Human Rights and U.S. Foreign Assistance from Nixon to Carter

Stohl, Michael; Carleton, D; Johnson, Steven

doi:10.1177/002234338402100302

Cited by 72 publications

(50 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A study by Stohl, Carleton, and Johnson (1984) determined that during the Nixon-Ford administrations there was a positive relationship between human rights violations and foreign aid. Expanding the data set to include more countries and time points, we find mixed results.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

United States Human Rights Policy and Foreign Assistance

1999

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study furthers the inquiry into the relationship between human rights and U.S. bilateral foreign aid. We build the most comprehensive data set to date, extending the time period (1976–1995) and enlarging the number of countries under review (140). Rhetoric aside, human rights considerations did play a role in determining whether or not a state received military aid during the Reagan and Bush administrations, but not for the Carter or Clinton administration. With the exception of the Clinton administration, human rights was a determinant factor in the decision to grant economic aid, albeit of secondary importance. To the question “Does a state's human rights record affect the amount of U.S. bilateral aid it receives?” we answer yes for economic aid, but no for military aid. Human rights considerations are neither the only nor the primary consideration in aid allocation.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Earlier studies indicate that there was no significant relationship between human rights performance and U.S. aid during the Carter years (Stohl et al, 1984;Carleton and Stohl, 1985). Carter's good intentions were often undermined by the realities of power politics.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

United States Human Rights Policy and Foreign Assistance

1999

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Stohl, Carleton, and Johnson (1984) found higher U.S. aid flowing to regimes with higher human rights violation during President Nixon's and President Ford's regimes, thus driven more by strategic interest of Washington. Apodaca and Stohl (1999) found U.S. national interest more important factor in determining U.S. aid flow than recipient countries human rights record.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Causes and Incentives for Terrorism in Pakistan

Syed

Saeed

Martin

2015

Journal of Applied Security Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study offers fresh empirical insights into the causes of terrorism inPakistan. The authors present a novel strategy for hypothesis building in conflict studies, and explore the importance of the explanatory variables within the time frame of the analysis. The hypothesized relationships are tested using pooled cross-section time series data from five regions of Pakistan (the federally controlled area and four provinces from 1980 to 2010) using fixed effect negative binomial regression. The results indicate that public education expenditures, law & order expenditures, ethnic diversity, urban population, the presence of domestic military operations, and U.S. military aid to Pakistan all result in increased terrorist activity in Pakistan. This study recommends that ethnic diversity and multilingualism be respected in education in Pakistan, that the educational curriculum be cleansed of systemic incendiary language and bigotry, that law enforcement agencies be freed of political control, and that strategic partnership with the United States be reassessed considering the core long-term interests of Pakistan.

show abstract

“…For example, the 1973 Copenhagen Declaration calling for a unified European external policy emphasized human rights, and the US Congress from 1974 onwards reduced aid to (Latin American) countries with poor human rights records (Stohl, Carleton & Johnson, 1984;Kreutz, 2015). However, the end of the Cold War led to a growing global attention to these issues.…”

Section: A Brief Review Of Rtopmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rising powers and the responsibility to protect: will the norm survive in the age of BRICS?

Laskaris

Kreutz

2015

Global Affairs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

What is the view of the BRICS countries regarding the international community's Responsibility to Protect (RtoP) against civilian atrocities? This paper revisits the debate on international humanitarian action in Libya and Syria 2011-2012; a time with BRICS states as members of the United Nation Security Council. While BRICS countries from the outset had different views on RtoP, the experiences of the Libyan intervention led to a unanimous reluctance to initiate any humanitarian action in Syria. We find, however, that all BRICS except Russia in general are positive to the RtoP concept and are willing to participate in further developments to specify how and when it applies. On the basis of our analysis, we expect that RtoP will continue to be an important feature of international relations but that it primarily will be used against non-state actors and that the behavior of the interveners may be subjected to UNSC scrutiny.2

show abstract

Human Rights and U.S. Foreign Assistance from Nixon to Carter

Cited by 72 publications

References 5 publications

United States Human Rights Policy and Foreign Assistance

United States Human Rights Policy and Foreign Assistance

Causes and Incentives for Terrorism in Pakistan

Rising powers and the responsibility to protect: will the norm survive in the age of BRICS?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About