HUMAN RIGHTS

VIOLATIONS BY

LIBERAL

DEMOCRACIES A constructivist analysis

ABSTRACT This paper analyses why liberal democracies violate

one of the core principles, human rights, of their

liberal foundation. This will be analysed through the

dominant international relation theoretical

frameworks of realism and liberalism. However,

realism and liberalism will not have a sophisticated

explanation why liberal states violate human rights.

Therefore, to get a deeper insight and better

understanding this will analysed with the help of

constructivism. Constructivism takes into account

several different social factors that can help to

explain certain state behaviours. The present paper

will use the method of torture after the September

11 attacks by the United States in the context of

constructivism to highlight the behaviour of human

rights violations by liberal democracies.

Dahra M. Rezazadeh POLS7250 – Advance International Relations

Human rights violations by liberal democracies – A constructivist analysis

Page | 1

Introduction – Universal Human Rights Everywhere?

The frequently assumed connection between liberal democracies and human rights is likely

to outset sceptical voices, especially as not all sovereign states are liberal democracies. But

have not the states in the Declaration of the Vienna Conference on Human Rights in June

1993 - to name just one example - committed without any consideration for their respective

political, economic and cultural order to promote and protect all human rights and

fundamental freedoms (Forsythe 2012: 60)? Are human rights not already the standards of

the "world civilization"? Are they not the lingua franca of the great common denominator of

world society? Thus, the following proposition is obvious: if human rights were recognized

as universal principles of order and realised this could be considered as evidence for the

existence of a single world civilization – where the individuals, the citizens of the world,

instead of the states being the important factor. Is this actually so?

Following the national norms in the American Declaration of Independence and of the

French Declaration of Human and civil rights, as well as equivalent variations in some

national constitutions of other sovereign states in the 19th century, human rights were

contractually codified, initially after the first world war and strengthened after the Second

World War in a comprehensive system of norms with an universal validity claim, and that -

based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 - especially in the two

International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and on Economic, Social and

Cultural Rights (ICESCR) in 1966 (Vincent 1986: 44-45). These diverse norms have a "core

content", namely the basic categories of freedom, equality and participation or solidarity.

Starting from the assumption of generally accepted values, humans are given legal rights in

contrast to the state in international agreements. Human rights are ultimately directly

applied to an individual.

As for the realisation of human rights considered as a whole, the empirical evidence shows

that from the 1980s, the number of countries with systematic and gross human rights

violations had increased; it went back slightly at the end of the 1980s and increased

continuously since 1990 and even after the September 11 attacks human rights seemed to

have deteriorated, with human rights violations not only committed by non-state actors and

repressive governments, but also by champions of human rights, such as the USA, Australia

and the United Kingdom, sacrificing rights for security (Forsythe 2012: 205-31). The annual

Human rights violations by liberal democracies – A constructivist analysis

Page | 2

report by Amnesty International in 2013, which monitors human rights violations in 159

countries, highlighted that only in a minority of countries are human rights respected

(International 2013). Furthermore, even influential nation states with a “clear record”

overlook or excuse human rights violations by other (allied) states. Leading to the question

of “why sovereign states neglect, violate or deny human rights”? What explanation can be

given for such behaviour?

The present paper will critically discuss the discourse of human rights in international

relations theory. Firstly, state sovereignty will be discussed to understand how human rights

are compatible with the construct of sovereignty. Secondly, the dominant theories of

international relations, namely realism and liberalism, in the context of human rights will be

discussed and analysed, arguing that both theories cannot generate a sophisticated

understanding of state behaviour in regards of human rights violation. Lastly, this leads to

the discussion of human rights in the framework of constructivism, which provides an

alternative and deeper insight on state behaviour in an anarchical world in regards of

human rights. This approach will be discussed and then analysed in terms of human rights,

followed by providing the example of the use of torture methods after the September 11

attacks by the United States. This will be analysed and explained in the constructivist

framework, and will highlight that certain other features (that constructivism puts emphasis

on) play a crucial role in the explanation of state actions and behaviour.

