International Human Rights Regime as Instrument for Advancing National Interests: The US and Others Since the 20<sup>th</sup> Century

Eze Malachy Chukwuemeka

doi:doi:10.11648/j.ash.20200601.13

| Peer-Reviewed

International Human Rights Regime as Instrument for Advancing National Interests: The US and Others Since the 20^th Century

Eze Malachy Chukwuemeka

Published in Advances in Sciences and Humanities (Volume 6, Issue 1)

Received: 28 September 2019 Accepted: 12 October 2019 Published: 16 January 2020

Views: Downloads:

Download PDF

Share This Article

Twitter
Linked In
Facebook

Abstract

This paper examines the relationship between international human rights regimes and the pursuit of United Sates national interests in the 21^st century. Archival research or literature survey, content analysis, and the realist theory of international human rights were adopted for the inquiry. The core objectives of the paper were to assess US human rights posture; find out if US international defence of human rights and interventions is without bias; and to determine if there is a positive relationship between US pursuit of national interest and US human rights policy. The results of analysis show that US has both internal and external poor human rights posture; and that lack of neutrality on US international campaign. The results further reveal that there is no generally accepted principles of human rights and its institutions; and although the international human rights regime lacks jurisdiction over the US, it has consistently being used to advance US national interests in the international system. Among others, the paper recommends an international conference of sovereignties to harmonise the principles and institutions of international human rights, and for the regime to have jurisdiction over all sovereignties.

Published in	Advances in Sciences and Humanities (Volume 6, Issue 1)
DOI	10.11648/j.ash.20200601.13
Page(s)	18-29
Creative Commons	This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright	Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Science Publishing Group

Keywords

Human Rights Regime, United States, National Interest, United Nations, Sanction, Compliance

