Bait and Switch
Human Rights and U.S. Foreign Policy
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 7348637 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Srini Sitaraman (Clark University, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2005 |
| Volume | 3 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 381-382 |
| Publication date | 2005-06-01 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Perspectives on Politics (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1537-5927 • E-ISSN: 1541-0986 |
| Publisher | Cambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1017/s1537592705490155 |
| OpenAlex | W2170709910 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 4 |
Bait and Switch: Human Rights and U.S. Foreign Policy. By Julie A. Mertus. New York: Routledge, 2004. 320p. $75.00 cloth, $19.95 paper. In her timely book, Julie Mertus argues that the United States is one of the world's leading architects and promoters of international human rights. However, the United States, much like an unscrupulous car dealer, “uses its wealth and influence to mislead other states about its commitment to the human rights framework, appearing as universalist when actually it is applying double-standards” (p. 210). In other words, the United States relies on one set of human rights standards for itself and another set of standards to judge other states. Mertus starts out her project hoping to discover that human rights norms have become “deeply embedded,” “institutionalized,” or “internalized” into the U.S. foreign policy framework. Instead, she finds that both the executive branch and the Defense Department routinely override human rights concerns in favor of instrumental foreign policy gains. This American exceptionalism or exemptionalism of excusing itself from institutions and norms that it establishes and purports to follow has prevented human rights norms from fully embedding themselves into U.S. foreign policy. Mertus points to an inherent ambivalence and structural inability of the United States to actually follow through on its very own human rights goals. She finds some evidence to suggest that it indeed does respect and value human rights, but there is strong counterevidence to suggest that it is not able to actually translate human rights aspirations to meaningful policies
American exceptionalism · Exceptionalism · Foreign policy · Fundamental rights · Human rights · International human rights law · Law and economics · Political science · Politics · Sociology · Global Peace and Security Dynamics · International Law and Human Rights · Law
| Citations per year | 0.2 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2006 - 2018 (13) |
| Highly cited | No |