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?

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.

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.

The 1960s marked a transformation of human rights activism in the United States. At a time of increased concern for the rights of their fellow citizens—civil and political rights, as well as the social and economic rights that Great Society programs sought to secure—many Americans saw inconsistencies between domestic and foreign policy and advocated for a new approach. The activism that arose from the upheavals of the 1960s fundamentally altered U.S. foreign policy—yet previous accounts have often overlooked its crucial role. In From Selma to Moscow, Sarah B. Snyder traces the influence of human rights activists and advances a new interpretation of U.S. foreign policy in the “long 1960s.” She shows how transnational connections and social movements spurred American activism that achieved legislation that curbed military and economic assistance to repressive governments, created institutions to monitor human rights around the world, and enshrined human rights in U.S. foreign policy making for years to come. Snyder analyzes how Americans responded to repression in the Soviet Union, racial discrimination in Southern Rhodesia, authoritarianism in South Korea, and coups in Greece and Chile. By highlighting the importance of nonstate and lower-level actors, Snyder shows how this activism established the networks and tactics critical to the institutionalization of human rights. A major work of international and transnational history, From Selma to Moscow reshapes our understanding of the role of human rights activism in transforming U.S. foreign policy in the 1960s and 1970s and highlights timely lessons for those seeking to promote a policy agenda resisted by the White House.