Though both Somoza and Sha were criticized by American officials for violating civil and human rights, the fact that the people of Iran and Nicaragua enjoyed the rights accorded to citizens in the Western democracies did not prevent successive administrations from granting both military and economic aid. The Carter administration not only failed to prevent the undesired outcome, it actively collaborated in the replacement of moderate autocrats friendly to American interests with less friendly autocrats of extremist persuasion. The US has failed to make up with the Third world countries specifically in Iran and Nicaragua. On a broader theoretical plane, the case of human rights suggests a significant, if limited and principally heuristic, utility for regime analysis, especially to the extent that international relations is becoming increasingly concerned with specific issues.
These same factors, however, suggest only limited future growth.
This growth can be explained largely by expanding perceptions of moral interdependence and community, increased national commitment, the growing ideological appeal of human rights, and changes in the distributions of international power. There has been a remarkable growth of international action since 1945, when human rights were not even widely accepted as a legitimate issue-area. After laying out a typology of international regimes, eight international and regional human rights regimes are analyzed in order to (1) examine the utility of regime analysis in noneconomic issue-areas, and (2) assess the nature, extent, and evolution of international cooperation on human rights.
0 kommentar(er)