Human Rights in International Relations

State Sovereignty

The subject matter in the mainstream study of International Relations is the world of

sovereign states. In International Relations states are treated as rational actors with the

intention of the maximisation of their power and security. This is regarded in International

Relations discipline as the state of anarchy. Anarchy in this context is signified as a world

without an international government which has the power and authority over all nation

states in the world (Dunne & Hanson 2009: 43). This illustration of the issues of anarchy was

illustrated in Thomas Hobbes’s (1651) book Leviathan. He argued that it was necessary to

Human rights violations by liberal democracies – A constructivist analysis

Page | 3

create a sovereign state to achieve domestic political order. This creation is an agreement

between the government and the people. The former providing security to the latter, while

the latter give up their power to the will of the sovereign. However, no such sovereign exists

on the international stage (Hobbes 1651: 111-17). This Hobbesian world view is a constant

reminder of the boundaries to cooperation as states are in constant preparation for war to

secure their survival in a decentralised world system (Devetak 2007: 126; Donnelly 2000: 13-

14, 81-82; Dunne & Hanson 2009: 43; Steans et al. 2005: 56). Furthermore, states have

exclusive control over their territory without any interference of an outside or superior

powers (Devetak 2007: 126; Jackson 1990: 51). Thus, another reason why there is no global

government to watch over states. Therefore, in the decentralized world of states, in which

the ‘anarchical state community’ itself has no imposed legal agreement, states are the

creators and bearers of human rights norms. Theoretically, as states have agreed on these

norms, respecting and implementing human rights becomes their affair, as it is their

sovereign right. States on this view, have many moral obligations to their citizens, “but none

of their rights over their own citizens or against other states are human rights and all their

rights are conventional; they are also vastly important, but they are important because well-

observed conventions are important in international relations” (Ryan 2004: 34).

It was assumed that after the framing of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that

there would be no necessary tensions “between the principles of sovereignty and non-

intervention and respect for universal human rights” (Dunne & Wheeler 1999: 1). This was

regarded a historic development in the norms of international society, as from the 17th

century onwards domestic politics of how a government treated its populace were regarded

as a matter entirely within the authority of that sovereign state and not a concern of the

international community (Dunne & Wheeler 1999: 1; Kielsgrad 2013: 46-47).

It can be argued that human rights and state sovereignty are compatible. However, as

discussed, how human rights are respected is completely up to the sovereign. Treaties and

agreements, which have been signed voluntary by the state, can to one degree or another

“violate Westphalian principles by undermining the autonomy of the state,” resulting

external actors having minor influence on domestic institutions (Krasner 1999: 30). A case

example of a multilateral institution violating Westphalian sovereignty is the European

human rights regime. Individuals within the territories of signatory states can bring cases

Human rights violations by liberal democracies – A constructivist analysis

Page | 4

against other states, including their own government, in the European Court of Human

Rights, whose decisions are binding on national judiciaries. However, the rulings could be

ignored by the state (Krasner 1999: 30).

Realism / Realpolitik

In the realist world international politics is seen as a constant struggle for survival in an

environment of Hobbes’ described anarchy, which is seen as the major problem in

international relations. Faced with the Hobbesian world of potential and real enemies, and

no higher authority to turn to for protection, a concern for power must override just about

everything. Acting otherwise, like acting out of compassion, would leave one’s state

vulnerable (Donnelly 2003: 155, 2013: 29; Steans et al. 2005: 49). Therefore, foreign policy is

all about the “[national] interest defined in terms of power” (Morgenthau 1954: 156).

Human rights as an intrinsic concern in foreign policy, as in contrast “to using human rights

instrumentally to further the national interest, would be a dangerous mistake” (Donnelly

2003: 156). This (and Hobbes’s) worldview make it seem clear that human rights have no

place in world politics. In a realist world rules are constantly broken and agreements are

held up as long as it benefits the contracting states (Donnelly 2000: 197; Dunne & Hanson

2009: 43; Midgley 1999: 171-72). As Hobbes stated, “Covenants, without the sword, are but

words, and of no strength to secure a man at all” (Hobbes 1651: 94). In other words, if a

treaty is not being implemented by force, it is useless to the security of the populace.