References

[1]	Baker, R. & Dodd, W. E. (1927) War and Peace: Presidential Messages, Addresses, and Public Papers, 1917-1924. New York: Harper and Brothers.
[2]	Vincent, R. J. (1986) Human Rights and International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[3]	Hafner-Burton, E. M. (2012) International Regimes for Human Rights. Annual Review of Political Science. 265-286. Available from http//www.polisci.annualreviews.org.
[4]	Keith, L. (1999) The United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Does it make a difference in human rights behaviour? Journal of Peace Restoration. 36 (1), 95–118.
[5]	Marston, G. (1990) The United Kingdom’s Part in the Preparation of the European Convention on Human Rights, 1950. International and Comparative Law Quarterly. 42 (4), 796–826.
[6]	Cassel, D. (2001) Does International Human Rights Law Make a Difference? Available from http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/blaw_faculty_scholarship.
[7]	Davenport, C., Moore, W. H. & Armstrong, D. (2008) Water-boarding in a Democracy? Torture, Political Threats and the Palliative Impact of Democratic Institutions. Working paper. Washington DC: World Bank.
[8]	Cross, F. B. (1999) The Relevance of Law in Human Rights Protection. International Review of Law and Economics. 19 (1), 87–98.
[9]	Dutton, Y. M. (ND.) Commitment to international human rights Treaties: the role of enforcement mechanisms. U. Pa. J. Int'l L. 34 (1), 1-66.
[10]	Deng, F. M., Sadikiel, K., Terrence, L., Rothchild, D. et al. (Eds., 1996) Sovereignty as Responsibility: Conflict Management in Africa. Washington, D. C.: Brookings Institution.
[11]	Evans, P. B., Harold, K. J. & Putnam, R. D (1993) Double-Edged Diplomacy: International Bargaining and Domestic Politics. Berkeley: University of California Press.
[12]	Cole, W. (2011) Individuals v. states: An analysis of Human Rights Committee rulings, 1979- 2007. Working Paper.
[13]	Voeten, E. (2007) The politics of international judicial appointments: Evidence from the European Court of Human Rights. International Organisation. 61: 669–701.
[14]	Lebovic, J. H. & Voeten, E. (2006) The Politics of Shame: The Condemnation of Country Human Rights Practices in the UNCHR. International Studies Quarterly. 50 (4), 861–88.
[15]	Hafner-Burton (2012) International Regimes, Opcit, p. 269.
[16]	Hafner-Burton (2012) International Regimes, Opcit, p. 271.
[17]	International Commission on Intervention and State, Sovereignty (2001) The Responsibility to Protect. Ottawa: International Development Research Center.
[18]	Davenport, C. (1995) Multi-Dimensional Threat Perception and State Repression: An Inquiry into Why States Apply Negative Sanctions. American Journal of Political Science. 39 (3), 683–713.
[19]	Hafner-Burton, E. (2005) Trading human rights: how preferential trade agreements influence government repression. International Organisation. 59, 593–629.
[20]	Hafner-Burton, E., Mansfield, E. & Pevehouse, J. (2011) Human rights institutions, sovereignty costs and democratization. Working Paper. Available from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1450445.
[21]	Von Stein, J. (2010) Making promises, keeping promises: Democracy, ratification, and compliance in international human rights law. Working Paper, Department of Political Science, Univ. Mich. Ann Arbor.
[22]	Goodliffe, J. & Hawkins, D. (2009) A funny thing happened on the way to Rome: Explaining International Criminal Court negotiations. Journal of Politics. 71 (3), 977-997.
[23]	Hafner-Burton (2012). p. 264.
[24]	Hafner-Burton, E. & Tsutsui, K. (2007) Justice Lost! The Failure of International Human Rights Law to Matter Where Needed Most. Journal of Peace Research. 44 (4), 407–425.
[25]	Hathaway, O. (2002) Do human rights treaties make a difference? Yale Law Journal. 111 (8), 1935-2042.
[26]	Goodman, R. & Jinks, D. (2003) Measuring the effects of human rights treaties. European Journal of International Law. 14 (1): 171-183.
[27]	Edwards, M. et al. (2008) Sins of commission? Understanding membership patterns on the United Nations Human Rights Commission. Policy Research Quarterly. 61 (3), 390-402.
[28]	Carr, E. H. (1946) The Twenty Years' Crisis 1919-1939. London: Harper & Row.
[29]	Morgenthau, H. J. (1960) Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. 3rd Ed. New York: Alfred Knopf.
[30]	Ruggie, J. G. (1983) Human Rights and the Future International Community. Daedalus. 112 (4): 93–110.
[31]	Donnelly, J. (1986) International Human Rights: A Regime Analysis. International Organization. 40 (3): 599–642 (pp. 637–38).
[32]	Waltz, K. N. (1979) Theory of International Politics. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley (p. 200).
[33]	Glendon, M. A. (2001) A World Made New. New York: Random House.
[34]	White House Fact Sheet (2002) Status of Detainees at Guantánamo. 7 February 2002. Available from www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/02/20020207-13.html.
[35]	Rhem, K. T. (2003) Tariq Aziz Brings Total of ‘Top 55’ in Custody to 12. American Forces Press Service, 25 April. Available from www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=29056.
