Human Rights in International Relations

Forsythe, David P.

doi:10.1017/cbo9780511755866

Cited by 206 publications

(57 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…While US ideology favored security rights, it is important to note that the United States experienced a particular, albeit brief, point in history where significant support for subsistence rights existed as well. The Great Depression created a unique atmosphere where the executive and Democratic congressional leadership favored economic rights (Forsythe 2000). Moreover, there was a general agreement among all the participants crafting the UDHR about the inclusion of such rights, even if there were disagreements over fine points.…”

Section: Phase I: Hegemonic Supportmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…3 Notable exceptions include Donnelly (1986Donnelly ( , 2003, Krasner (1982Krasner ( , 1983, Forsythe (2000), and Evans (1996). 4 In this regard, the human rights regime is no different than other international regimes.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The long standing exceptions to the international trade regime with regard to agriculture, provides an example of the former, whereas the steel tariff passed by the United States in 2002 is an example of the later. 5 For example, see Donnelly (2003), Hasenclever et al (1996) and Forsythe (2000). recent abandonment of the regime by the United States and its likely consequences for the future of the regime.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Forsythe (2000) argues that this period represents a regime without hegemonic leadership due to increasing domestic opposition to human rights. We contend that US leadership, though weakened, remained due to its strong ideological bond to human rights, and its continued rhetorical support for many of the values of the regime.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

“The Empire Strikes Back”: The US Assault on the International Human Rights Regime

Harrelson-Stephens

Callaway

2009

Hum Rights Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We argue that the post-9/11 environment has amounted to a substantive change in the longstanding United States relationship with the international human rights regime. We identify three distinct phases of that relationship, noting that in the most recent phase, since 9/11, the United States has moved from passive support of the international human rights regime to a direct attack of that regime. Realist and liberal regime theories suggest that the human rights regime is relatively weak, and is unlikely to withstand such an attack. We find that the regime has not only continued to persist, but has flourished even as US support has faltered. The human rights regime is surprisingly strong. We argue it is the ideological nature of the regime that explains its resilience, which suggests that constructivist theory is necessary to fully understand the human rights regime.

show abstract

Section: Phase I: Hegemonic Supportmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

“The Empire Strikes Back”: The US Assault on the International Human Rights Regime

Harrelson-Stephens

Callaway

2009

Hum Rights Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One definition is that human rights are entitlements of human beings by virtue of their humanity [19]. They are claims that individuals make against states, societies or other human beings, and this means that they cannot be taken away by the state.…”

Section: The Meaning Of Human Rightsmentioning

confidence: 99%