Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

“The Empire Strikes Back”: The US Assault on the International Human Rights Regime

  • Published:
Human Rights Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We argue that the post-9/11 environment has amounted to a substantive change in the longstanding United States relationship with the international human rights regime. We identify three distinct phases of that relationship, noting that in the most recent phase, since 9/11, the US has moved from passive support of the international human rights regime to a direct attack of that regime. Realist and liberal regime theories suggest that the human rights regime is relatively weak, and is unlikely to withstand such an attack. We find that the regime has not only continued to persist, but has flourished even as US support has faltered. The human rights regime is surprisingly strong. We argue it is the ideological nature of the regime that explains its resilience, which suggests that constructivist theory is necessary to fully understand the human rights regime.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Regimes clearly exist, and as others have pointed out, it is difficult to explain why states invest significant resources in institutions if they, in fact, do not matter (Keohane and Martin 1995).

  2. A discussion of the evolution of the human rights regime is found below.

  3. Notable exceptions include Donnelly (1986, 2003), Krasner (1982, 1983), Forsythe (2000), and Evans (1996).

  4. In this regard, the human rights regime is no different than other international regimes. The strongest regimes do not have universal international adoption or support, nor do they have unconditional and continuous support among their advocates. The long standing exceptions to the international trade regime with regard to agriculture, provides an example of the former, whereas the steel tariff passed by the United States in 2002 is an example of the later.

  5. For example, see Donnelly (2003), Hasenclever et al. (1996) and Forsythe (2000).

  6. See Strange (1983) for a critique of regimes.

  7. A review of the debate of how to define regimes is beyond the scope of this article but see Brzoska (1992), Hasenclever et al. (1997), Keohane (1984, 1998), Krasner (1983), Kratochwill and Ruggie (1986), Puchala and Hopkins (1982), Ruggie (1975), Strange (1983), and Young (1980). The Krasner definition has garnered general consensus within the literature.

  8. See Keohane (1998) for a complete discussion of these events.

  9. The human rights regime is so far ranging that a complete exploration of all of its elements is beyond the scope of this article. While a summary of the major elements is warranted, it should be noted that this list is not comprehensive and numerous regional and national laws and organizations not listed here constitute significant components of the regime.

  10. It should be noted that the United States was also at the forefront of promoting human rights internationally prior to World War II. In his “Fourteen Points,” President Woodrow Wilson advocated self-determination as part of his plan to make the “world safe for democracy.” His idea of an international body designed to promote peace came to fruition in the League of Nations, albeit without American participation. Nonetheless, human rights were addressed in the League of Nations as the organization sought to protect marginalized groups in the form of minority rights and those living in mandated territories as well as labor rights (Forsythe 1989).

  11. The United States met with its allies at Dumbarton Oaks in 1944, Yalta in 1945, and finally in San Francisco in 1945 for the purpose of creating what would become the UN.

  12. Forsythe (2000) argues that this period represents a regime without hegemonic leadership due to increasing domestic opposition to human rights. We contend that US leadership, though weakened, remained due to its strong ideological bond to human rights, and its continued rhetorical support for many of the values of the regime.

  13. The US ratified the Convention against Torture in 1994.

  14. This evidence is based on a study conducted by the Detainee Abuse and Accountability Project (Mertus and Tanzreena 2007).

  15. We accessed the Washington Post article online on the Common Dreams News Center available at: www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1226–03.htm.

  16. The Washington Post posted a 2002 memo from Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee on its website at www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/cheney/torture_memo_aug2002.pdf. A March 2003 memo entitled “Detainee Interrogations in the Global War on Terrorism: Assessment of Legal, Historical, Policy, and Operational Considerations” can be found at: news.findlaw.com/wp/docs/torture/30603wgrpt2.html. The New York Times reported additional memos in 2005.

  17. The Krauthammer article “The Truth about Torture” is available at: www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/400rhqav.asp?pg=1.

  18. The Democracy Now interview of Louise Arbour is available at: www.democracynow.org/2007/9/7/un_high_commissioner_for_human_rights.

  19. For further elaboration of constructivism see Adler (1991), Checkel (1998), Katzenstein (1996a, b), Kratochwil (1989), and Wendt (1992, 1995).

References

  • Adler, Emanuel. 1991. “Cognitive Evolution: A Dynamic Approach for the Study of International Relations and their Progress.” In Progress in Postwar International Relations, ed. Emanuel Adler. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amnesty International. 2009. Figures on the Death Penalty. (www.amnesty.org/en/death-penalty/numbers).