Contemporary realists regard human rights as largely unfortunate and as a disturbance, or

just as mere talk into the actual material of international relations – interstate power

calculations (Dunne & Hanson 2009: 43; Forsythe 2012: 61; Steans et al. 2005: 68). It is

understood that human rights are part of the rhetoric of today’s international relations;

“After all no state leader openly challenges the principles underpinning the human rights

regime” (Dunne & Hanson 2009: 43). Therefore, the realist contention is when action is

required, human rights are the last on the list of national policy achievements (Dunne &

Hanson 2009: 43; Forsythe 2012: 62; Morgenthau 1979: 6-7). This helps to explain the

occurrence of double standards in foreign policy of states, who pay lip service to the cause

and protection of human rights, while on the other hand tolerating and sometimes even

Human rights violations by liberal democracies – A constructivist analysis

Page | 5

violating these principles at the same time in pursuit of other goals. In other words, why

would a rational state pursue human rights as a goal, if the promotion of it are not in the

state’s national interest?

There are three significant reasons why realists view human rights sceptically. Firstly, the

condition of international anarchy, secondly, the pursuit of national interest of security and

economic welfare (Falk 1999: 177; Forsythe 2012: 62; Steans et al. 2005: 68) and thirdly, the

“ethical objection to the assumption of a universal morality that is in many ways the

bedrock of the existing human rights regime” (Dunne & Hanson 2009: 44). Realist’s morals

stop at their states territorial borders, everyone else beyond that line is regarded as a

potential threat. Therefore, realist argue that the exhortation to follow universal moral

principles, such as human rights, is only an instrument to conceal the national interest of the

respective state and to weaken any adversaries, and universal moral principles cannot be

applied to the actions of states (Donnelly 2013: 29; Dunne & Hanson 2009: 44; Steans et al.

2005: 65). The majority of powerful countries in the history of international relations have

articulated universal claims and mostly it came to no surprise that it benefited the dominant

power. The linkage of universal morality and national interested was evident in the

justification of promotion and spread of democracy in Iraq and Middle East in US foreign

policy in recent times (Dunne & Hanson 2009: 44; Hancock 2007). Outside the western

political sphere it is often complained that human rights are an instrument exerted by the

powerful to achieve economic goals or even change a country’s governance. This has also

been seen by some as a revival of an old fashioned Imperialist approach, such as the

doctrine of R2P or the Iraq invasion in 2003, as they have the following features of military

intervention (by powerful industrialised states or coalitions) with independent, national,

economic, and strategic objectives and the resultant removing domestic control – basically

undermining state sovereignty (Dunne & Hanson 2009: 72; Hurrell 1999: 291; Kielsgrad

2013: 44).

Liberalism

Historically liberalism is the main contestant to realism in international relations. Liberalism

evolved simultaneously with the Age of Enlightenment as a political counter-movement to

Human rights violations by liberal democracies – A constructivist analysis

Page | 6

the absolutism of the 17th and 18th centuries in the western world. Liberalism almost

completely dominated the political scene in England and the U.S. during the 18th and 19th

century. The evolutionary idea goes back to classical antiquity and in the political doctrine of

the English Whigs of modern society in the late 17th and 18th centuries. They formulated

the model of political institutions of governments with a representative democracy and the

rule of law, guaranteeing personal freedom and rights that the public authorities must

respect (Forsythe 2012: 3; Richardson 2007: 43-45; Steans et al. 2005: 21; Vincent 1986: 23-

32).

