-1

It is common for the US government to make statements condemning what it considers to be human rights abuses in other countries.

This happens frequently with Russia, China, Iran, etc. But it seems to happen less frequently with India, Israel, Saudi Arabia, etc.

Why is this?

  • 2
    I don't know about India, but the US is very close to Israel and Saudi Arabia, especially Israel. – F1Krazy Nov 28 '19 at 14:39
  • 1
    First, can you give a non-controversial definition of "human rights"? – jamesqf Nov 28 '19 at 18:08
  • The definition for the purposes of this question is when the US issues a condemnation and declares it to be one about human rights. – klojj Nov 28 '19 at 18:09
  • @klojj - I made the question a little bit clearer, but it lacks at least one citation to confirm that indeed US is favoring some countries when it comes to human rights. Otherwise the main close reason can be easily invoked ("The primary purpose of this question appears to be to promote or discredit a specific political cause"). – Alexei Nov 28 '19 at 20:21
7

Is the United States selective in its support of human rights?

Yes.

Why is this?

"India, Israel, Saudi Arabia, etc." is a (non-exhastive) list of US military allies.

"Russia, China, Iran, etc." is a (non-exhastive) list of nations the US views as enemies.

| improve this answer | |
  • 2
    Can you actually supply some data for the first part? I mean, I do think that you're right about the realpolitik of the situation, but something beyond a 'yes' would improve this – user19831 Nov 29 '19 at 13:24
  • 1
    @Displayname It's the pattern of behaviour noted in the question. The title asks "Is this... " and the body asks "This pattern appears..." and "Why" – Caleth Nov 29 '19 at 13:26
  • 1
    The pattern of behaviour is quoted with no sources either... – user19831 Nov 29 '19 at 15:23
0

More to the point, the US doesn't even have domestic human rights law. US law is structured around constitutional rights and civil rights legal theory. The practical difference is that these only apply to citizens whereas human rights apply to all humans, and this allows the US to treat non-US nationals within its borders in ways that would not be legal under European human rights law.

Other examples include the US being the only country not to have ratified the "UN Convention on the Rights of the Child".

| improve this answer | |
  • 3
    This doesn't answer the question – Caleth Nov 28 '19 at 16:39
  • 4
    This is false. Constitutional rights appy to non-US Nationals, short those specifically needing enfranchisement. – Drunk Cynic Nov 28 '19 at 16:40
  • In the technical sense there are procedural rules regarding what a person does and does not have a right to when in US jurisdiction that the EU may not allow, but countries in the EU also have procedural rules that would violate the US Constitution. I'm not really sure how it's relevant anyway. – IllusiveBrian Nov 30 '19 at 14:53

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .