

This important work provides a comparison of the human rights policies of the Carter and Reagan administrations, developed through a general survey of these policies, a reliance on extensive interviewing and congressional hearings, and four case studies. The book deals first with the background of the human rights foreign policies of the two administrations, their conceptual frameworks, rationales, systems of priorities, the objectives they sought, and the selection of national situations to which the policies were applied. The survey then proceeds to identify and describe the sources of the policies, both legal political, international treaties and agreements, national legislation, and the bureaucracy and Congress. It also examines actions taken to implement the policies and diplomatic pressures and inducements. The case studies describe and compare the approaches of the two administrations to the human rights situations in South Africa, Chile, South Korea, and the Soviet Union.

U.S. Foreign Policy and Muslim Women's Human Rights explores the integration of American concerns about women's human rights into U.S. policy toward Islamic countries since 1979, reframing U.S.-Islamic relations and challenging assumptions about the drivers of American foreign policy.

With the 2003 invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq, the most controversial question in world politics fast became whether the United States stands within the order of international law or outside it. Does America still play by the rules it helped create? American Exceptionalism and Human Rights addresses this question as it applies to U.S. behavior in relation to international human rights. With essays by eleven leading experts in such fields as international relations and international law, it seeks to show and explain how America's approach to human rights differs from that of most other Western nations. In his introduction, Michael Ignatieff identifies three main types of exceptionalism: exemptionalism (supporting treaties as long as Americans are exempt from them); double standards (criticizing "others for not heeding the findings of international human rights bodies, but ignoring what these bodies say of the United States); and legal isolationism (the tendency of American judges to ignore other jurisdictions). The contributors use Ignatieff's essay as a jumping-off point to discuss specific types of exceptionalism--America's approach to capital punishment and to free speech, for example--or to explore the social, cultural, and institutional roots of exceptionalism. These essays--most of which appear in print here for the first time, and all of which have been revised or updated since being presented in a year-long lecture series on American exceptionalism at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government--are by Stanley Hoffmann, Paul Kahn, Harold Koh, Frank Michelman, Andrew Moravcsik, John Ruggie, Frederick Schauer, Anne-Marie Slaughter, Carol Steiker, and Cass Sunstein.