Different strains of liberalism exist, but the core ideas are that “individual persons have

basic rights to free speech, fair treatment in terms of judicial process, and political equality

enshrined in a political constitution (Dunne & Hanson 2009: 44). Liberalism is an all-

embracing ideology. It has something to say about all aspects of the human life. It is a

philosophy based on a belief in the ultimate value of individual liberty and the possibility of

human progress. Liberalism speaks the language rationality, moral autonomy, democracy,

opportunity and choice, human rights, and is founded upon the commitment to principles of

liberty and equality, justified in the name of individuality and rationality (Richardson 2007:

43-44; Steans et al. 2005: 24-25). One of Liberalism’s main points is that “individual liberty is

of supreme importance” (Steans et al. 2005: 24).

While realism looks to Hobbes to rationalise the promotion of national self-interest, liberals

look to Immanuel Kant. In 1795 Kant’s essay Perpetual Peace he created the theory of

international relations where all individuals have the same rights, in which “a violation of

right in one part of the world is felt all over it” (Kant 1917: 142). Over the time since the Age

of Enlightenment and onwards moral universalism has set itself into the practice of

international relations. During this time “states have made significant advances in terms of

meeting universal principles central to liberalism” (Dunne & Hanson 2009: 44). Over time

western nations have implemented the rights of citizens in their legal constitutions, ended

the slave economy and the institution of slavery, arranged improved labour safety

conditions and advanced international humanitarianism by establishing laws of war such as

the Hague Convention. However, before the second World War human rights were not a

subject of international relations, but the majority of these rights and advances before that

time have been codified in the United Nations system after 1945 (Donnelly 1999: 71-73).

Human rights violations by liberal democracies – A constructivist analysis

Page | 7

Contemporary liberals have realised that the embedding of universal moral principles are

challenging in today’s international relations, because of a divided international arena of

separate sovereign states. This problem has created two types of reactions. The first is the

attempt to expand the ‘liberal zone’, to increase liberal democratic state and reduce

authoritarian states, thereby allowing the implementation of human rights (and other liberal

norms/ universal moral principles) to spread efficiently (Hoffmann 1995: 160), and second is

the strengthening of international liberal institutions “in the expectation that they can alter

the incentives of member states in ways that enhance respect for human rights and dignity”

(Dunne & Hanson 2009: 44).

Analysis of Human Rights in Realism and Liberalism

The question of why states neglect or violate human rights could easily be answered with

the help of the theoretical framework of realism to explain states behaviour. The prime

example for a realist behaviour was during the time of the Cold War era and the post 9/11

in era, as states such as the (hegemon) USA tolerated human rights violations by its allies

and violated some itself, particularly in South America and the Middle East (Dunne &

Hanson 2009: 46-50; Neier 2012). Realism can easily dismiss this as the US acting in its own

national interest to achieve its goals of maximising their power. However, this does not

provide a sophisticated explanation of the fact why the actions of democratic states built on

the fundamental principles of liberalism, such as the USA and the majority of the Western

states, violated human rights?

States acting in such matter often invoke “human rights as rhetorical justification for [their]

actions” (Mertus 2010: 25). Since states think well of themselves, “many states’ policies on

human rights reflect the conviction that the state has some virtuous point to teach others”

(Forsythe 2012: 205). The spreading of a ‘superior’ civilisation’s features of freedom and

rule of law was accompanied by various atrocities. The justification of the Iraq invasion of

2003 was to spread democracy and human rights. At the same time, the efforts to do so

were “compromised by some of the actions undertaken in its name”, such as the atrocities

committed by US forces at Abu Ghraib prison and stripping prisoners of their rights at

Guantanamo Bay prison (Kober 2006: 69). Abandoning “the due process under the rule of

law and by violating human rights” of the prisoners for the sake of human rights, liberal

Human rights violations by liberal democracies – A constructivist analysis

Page | 8

democracies “betray the very values and principles which are the foundation of the

democracies [they] defend” (Wilkinson 2011: 77).