  • Arbour, Louise. 2007. Interview with Democracy Now on September 7, 2007. (www.democracynow.org/2007/9/7/un_high_commissioner_for_human_rights).

  • Brown, Seyom. 2000. Human Rights in World Politics. New York: Addison Wesley Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brysk, Alison. 1993. “From Above and Below: Social Movements, the International System, and Human Rights in Argentina.” Comparative Political Studies 26:259–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brzoska, Michael. 1992. “Is the Nuclear Non-Proliferation System a Regime? a Comment on Trevor McMorris Tate.” Journal of Peace Research 29:215–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Checkel, Jeffrey T. 1998. “The Constructivists Turn in International Relations Theory.” World Politics 50:324–348.

    Google Scholar 

  • Czempiel, Ernst-Otto. 1981. Internationale Politik: Ein Konflicktmodell. Paderborn: Schöningh.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dershowitz, Alan M. 2002. “Want to torture? Get a warrant.” San Francisco Chronicle 22 January. (www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2002/01/22/ED5329.DTL).

  • Donnelly, Jack. 1986. “International Human Rights: A Regime Analysis.” International Organization 40:599–642.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donnelly, Jack. 2003. Universal Human Rights in Theory and Practice. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dorsey, Ellen. 2000. “U.S. Foreign Policy and the Human Rights Movement.” In The United States and Human Rights, ed. David P. Forsythe. Lincoln and London: University of Nebraska Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Efinger, Mandred and Michael Zürn. 1990. “Explaining Conflict Management in East-West Relations: A Quantitative Test of Problem-Structural Typologies.” In International Regimes in East-West Politics, ed. Volker Rittberger. London: Pinter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, Tony. 1996. US Hegemony and the Project of Universal Human Rights. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farer, Tom J. 1992. “The United Nations and Human Rights: More than a Whimper, Less than a Roar.” In Human Rights in the World Community: Issues and Actions, ed. Richard P. Claude and Burns H. Weston. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forsythe, David P. 1989. Human Rights and World Politics. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forsythe, David P. 2000. Human Rights in International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilpin, Robert. 1981. War and Change in World Politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilpin, Robert. 1987. The Political Economy of International Relations. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrelson-Stephens, Julie and C.F. Abel. 2006. “Bureaucratizing Torture.” Paper presented at Public Administration and Theory Network, Olympia.

  • Hasenclever, Andreas, Peter Mayer, and Volker Rittberger. 1996. “Interests, Power, Knowledge: The Study of International Regimes.” International Studies Review 40:177–228.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hasenclever, Andreas, Peter Mayer, and Volker Rittberger. 1997. Theories of International Regimes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howard-Hassmann, Rhoda E. 2005. “The Second Great Transformation: Human Rights Leap-Frogging in the Era of Globalization Pursuing Global Justice.” Human Rights Quarterly 27:1–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Human Rights Watch 2004. “The Road to Abu Graib.” 8 June. (www.hrw.org/en/node/12123/section/1).

  • Katzenstein, Peter J. 1996a. The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in World Politics. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katzenstein, Peter J. 1996b. Cultural Norms and National Security: Police and Military in Postwar Japan. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keck, Margaret and Kathryn Sikkink. 1998. Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics. Cornell: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keohane, Robert O. 1983. “The Demand for International Regimes.” In International Regimes, ed. S. D. Krasner. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keohane, Robert O. 1984. After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keohane, Robert O. 1998. “International Institutions: Can Interdependence Work?” Foreign Policy 110:82–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keohane, Robert O., and Joseph S. Nye, Jr. 1977. Power and Interdependence: World Politics in Transition. Boston: Little, Brown.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keohane, Robert O., and Lisa L. Martin. 1995. “The Promise of Institutionalist Theory.” International Security 20:39–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kindleberger, Charles. 1981. “Dominance and Leadership in the International Economy: Exploitation, Public Goods, and Free Rides.” International Studies Quarterly 25:242–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krasner, Stephen D. 1982. “Structural Causes and Regime Consequences: Regimes as Intervening Variables.” International Organization 36:185–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krasner, Stephen D., ed. 1983. International Regimes. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

  • Kratochwil, Friedrich. 1989. Rules, Norms, and Decisions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kratochwil, Friedrich., and John Gerard Ruggie. 1986. “International Organization: The State of the Art.” International Organization 40:753–775.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krauthammer, Charles. 2005. “The Truth about Torture: It's Time to be Honest about Doing Terrible Things.” The Weekly Standard 5 December. (www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/400rhqav.asp?pg=1).

