Baylis,, Smith and

d Owens: T
The Globa
alization of World Pol itics 6e
Re
evision guiide
an rights
Chapterr 30: Huma

The International Bill off Human R

Rights provides an au
uthoritative list of
inte
erdepende
ent, indivisiible, and u niversal hu
uman rightts, coveringg a wide ra
ange of
botth civil and
d political rights and e
economic, social, and
d cultural rrights. Hum
man
rights, for the
e purposes
s of Interna
ational Relations, me
eans roughhly this set of equal
and
d inalienab
ble univers
sal rights.

The extensivve body of almost

a
uni versally en
ndorsed law
w is the moost importa
ant
con
ntribution of
o the global human rrights regim
me. These norms, inddependentt of any
sup
pervisory mechanism
m
ms, help to empower human rig
ghts advocaates and constrain
c
govvernment action.
a

The global hu
uman rightts regime iss based on
n national implementtation of
inte
ernational norms.

Mu
ultilateral im
mplementa
ation mech anisms fac
cilitate national comppliance, primarily
thrrough mobilizing public scrutinyy that remin
nds states of their obbligations and
a draws
nattional and internation
nal attentio
on to violations.

Strrong multila
ateral proc
cedures are
e a conseq
quence, no
ot a cause,, of good human
rights practicces.

In tthe mid-19
970s, huma
an rights b egan to em
merge from
m its cold w
war slumbe
er as an
acttive concerrn of nation
nal foreign
n policies.

With the end of the cold

d war, morre and morre countries developeed increasingly
rob
bust interna
ational hum
man rights policies.

The post-9/11 world ha

as seen som
me promin
nent setbac
cks. In genneral, thoug
gh, the
pro
ogress of th
he 1980s and
a 1990s has been sustained.

Sta
ates often have more
e resourcess to bring to
t bear tha
an multilateeral actors.. They can

Oxford Universityy Press, 2014.

Baylis,, Smith and

d Owens: T
The Globa
alization of World Pol itics 6e
Re
evision guiide
alsso act unila
aterally, witthout the n
need for a wide-rangi
w
ng consennsus.

ates, howe
ever, are more
m
constrrained by competing
c
foreign poolicy interes
sts and
Sta
mu
uch more liikely to use
e human riights for na
arrow partisan purposses.

GOs, opera
ating both nationally
n
a
and transn
nationally, are
a the thirrd major ty
ype of
NG
acttor in the in
nternationa
al politics o
of human rights.
r

m
po
ower resou
urces of sta
ates, NGOs
s are able to mobilize
e the
Laccking the material
political energies of civil society a
and, by acting with a single-minnded focus on
human rightss, achieve results we ll beyond what
w
one might
m
expeect from the
eir modest
ma
aterial reso
ources.

Especially eff
ffective are
e concerted
d efforts by
y local civil society acctors, trans
snational
GOs, statess, and international o
organizatio
ons to press
sure statess both from
m inside
NG
and
d outside, in a variety
y of venue
es

uman rightss have bee

en construccted internationally in
n a particullar way, co
overing a
Hu
particular ran
nge of reco
ognized rig hts, disting
guished in a particulaar way from
m related
con
ncepts and
d practices
s, with part icular mec
chanisms of
o implemenntation and
d
enfforcement.

These constrructions reflect, like a

all social co
onstruction
ns, a particcular persp
pective
tha
at privileges certain in
nterests an
nd values over
o
others
s.

For all of thesse particularities, tho

ough, mostt states in the
t contem
mporary wo
orld have
com
me to unde
erstand the
eir nationa l interest to
o include the fate of fforeign nattionals
living abroad who are suffering
s
grross and persistent
p
systematic
s
violations of their
human rightss.

Oxford Universityy Press, 2014.