On the other hand there are many cases of rhetoric to be active on human rights and

democracy, but this does not always assure action nor does it mean that the public and

elites of countries are willing to incur costs to protect the rights of others (Forsythe 2012:

209; Mertus 2010: 122). Also elites tend to selectively chose to remind or pressure countries

with a bad human rights record. As the ‘Arab Spring’ or ‘Arabic Awaking’ in early 2011

highlighted. Protesters throughout the Middle East were demanding human rights,

democracy, and better economic opportunities, resulting that the repressive regimes of the

countries cracked down on the protesters. The US (and some European democracies)

selectively aligned with democratic change in place such as Tunisia, belatedly Egypt and

Yemen1, but not so clearly in Bahrain, where security forces sent in from Saudi Arabia (also a

major US ally) were cracking down on protesters (Forsythe 2012: 211; Kirkup 2011). Also,

the US in 2011 disregarded Chinese human rights violations in favour of economic

opportunities (Ramzy 2011; Spencer 2009). Therefore, wondering “whether Americans [and

other states] are really committed to universal human rights” (Breen 2004: 65). It is hard if

not impossible, to have success in regards of the implementation and respect for universal

rights “if leading Western democracies are seen to violate their own proclaimed norms of

protection of human rights and the rule of law” (Wilkinson 2011: 210).

While the dominant international relations theories do not deny the existence of human

rights, both realism and liberalism view the role and advancement of human rights in world

politics fundamentally differently. Followers of the former disregard human rights as mere

talk and prioritises national interest over everything in a decentralised world of sovereign

states, while the latter see human rights as central in international relations. However, both

realism and liberalism fail “to fully investigate interests as they infer interests as being

already assumed and specified before analysis begins” (Jarvis 2013: 220). Additionally,

mainstream international relations thought are unable to explain the transformative nature

1 Both countries are major US allies in the Middle Eastern Region, where the facilitation of authoritarian rule in both countries was ignored by major liberal countries and human rights were non-existent Forsythe, David. 2004. "US Foreign Policy and Human Rights in an Era of Insecurity." In Wars on Terrorism and Iraq: Human Rights, Unilateralism, and US Foreign Policy, eds. Thomas G Weiss, Margaret E Crahan and John Goering. , Hancock, Jan. 2007. Human Rights and US Foreign Policy. London: Taylor and Francis..

Human rights violations by liberal democracies – A constructivist analysis

Page | 9

of the international system and the changes that happen over the time (Finnemore 1996: 3;

Jarvis 2013: 220). Henceforth, analysing the issue alternatively in terms of the constructivist

approach highlights “the role of international norms make[ing] it possible to analyse state

interests and motivations and their change over time” with a better insight (Jarvis 2013:

220).

Constructivism

Constructivism offers an alternative “way of thinking about the relationship between norms

and interests” in international relation theory (Dunne & Hanson 2009: 44). Constructivism is

not a theory per se (Zehfuss 2002: 8), regarded as necessarily postmodern and anti-positivist

(Hopf 1998: 171) it is understood as a mere a framework or a meta-theory and widens the

scope of inquiry in international relations “by including actors [(including non-state actors)]

and factors generally not considered in the discipline’s dominant theoretical strands of

realism and liberalism” (Weber 2007: 98). Anarchy in constructivism is not an unavoidable

feature of international reality, it is “what states make of it” (Wendt 1999: 241).

Constructivism argues that the way international politics is conducted is (socially) created,

not prearranged / rational, because identities and interests are constructed and supported

by inter-subjective practice. A central core assumption of the constructivist approach is that

social structures and actors constitute each other by providing social identity and / or open

or restrict the opportunities for action. The material world is not completely negated,

however, it is believed that it can only be mediated and covered by social construction.

A further approach revolves around identity, which is interpreted as more basic than

interests. The ontological perspective of constructivism hold that actors other than states

matter in international relations, and the actions by actors is significantly influenced by who

they are, how their perception is received by themselves and others, and their environment.

