The Promises We Keep: Human Rights, The Helsinki Process, and American Foreign Policy, by William Korey

2020 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
pp. 13-31 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mathias Risse

AbstractIn July 2019, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo launched a Commission on Unalienable Rights, charged with a reexamination of the scope and nature of human rights–based claims. From his statements, it seems that Pompeo hopes the commission will substantiate—by appeal to the U.S. Declaration of Independence and to natural law theory—three key conservative ideas: (1) that there is too much human rights proliferation, and once we get things right, social and economic rights as well as gender emancipation and reproductive rights will no longer register as human rights; (2) that religious liberties should be strengthened under the human rights umbrella; and (3) that the unalienable rights that should guide American foreign policy neither need nor benefit from any international oversight. I aim to show that despite Pompeo's framing, the Declaration of Independence, per se, is of no help with any of this, whereas evoking natural law is only helpful in ways that reveal its own limitations as a foundation for both human rights and foreign policy in our interconnected age.


Worldview ◽  
1977 ◽  
Vol 20 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 42-47 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Petersen Spiro

Human rights is at present a.much discussed issue in American foreign policy. What has not been discussed is the extent to which this represents a major change in American foreign policy. Consider: In 1974 the Secretary of State devoted exactly one sentence to human rights in his speech to the United Nations General Assembly. In 1975 there were four paragraphs of fairly standard rhetoric, apart from the proposal to establish a U.N. study to determine how widely torture was used as an officially sanctioned instrument of government. In addition there was an intimation of change in this sentence: "There is no longer any dispute that international human rights are on the agenda of international diplomacy." Yet there was then no evidence that Secretary Kissinger had changed the approach characterizing his tenure in office; nameiy, that American foreign policy cannot concern itself with the domestic policies of the governments with which it deals, even if they entail gross violations of human rights. We can, he insisted, only use private methods of persuasion and pressure. Foreign policy deals with the foreign policies of governments.


Worldview ◽  
1978 ◽  
Vol 21 (10) ◽  
pp. 12-15
Author(s):  
Leo J. Wollemborg

After almost two years of the Carter administration the commitment to human rights, which represents a key aspect of its policies, has become a topic for much discussion and interest but seems still to be inadequately understood. The main reason for this failure, I feel, is that very few earnest efforts have been made to determine the actual scope and significance of the administration's approach as it emerges from the way it operates and from the way it developed out of the principles of freedom and morality that have inspired the best traditions and beliefs of the American people.Long before Mr. Carter announced his candidacy Richard N. Gardner, our present ambassador to Italy, had become one of his closest advisors on foreign affairs, with special regard to human rights. During recent conversations in Rome, Ambassador Gardner recalled that “an active commitment to the promotion of human rights everywhere in the world is not a novel feature in American foreign policy.


1979 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 3 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patricia M. Derian

1988 ◽  
Vol 66 (4) ◽  
pp. 870
Author(s):  
John C. Campbell ◽  
A. Glenn Mower

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document