No abstract

It is well established that stable industrialized democracies do not use overt force against each other. But do democracies ever use covert force against other elected governments? This article confirms the US threat or use of forcible covert action against a series of elected non-European governments during the Cold War: Iran (1953), Guatemala (1954), Indonesia (1955), Brazil (1960s), Chile (1973), Nicaragua (1980s). There are other examples of US covert non-forcible action against elected governments. Three types of analysis are offered for this pattern. On the most obvious level, the US acted on the basis of an expansive conception of its perceived security interests, fearing future developments that would work to the advantage of the USSR, even though the US was not faced with clear and present dangers to its territorial integrity and political independence. A deeper unique explanation is that, as Michael Hunt has argued, the US was encouraged in these covert actions by an informal ideology entailing beliefs in US greatness, fears of social revolution, and racism. A deeper theoretical explanation is that the targeted regimes did not qualify as mature liberal regimes showing the characteristics of neo-Kantian liberalism: representative and specialized democracy, democratic alliance, and extensive private commerce. Moreover, the neo-Kantian reliance on representative decision-making to avoid major war did not affect secret decisions involving probabilty of few US deaths.

This new edition of David Forsythe's successful textbook provides an authoritative overview of the place of human rights in international politics in an age of terrorism. The book focuses on four central themes: the resilience of human rights norms, the importance of 'soft' law, the key role of non-governmental organizations, and the changing nature of state sovereignty. Human rights standards are examined according to global, regional, and national levels of analysis with a separate chapter dedicated to transnational corporations. This second edition has been updated to reflect recent events, notably the creation of the ICC and events in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay, and new sections have been added on subjects such as the correlation between world conditions and the fate of universal human rights. Containing chapter-by-chapter guides to further reading and discussion questions, this book will be of interest to undergraduate and graduate students of human rights, and their teachers. David Forsythe received the Distinguished Scholar Award for 2007 from the Human Rights Section of the American Political Science Association.

No abstract

Three approaches to human rights in US foreign policy serve as benchmarks for a general understanding of the subject from a historical perspective. The first is Enlightenment cosmopolitanism, or classical liberalism, featuring a consistent commitment to the international law of human rights and humanitarian affairs. The second is Providential nationalism, or belief in a Divinely blessed Manifest Destiny. The third is structural realism as represented in modern times by Henry Kissinger. This article examines a fourth approach that will be termed muddling through, or inconsistency regarding human rights in foreign policy, practiced by not only the Obama administration from the start, but at the end of the day by all administrations. There remain particular differences among administrations, and while the Obama record has shown a certain continuity with Bush's foreign policy, some differences are evident.