Thereby social reality is a creation. Thus, the way international relations is conducted is

socially constructed rather than trans-historically given and can be reshaped (Hopf 1998:

172-73; Weber 2007: 96-97; Zehfuss 2002: 12). For example, a state can have many

identities “linked to institutional roles”, such as “‘sovereign’, ‘leader of the free world,’

‘imperial power,” et cetera (Wendt 1992: 398).

Human rights violations by liberal democracies – A constructivist analysis

Page | 10

Therefore, behaviour is influenced by inter-subjective rather than material structures. It is

based on collective meanings through which actors acquire identities, that is, “relatively

stable, role-specific understandings and expectations about self” (Wendt 1992: 397).

Identities provide the basis for interests which are defined in the process of conceptualising

situations (Wendt 1992: 398; Zehfuss 2002: 14). In relations to the security environment,

structuralism focuses on collective identity formation (Zehfuss 2002: 14). Collective Identity

refers to positive identification such that the other cognitively becomes a part of the self

and its welfare is of concern. Actors who have such a collective identity define their

interests on a higher level of aggregation, based on feelings of solidarity, community and

loyalty (Zehfuss 2002: 15). The point is that cooperation may change actors’ identities,

rather than just their payoff structures, and hence the prevailing security environment.

Identity is a key to structuralist approach (Zehfuss 2002: 15).

Constructivism assumes that social action can, reproduce or alter social structures. These

actions are motivated by certain norms and values that are needed to distil it. One example

are human rights organisations, they influence other actors in international relations, such

as states, by its activities and campaigns.

Human rights in constructivism

Contrasting realism and liberalism, the constructive argument is that there is no necessary

tension between moral values with the protection and advancement of human rights and

the interests of sovereign state. The significant theoretical point in constructivism concerns

“the constitutive nature of international political reality, specifically how states create - and

are created by - shared norms and values” (Dunne & Hanson 2009: 44). State behaviour in

regards of human rights violations has to be understood according to this dynamic.

As mentioned above, constructivists believe interests will be created by identities. Identities

will distinguish between the self and the other. The advancement of human rights in

international relations can be understood as the existence for the need to distinguish values

between states in the international political arena. Wendt stated the following in that

regards “This seem[ed] to [happened after the end of the Cold War] in the United States

and [Russia]: without the cold war’s mutual attribution of threat and hostility to define their

identities, these states seem unsure of what their “interest” would be” (Wendt 1992: 399).

Human rights violations by liberal democracies – A constructivist analysis

Page | 11

Similar to that, the United States and its allies, who are the defenders of human rights will

be looking for another powerful adversary, with different values, such as China. Without the

human rights regime or norms the US and its western allies, and China would have no

reason to compete each other.

Constructivism is also able to describe the different policies and rhetoric of liberal

democracies towards other repressive countries in the context of human rights violations.

The constructive argument is that states can have a variety of identities. As has been argued

that “the commitment to and the salience of particular identities vary, but each identity is

an inherently social definition of the actor grounded in theories which actors collectively

hold about themselves and one another which constitute the structure of social world

(Wendt 1992: 398).” Meaning that the interest of human rights of a state or socially

constructed coalition cannot be separated with the context of balance of power, hegemony,

or anarchy. For example, Germany a liberal democracy and a leading state in human rights

placed their economic interests above human rights norms, by a policy shift of reversing a

ban on exportation of heavy weaponry to the regime of Saudi Arabia, which is ranked one of

the lowest in regards of human rights (Stark 2011).2

Analysis

This section will highlight the strengths of using constructivist analysis in order to explain

the motivations behind a state actor’s behaviour in regards of human rights violations. The

normative approach an assessment can be made of the importance of actor’s engagement

with inter-subjective norms (Reus-Smit 2008: 406). Human rights violations by illiberal states

from a realist and a liberals perspective seems straightforwardly explained. The former

would argue it tends to such a behaviour to secure the survival of the state by any means

and the latter basically because it is not a liberal democracy, therefore the state is unable to

comprehend the liberal values of human rights. However, in regards of human rights

violations from liberal democracies themselves, liberalism lacks the comprehensible

2 At the time of the writing of the present paper the German federal government has not approved the sale of the weaponry yet, a deal that would have brought $25 billion dollar into the German arms economy Breidthardt, Annnika. 2014. German tank sale to Saudi Arabia likely to be cancelled: newspaper. Reuters. Retrieved 22/06/2014, from http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/13/us-germany-saudi-arms-idUSBREA3C07E20140413.