[36]	Melia, M. (2008) US acknowledges it held 12 juveniles at Guantánamo. Associated Press, 17 November. Available @ www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hAEfHc4NtIu0v u0My2wjyWMymdTQD94G9CBG1.
[37]	The United States (2005) Second Periodic Report of the USA to the Committee Against Torture, CAT/C/48/Add.3, 29 June 2005. Available from http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G05/425/90/PDF/G0542590.pdf?OpenElement.
[38]	Roth, K. (2003) America’s Guilt: the Prisoners in a Legal Black Hole. Human Rights Watch, 21 November 2003. Available from http://hrw.org/english/docs/2003/11/21/usint12997.htm.
[39]	Amnesty International Reports (2008) Solitary Confinement at Guantánamo Bay. Centre for Constitutional Rights. Available from http://ccrjustice.org/learn-more/faqs/solitary-confinement-Guantánamo-bay#2.
[40]	Smith, C. S. (2007) Bad Men: Guantánamo Bay and the Secret Prisons. Orion press (p. 207).
[41]	Zerrougui, L., Despouy, L., Nowak, M., Jahangir, A. & Hunt, P. (February 2006). The Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health. Doc E/CN.4/2006/120 is available @ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/16-02-06.un.Guantánamo.pdf.
[42]	Golden, T. (2008) Foiling US Plan, Prison Expands in Afghanistan. The New York Times, 7 January. Available from www.nytimes.com/2008/01/07/world/asia/07bagram.html?_r=2 &pagewanted=all&oref=slogin&oref=slogin.
[43]	Begg, M. (2006) Interview with Craig Murray, 9 March 2006. Available @ www.craigmurray. org.uk/archives/2006/03/enemy_combatant.html.
[44]	International Committee of the Red Cross (February 2004). Available from www.globalsecurity. org/military/library/report/2004/icrc_report_iraq_feb2004.html.
[45]	Amnesty International, USA (2008) Guantánamo and beyond: The continuing pursuit of unchecked executive power. Available from www.amnesty.org/en/library/ info/AMR51/063/2005.
[46]	Zagorin, A. (2006) 20th Hijacker’ Claims That Torture Made Him Lie. Time, 3 March. Available from www.time.com/time/nation/article/0, 8599, 1169322, 00.html.
[47]	Choi, S. & Patrick, J. (2016) Why does the U.S. Intervene Abroad? Democracy, Human Rights Violations, and Terrorism. Journal of Conflict Resolution. 60 (5), 899-926 (p. 907).
[48]	Eze, M. C. (2014) The Economics of US Policy of Regime Change in the Less Developed Countries: Saudi Arabia and Libya Compared. International Affairs and Global Strategy. 21, 33-41 (p. 34).
[49]	Eze, M. C. (2013) Struggle for Hegemony and the Economics of Nuclear Proliferation in a Non-Proliferation Regime: The Case of Iran Nuclear Programme. Global Journal of HUMAN SOCIAL SCIENCE. 13 (6), 35-46 (p. 40).
[50]	Klare, M. T. (2004) Blood and Oil: The Dangers and Consequences of America's Growing Dependency on Imported Petroleum. New York, NY: Metropolitan Books.
[51]	Kraemer, T. D. (2006) Addicted to Oil: Strategic Implications of American Oil Policy. Available from http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/pub705.pdf.
[52]	Pilger, J. A. (2002) War In The American Tradition. New Statesman, Oct. 15 (p. 5).
[53]	Flint, C., Adduci, M., Chen, M. & Sang-Hyun, C. (2009) Mapping the Dynamism of the United States’ Geopolitical Code: The Geography of the State of the Union Speeches, 1988-2008. Geopolitics. 14 (4), 604-629.
[54]	Francis, P., LaPin, D. & Rossiasco, P. (2011) Securing Development and Peace in the Niger Delta: A Social and conflict Analysis for Change. Washington DC: Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars.
[55]	Afeno, S. O. (2012) The Boko Haram Uprising and Insecurity in Nigeria: Intelligence Failure or Bad Governance? Conflict Trend. 1, 35-41. Available @ http://www.accord.org.za/downloads /ct/ACCORD-conflict-trends-2012-1.pdf.
[56]	McCulley, T. P. (2013) Nigeria’s commitment to human rights. The Punch, April 25. Available @ www.punching.com.
[57]	Hamzat, B. O. (2013) Islamic approach towards beating menace. In H. T. K. Ishola, M. A. Folorunsho, C. T. Apata & N. O. Junaid - Eko (Eds.) Religion and human abuse, 192 - 204. Lagos: NASRED Publication.
[58]	Nzarga, F. D. (2014) An Analysis of Human Rights Violation by the Nigerian Security Services. Journal of Law, Policy and Globalization. 30, 1-8.
[59]	Serrano, R. & Zacharias, P. (2014) By the Numbers: The Nigerian state’s efforts to counter Boko Haram. In Marc-Antoine Pérouse de Montclos (Ed.) Boko Haram: Islamism, Politics, Security and the State in Nigeria. Leiden: African Studies Centre.
[60]	Zamfir, I. (2016) At a Glance: Human Rights in Nigeria. European Parliamentary Research Service, 2. Available @ http://www.eprs.ep.parl.union.eu.
[61]	The United States (2004) An Act Making Appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2004, and for Other Purposes. Washington: US Government Printing Office.
[62]	Adams, A. D. (2014) Responses by the United States Government to International Human Rights Abuses. A Thesis presented to the Facility of the College of Graduate Studies of Angelo State University in fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree Master of Security Studies.

