Human Rights and Foreign Policy
| Date | 01 March 1998 |
| Published date | 01 March 1998 |
| Author | David P. Forsythe |
| DOI | 10.1177/002070209805300106 |
| Subject Matter | Essay |
DAVID
P.
FORSYTHE
Human
rights
and
foreign
policy
In
the
next
millennium
The
1948 Universal
Declaration
of
Human
Rights
was
the
first
inter-
governmental
statement
in
world
history
to
approve
a
set
of
basic
prin-
ciples
on
universal
human
rights.
Since
the
194
0s,
when
Articles
55
and
56
of
the
United
Nations
Charter
required
states
to
co-operate
on
human
rights
matters,
almost
all
states
-
not
just
Western ones
-
have
regularly
reaffirmed the
existence
of
universal
human
rights
without
negative
discrimination
based
on
nationality,
ethnicity,
gender,
race,
creed,
or
colour.
This
reaffirmation
occurred most saliently
in Vienna
at
the 1993
United
Nations
World
Conference
on
Human
Rights.
Regional
developments
have
supplemented
this
global
trend,
most
notably
in
Europe
and
the western
hemisphere,
but
also
in
Africa
and,
to
a
lesser
extent,
the
Arab
world.
The
European
Court
of
Human
Rights
regularly
issues
binding
judgments
on
states.
The
Organization
of
American
States
(OAS)
in
its
1991
Santiago
Declaration
indicated
that
the
presence
or
absence
of
democratic government
in
the
hemi-
sphere
was an
international,
not
a
domestic,
matter.
The
international
David
P.
Forsythe
is
the
CharlesJ.
Mach
Distinguished
Professor
of
Political
Science
at
the
Uni-
versity
of
Nebraska,
Lincoln.
He
is
directing
a
research
project
onforeignpolicy
and
human
rights
for
the
United
Nations
University
(Tokyo).
The
views
in
this
article
are
his
own,
but
hegratefully
acknowledges
the
contributions
of
others
working
on
this
project:
Peter Baehr
(Netherlands),
Sally
Morphet
(United
Kingdom),
Chiyuki
Aoi
and
Yazo
Yokota
(Japan),
Gabor
Kardos
(Hungary),
Sergei
Chugrov
(Russia),
Sanjoy
Baneyjee
(India),
Cristina
Eguizabal
(Costa
Rica),
Tiyanjana
Maluwa
(South
Africa),
and
Zachary Karabell
(Iran).
INTERNATIONAL
JOURNAL
Winter
1997-8
David P. Forsythe
or transnational
law
of
human
rights
is
now
a
well
developed
corpus
of
law,
far
more
concentrated
and
specified
than
in
other
fields
such
as
international
environmental
law.
The
twentieth
century,
however,
is
not
only
a
time
of
increasing
pro-
fessions
of
international
morality
and human
rights;
it
is
also
the
bloodiest
century
in
human
history.
As
the 21st
century
approaches,
a
fundamental
challenge
is
to
reduce
the
enormous
gap
between the
lib-
eral
legal
framework
on
human
rights
that
most
states
have
formally
endorsed and
the
illiberal
reality
that
is
so
evident
from
Algeria
to
Afghanistan, from
Belarus
to
Burma, from
China
to
Croatia.
The
most
important
problem
is
not
that
certain
Asian
states
at
the
1993
Vienna
conference
tried
to
elevate
cultural
relativism
and
national
particular-
ism over
universal
(or
regional)
human
rights. It
is
rather
that
after
the
cold
war
we
are
faced
with
glaring
genocide
and
other
crimes
against
humanity
on
a
massive
scale.
Treaties
to
protect
the
rights
of
women
and
children
are
juxtaposed
to
a
global
industry
in
the
sex
trade.
Treaties
to
outlaw
slavery,
the
slave
trade,
and
slavery-like
practices
are
combined with
daily
press
accounts
of
people
held
in
de
facto
bondage
-
whether
sugar-cane
cutters
in
the
Dominican
Republic,
shirt
makers
in
Guatemala, or child
labourers
in
India and
Pakistan.
Two
1977
pro-
tocols
to the
1949 Geneva
conventions
for victims
of
war
meant
noth-
ing
to
those
who killed
Red
Cross workers
in
Chechnya
or
United
Nations
aid workers
in
Rwanda.
While intergovernmental
organizations
(IGOs)
and
private
transna-
tional
groups
dealing
with human
rights
proliferate,
states
and
their
foreign
policies
remain
key
to progressive
developments.
IGOs,
from
the
United Nations
through
the
OAS
to
the
Organization
for Security
and
Co-operation
in
Europe
(OSCE)
have
extensive
human
rights
pro-
grammes.
Independent
international
officials
in
these
organizations
have
some
influence,
but
it
is
state-members
of
these
IGOs
that
take
the
most
important
decisions
and
that
are,
along
with
non-state
parties,
the
targets
of
reform
efforts.
Likewise,
non-governmental
organiza-
tions
(NGOs)
such
as
Amnesty
International,
Human
Rights
Watch,
and
Physicians
for
Human
Rights
are
highly
active
in
human
rights
matters and
also
wield
some
influence.
But
again,
it
is
states
that
approve treaties
and
their
monitoring
mechanisms,
states
that
(may
or
may
not)
arrest
war
criminals
-
either
singly
or
via
international
orga-
nizations
such
as
the
North
Atlantic
Treaty
Organization
(NATO),
states
that
manipulate
foreign
assistance
in
relation
to
rights.
114
INTERNATIONAL
JOURNAL Winter
1997-8
To continue reading
Request your trial