Human rights violations by liberal democracies – A constructivist analysis

Page | 12

explanation, as it is assumed that liberalism would not violate its own core features, but as it

is known, to take the example of torture, an inhumane treatment, is still practiced by liberal

states (Lukes 2005; Schiemann 2012).

Torture has been banned under the United Nations Convention against torture, as of June

2014 the convention has 155 states and 81 states have ratified it (United Nations 2014).

The Unites States is one the states who ratified this convention, but made extensive use of

interrogational torture in it intelligence gathering in the post 9-11 era (Schiemann 2012: 3).

Constructivism can assist in the explanatory aspect in why a liberal democracy like the

United States violate its own laws (18 US Code § 2340; US Const. Amend. VIII) in regards of

torture. The critical important factor in the understanding behind such behaviour in the

context of constructivism is related to the identity of the leader(s) of the state and the world

around them. This brings the question, how did the then US government perceive “and

define the identity of the United States, its friends and enemies, and the environment in

which they interacted” in the months after the September 11 attacks (Schonberg 2006: 7.)?

The administration already had a clear vision of the identity and motivations of the

perpetrators and the US in relations to them, shortly after the attacks: “America was

targeted for attack because we're the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the

world. And no one will keep that light from shining”, followed by “America and our friends

and allies join with all those who want peace and security in the world” (Bush 2001a). The

following weeks the administration “elaborated on this understanding of the identity of the

terrorists, the United States, and the rest of the world” (Schonberg 2006: 8). The attackers

were described in terms that emphasised a crude ideology, unlimited political objectives,

and ruthless hostility entrenched in an opposing conflict between values systems. The

attackers were “enemies of freedom,” practicing a “fringe form of Islamic extremism,”

commanded to kill Christians, Jews, and “to kill all Americans and make no distinctions

among military and civilians, including women and children” (Bush 2001b). This precise

resentment to the United States developed from views of the “American social and political

system and the American ‘way of life’ rather than the U.S. world role” (Schonberg 2006).

Further arguing that they hated democracy, the US’s freedoms, and liberal concepts of

freedom of religion, freedom of speech, et cetera (Bush 2001b).

Human rights violations by liberal democracies – A constructivist analysis

Page | 13

The administration viewed and explained this as the fight of the civilised world, who believe

in progress, pluralism, tolerance and freedom. Further stating that countries have to choose

a side and cannot be neutral, anyone on the opposing side would be considered an enemy

of the US. The administration would go on and describe the enemy, “who had previously

been described as evil and implacable, seemed “mad,” maniacal--as utterly irrational,

indiscriminate, and unavoidable as an unseen, ticking bomb” (Schonberg 2006: 9). The US

president summoned all states to “eliminate the terrorist parasites ” (Shabi 2003). They

were no longer simply evil; they had become inhuman (Schonberg 2006).

In sum, the President of the United States socially constructed with his beliefs the idea of a

simplistic world of black and white, good versus evil, us against them, freedom opposing

oppression. Identifying their side as the defender of the freedom of humanity and everyone

on the ‘wrong’ side of the scale as inhuman.3 If constructivism perspective is correct, the

identity factor of dehumanising the “other” plays a crucial role in why human rights are

violated by liberal states, particularly by states who are regarded as champions of human

rights. This division denies the dehumanised “their place in the human community,” laying

the foundation for justifying inhumane treatment (Kliman & Llerena-Quinn 2002: 11; Skitka

& Mullen 2002) of torture, which leads to the abuse of the “other’s” human rights.