Cite This Article

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Eze Malachy Chukwuemeka. (2020). International Human Rights Regime as Instrument for Advancing National Interests: The US and Others Since the 20th Century. Advances in Sciences and Humanities, 6(1), 18-29. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ash.20200601.13

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Eze Malachy Chukwuemeka. International Human Rights Regime as Instrument for Advancing National Interests: The US and Others Since the 20th Century. Adv. Sci. Humanit. 2020, 6(1), 18-29. doi: 10.11648/j.ash.20200601.13

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Eze Malachy Chukwuemeka. International Human Rights Regime as Instrument for Advancing National Interests: The US and Others Since the 20th Century. Adv Sci Humanit. 2020;6(1):18-29. doi: 10.11648/j.ash.20200601.13

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ash.20200601.13,
  author = {Eze Malachy Chukwuemeka},
  title = {International Human Rights Regime as Instrument for Advancing National Interests: The US and Others Since the 20th Century},
  journal = {Advances in Sciences and Humanities},
  volume = {6},
  number = {1},
  pages = {18-29},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ash.20200601.13},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ash.20200601.13},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ash.20200601.13},
  abstract = {This paper examines the relationship between international human rights regimes and the pursuit of United Sates national interests in the 21st century. Archival research or literature survey, content analysis, and the realist theory of international human rights were adopted for the inquiry. The core objectives of the paper were to assess US human rights posture; find out if US international defence of human rights and interventions is without bias; and to determine if there is a positive relationship between US pursuit of national interest and US human rights policy. The results of analysis show that US has both internal and external poor human rights posture; and that lack of neutrality on US international campaign. The results further reveal that there is no generally accepted principles of human rights and its institutions; and although the international human rights regime lacks jurisdiction over the US, it has consistently being used to advance US national interests in the international system. Among others, the paper recommends an international conference of sovereignties to harmonise the principles and institutions of international human rights, and for the regime to have jurisdiction over all sovereignties.},
 year = {2020}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - International Human Rights Regime as Instrument for Advancing National Interests: The US and Others Since the 20th Century
AU  - Eze Malachy Chukwuemeka
Y1  - 2020/01/16
PY  - 2020
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ash.20200601.13
DO  - 10.11648/j.ash.20200601.13
T2  - Advances in Sciences and Humanities
JF  - Advances in Sciences and Humanities
JO  - Advances in Sciences and Humanities
SP  - 18
EP  - 29
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2472-0984
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ash.20200601.13
AB  - This paper examines the relationship between international human rights regimes and the pursuit of United Sates national interests in the 21st century. Archival research or literature survey, content analysis, and the realist theory of international human rights were adopted for the inquiry. The core objectives of the paper were to assess US human rights posture; find out if US international defence of human rights and interventions is without bias; and to determine if there is a positive relationship between US pursuit of national interest and US human rights policy. The results of analysis show that US has both internal and external poor human rights posture; and that lack of neutrality on US international campaign. The results further reveal that there is no generally accepted principles of human rights and its institutions; and although the international human rights regime lacks jurisdiction over the US, it has consistently being used to advance US national interests in the international system. Among others, the paper recommends an international conference of sovereignties to harmonise the principles and institutions of international human rights, and for the regime to have jurisdiction over all sovereignties.
VL  - 6
IS  - 1
ER  -

Copy | Download

Author Information

Eze Malachy Chukwuemeka

Department of International Relations, Gregory University, Uturu, Nigeria

Download PDF

Sections

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Eze Malachy Chukwuemeka. (2020). International Human Rights Regime as Instrument for Advancing National Interests: The US and Others Since the 20th Century. Advances in Sciences and Humanities, 6(1), 18-29. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ash.20200601.13

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Eze Malachy Chukwuemeka. International Human Rights Regime as Instrument for Advancing National Interests: The US and Others Since the 20th Century. Adv. Sci. Humanit. 2020, 6(1), 18-29. doi: 10.11648/j.ash.20200601.13

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Eze Malachy Chukwuemeka. International Human Rights Regime as Instrument for Advancing National Interests: The US and Others Since the 20th Century. Adv Sci Humanit. 2020;6(1):18-29. doi: 10.11648/j.ash.20200601.13

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ash.20200601.13,
  author = {Eze Malachy Chukwuemeka},
  title = {International Human Rights Regime as Instrument for Advancing National Interests: The US and Others Since the 20th Century},
  journal = {Advances in Sciences and Humanities},
  volume = {6},
  number = {1},
  pages = {18-29},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ash.20200601.13},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ash.20200601.13},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ash.20200601.13},
  abstract = {This paper examines the relationship between international human rights regimes and the pursuit of United Sates national interests in the 21st century. Archival research or literature survey, content analysis, and the realist theory of international human rights were adopted for the inquiry. The core objectives of the paper were to assess US human rights posture; find out if US international defence of human rights and interventions is without bias; and to determine if there is a positive relationship between US pursuit of national interest and US human rights policy. The results of analysis show that US has both internal and external poor human rights posture; and that lack of neutrality on US international campaign. The results further reveal that there is no generally accepted principles of human rights and its institutions; and although the international human rights regime lacks jurisdiction over the US, it has consistently being used to advance US national interests in the international system. Among others, the paper recommends an international conference of sovereignties to harmonise the principles and institutions of international human rights, and for the regime to have jurisdiction over all sovereignties.},
 year = {2020}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - International Human Rights Regime as Instrument for Advancing National Interests: The US and Others Since the 20th Century
AU  - Eze Malachy Chukwuemeka
Y1  - 2020/01/16
PY  - 2020
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ash.20200601.13
DO  - 10.11648/j.ash.20200601.13
T2  - Advances in Sciences and Humanities
JF  - Advances in Sciences and Humanities
JO  - Advances in Sciences and Humanities
SP  - 18
EP  - 29
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2472-0984
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ash.20200601.13
AB  - This paper examines the relationship between international human rights regimes and the pursuit of United Sates national interests in the 21st century. Archival research or literature survey, content analysis, and the realist theory of international human rights were adopted for the inquiry. The core objectives of the paper were to assess US human rights posture; find out if US international defence of human rights and interventions is without bias; and to determine if there is a positive relationship between US pursuit of national interest and US human rights policy. The results of analysis show that US has both internal and external poor human rights posture; and that lack of neutrality on US international campaign. The results further reveal that there is no generally accepted principles of human rights and its institutions; and although the international human rights regime lacks jurisdiction over the US, it has consistently being used to advance US national interests in the international system. Among others, the paper recommends an international conference of sovereignties to harmonise the principles and institutions of international human rights, and for the regime to have jurisdiction over all sovereignties.
VL  - 6
IS  - 1
ER  -

Copy | Download