  • Massimino, Elisa. 2004. “Leading by Example.” Criminal Justice Ethics, Winter/Spring.

  • McKeown, Timothy. 1983. “Hegemonic Stability Theory and 19th Century Tariff Levels in Europe.” International Organization 37:73–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mertus, Julie, and Tazreena Tanzreena. 2007. “Human Rights Post-September 11.” In Exploring International Human Rights: Essential Readings, ed. Rhonda L. Callaway and Julie Harrelson-Stephens. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nye, Joseph. 1990. Bound to Lead: The Changing Nature of American Power. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pease, Kelly-Kate. 2003. International Organizations: Perspectives on Governance in the Twenty-First Century. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Priest, Dana, and Barton Gellman. 2002. “‘Stress and Duress’ Tactics used on Terrorism Suspects Held in Secret Overseas Facilities.” Washington Post 26 December.

  • Puchala, Donald J., and Raymond F. Hopkins. 1982. “International Regimes: Lessons from Inductive Analysis.” International Organization 26:245–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, Robert. 1988. “Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: the Logic of Two-Level Games.” International Organization 42:427–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Risse, Thomas, and Kathryn Sikkink. 1999. “The Socialization of International Human Rights Norms into Domestic Practices: An Introduction.” In The Power of Human Rights: International Norms and Domestic Change, ed. Thomas Risse, Stephen C. Ropp, and Kathryn Sikkink. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Risse, Thomas, Stephen C. Ropp, and Kathryn Sikkink. 1999. The Power of Human Rights: International Norms and Domestic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rochester, J. Martin. 1986. “The Rise and Fall of International Organizations as a Field of Study.” International Organization 40:777–813.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roth, Kenneth. 2004. “Time to Stop ‘Stress and Duress’.” The Washington Post Page A29. (www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22623–2004May12.html).

  • Roosevelt, Franklin D. 1941. “Annual Message to Congress” June 6. (www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/4free.html).

  • Ruggie, John Gerard. 1975. “International Responses to Technology: Concepts and Trends.” International Organization 29:557–583.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sikkink, Kathryn. 1993. “The Power of Principled Ideas: Human Rights Policies in the United States and Western Europe.” In Ideas and Foreign Policy: Beliefs, Institutions, and Political Change, ed. Judith Goldstein and Robert O. Keohane. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snidal, Duncan. 1985. “The Limits of Hegemonic Stability Theory,” International Organization 39:579–614.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strange, Susan. 1983. “Cave! Hic Dragones: A Critique of Regime Analysis.” In International Regimes, ed. Stephen Krasner. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tate, Trevor McMorris. 1990. “Regime-building in the Non-Proliferation Regime.” Journal of Peace Research 27:399–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young, Oran. 1980. “International Regimes: Problems of Concept Formation.” World Politics 32:331–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young, Oran. 1986. “International Regimes: Toward a New Theory of Institutions.” World Politics 39:104–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young, Oran. 1989. “The Politics of International Regime Formation: Managing Natural Resources and the Environment.” International Organization 43:349–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wendt, Alexander.1992. “Anarchy is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics.” International Organization 46:391–425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wendt, Alexander.1995. “Constructing International Politics.” International Security 20:71–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • WorldPublicOpinion.org. 2008. “World Public Opinion on Torture: Country by Country Results.”(www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/jun08/WPO_Torture_Jun08_countries.pdf).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Political Science, Stephen F. Austin State University, Box 13045, SFA Station, LAN Room 108, Nacogdoches, TX, 75962, USA

    Julie Harrelson-Stephens

  2. Department of Political Science, College of Humanities and Social Sciences, Sam Houston State University, Box 2149, Huntsville, TX, 77340-2149, USA

    Rhonda L. Callaway

Authors
  1. Julie Harrelson-Stephens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rhonda L. Callaway
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Julie Harrelson-Stephens.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Harrelson-Stephens, J., Callaway, R.L. “The Empire Strikes Back”: The US Assault on the International Human Rights Regime. Hum Rights Rev 10, 431–452 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12142-009-0127-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12142-009-0127-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation