The place of human rights in the foreign policy of Cameron’s conservatives: Sceptics or enthusiasts?
| Author | Matt Beech,Peter Munce |
| Published date | 01 February 2019 |
| Date | 01 February 2019 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/1369148118819066 |
| Subject Matter | Original Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/1369148118819066
The British Journal of Politics and
International Relations
2019, Vol. 21(1) 116 –131
© The Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1369148118819066
journals.sagepub.com/home/bpi
The place of human rights in
the foreign policy of
Cameron’s conservatives:
Sceptics or enthusiasts?
Matt Beech and Peter Munce
Abstract
The purpose of this article is to explain the place of human rights in the foreign policy thinking of
David Cameron’s Conservatives (2005–2016). The article asks three interrelated questions: First,
what role has human rights come to acquire in international political discourse? Second, did the
Conservative Party’s view on the place of human rights result in a change to their approach to
foreign policy on humanitarian intervention? Third, to what extent was there a tension between
increasing scepticism towards the Human Rights Act and the jurisdiction of the European Court
of Human Rights and the Conservative Party’s approach to foreign policy? The authors employ
a mixed methodological approach which combines hermeneutic textual analysis of speeches
from leading Conservatives with semi-structured, elite interview material from four former
Conservative Foreign Secretaries.
Keywords
conservative party, David Cameron, ECHR, foreign policy, human rights, humanitarian
intervention
Introduction
During David Cameron’s tenure as leader of the Conservative Party (2005–2016), a
growing body of academic literature emerged analysing the Conservative approach to
foreign policy. In the literature topics such as the Strategic Defence and Security Review
(SDSR) (Martin, 2011, 2015), Cameron’s European Union (EU) policy (Lynch, 2011,
2012, 2015), the ideational context (Beech, 2011; Dodds and Elden, 2008) and Cameron’s
Conservatives and humanitarian intervention (Beech and Oliver, 2014; Daddow and
Schnapper, 2013; Gaskarth, 2013; Vickers, 2015) have been critically examined. However,
there are gaps within the academic literature particularly on the place of human rights1 in
Conservative foreign policy. The article seeks to address that gap and to explore the
Centre for British Politics, School of Law and Politics, University of Hull, Hull, UK
Corresponding author:
Matt Beech, Centre for British Politics, School of Law and Politics, University of Hull, Hull HU6 7RX, UK.
Email: m.beech@hull.ac.uk
819066BPI0010.1177/1369148118819066The British Journal of Politics and International RelationsBeech and Munce
research-article2019
Original Article
Beech and Munce 117
contested role of human rights in Conservative foreign policy thinking. It will examine
the dilemmas for Conservatives of the growing emphasis attached to human rights in
foreign policy – especially related to humanitarian intervention2 – and within the context
of the difficulties significant sections of the party have with the system of rights adjudica-
tion contained in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
To do so, an interpretive mixed methodological approach is utilised. Bevir et al. (2013:
168) define the interpretive approach as one which:
… concentrates on the beliefs of various policy actors, the meanings of their actions, and,
crucially, explains the beliefs by locating them in historical traditions and as responses to
dilemmas.
In the article, interpretivism includes hermeneutic textual analysis of speeches by
Cameron, former Foreign Secretary William Hague and former Attorney General
Dominic Grieve together with elite semi-structured interview material taken from inter-
views with former Conservative Foreign Secretaries Lord Carrington, Lord Howe of
Aberavon, Lord Hurd of Westwell and Sir Malcolm Rifkind. Requests for interviews
with Sir John Major and Hague were declined. The benefit of the elite interview mate-
rial is that it brings to light previously ungathered data on the topic. Moreover, because
Thatcher and Major’s Foreign Secretaries maintain a broadly similar set of assumptions
about the traditions and ideas informing Conservative foreign policy, the interviews act
as a means to compare and contrast the attitudes of Cameron’s Conservatives on the
role of human rights in a liberal Conservative foreign policy. The interview material
aids the researcher in the task of situating the study of Cameron’s Conservative foreign
policy in an historical context.
The focus of the article is exclusively on the Conservative approach to foreign policy
from 2005 to 2016. In this period, Cameron was Leader of the Opposition; then presided
as primus inter pares over a Conservative–Liberal Democrat Coalition, and after the 2015
general election he led a majority Conservative administration. He resigned in the wake
of the Leave vote in the referendum on the United Kingdom’s continued membership of
the EU. The reason for the sole focus on the Conservative Party is because the Liberal
Democrats had a negligible role in setting British foreign policy during the Coalition.
While the partnership between Cameron and Nick Clegg was possible due to a significant
degree of overlap in their economic and social liberalism, they and their respective parties
were at variance on defence of the realm and foreign policy. It is palpably clear when one
compares the policy statements on defence and foreign affairs in the 2010 Conservative
Party and Liberal Democrat manifestoes (Conservative Party, 2010; Liberal Democrats,
2010). Under the Coalition, the Conservatives dominated the generation of foreign pol-
icy. For example, the Liberal Democrats had 1 out of 10 Ministry of Defence junior min-
isters (Nick Harvey), 1 out of 14 Foreign and Commonwealth Office junior ministers
(Jeremy Browne) and 2 out of 5 Department for International Development junior minis-
ters (Lynne Featherstone and Baroness Northover) (Priddy, 2015).
The article argues that during Cameron’s tenure an observable dichotomy was appar-
ent between a tradition of human rights scepticism at home, in relation to the ECHR and
the jurisdiction of its court, and a developing approach of human rights enthusiasm
abroad. Cameron’s Conservatives were confronted by the reality that globalisation has
led to the internationalisation of foreign policy problems including the dilemma caused
for state actors when another state is responsible for human rights abuses and violations
To continue reading
Request your trial