This identity and value factors of ‘defender of liberties’ and dehumanisation can also be

observed in other liberal democracies, such as the unlawful killing of civilian Palestinians by

the Israeli Defence Force (Wadi 2013; Human Rights Watch 2014) or Australian actions

against refugees coming by boat to Australia (Peatling 2013; Rezaee 2014). Furthermore, in

all cases it was consistently depicted as an environment of profound and immediate threat

to their sovereign borders and national interests (Crock 2010; Schonberg 2006: 17), further

justifying their actions.

These successful assertions of this vision was necessary to create the political environment

that allows states act in that matter. Articulating the realist paradigm that these behaviours

have been done in the matter of national interests of the respective countries is insufficient

3 As it is known the United States administration from 2001 went on to create the perception of a linkage between terrorist organisation and state actors. However, due to the sake of the length of the paper, the focus will directed to the dehumanising aspect of the adversaries of the United States.

Human rights violations by liberal democracies – A constructivist analysis

Page | 14

“because it leaves undefined the identity of [states] and [their] relationship[s] with other

actors in the international system, and thus the underlying assumptions that animate [the]

conception of interest” (Schonberg 2006: 19). The realist argument that states will pursue

their national interest in the context of power and security does not consider the

subjectivity of the national interest and the role of elites and their ideas and values in

shaping it.

The constructivist approach “appears to offer the means to fill that void”, by its suggestion

that it’s the state’s ideology and identity that provide the academic context within which the

discourse of human rights violation occurred (Jarvis 2013: 214; Schonberg 2006: 19).

Conclusion

In conclusion, the liberal aspect of human rights is an import feature of contemporary

politics. However, states today still violate human rights, but these states are more or likely

to be of authoritarian nature. Moreover, liberal democracies also violate human rights.

Which raised the question why sovereign liberal democracies would violate one of the

fundamental features of liberalism, the foundation their nations were built on. The present

paper tried to answer the question with the help of the main stream international relations

theoretical framework of realism and liberalism. Human rights is compatible in both the

realist framework of absolute sovereignty, power struggle and actions of self-interest for

survival and the liberal framework of representative sovereignty, cooperation and moral

universalism. Essentially both theories view human rights differently. While liberalism views

it as a fundamental part of its structure, realism dismisses it as an unnecessary factor that

could jeopardise a state’s survival if focused on. However, neither theories have a

sophisticated explanation of the nature of human rights violations by liberal democracies.

Therefore, the present paper sought an alternative explanation in the meta-theoretical

framework of constructivism.

Constructivism is a discipline in international relations that claims that the international

system had been socially constructed by the interest, identities and values of the sovereign

states, rather than by inevitable consequences of human nature or other aspects of world

politics. The present paper analysed the language, values, and identity of the United States

leadership in the time shortly after the September 11 attacks, to explain the justification of

Human rights violations by liberal democracies – A constructivist analysis

Page | 15

the use of torture, which is banned by international law. It was analysed that the leadership

socially constructed a world of good versus evil, overtime dehumanising the ‘evil’ side,

thereby socially taking away their human rights as their not seen as humans. This in the

context of constructivism asserts that liberal democracies viewed themselves as not

violating or neglecting human rights of anyone as the side whom individual human rights

were violated were considered inhuman.

Constructivism clearly demonstrates that there is more to a state’s behaviour than what the

main theories realism and liberalism are asserting. The paper is not saying that realism and

liberalism have an irrelevant role in international relations arena, but constructivism can

highlight a deeper insight and explanation of the actions of a state. Constructivism can assist

in a better understanding of state’s behaviour that the dominant theories have no

sophisticated explanation for.

Human rights violations by liberal democracies – A constructivist analysis

Page | 16

Bibliography

Primary Sources

Breidthardt, Annnika. 2014. German tank sale to Saudi Arabia likely to be cancelled: newspaper. Reuters. Retrieved 22/06/2014, from http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/13/us-germany-saudi-arms-idUSBREA3C07E20140413

Bush, George W. 2001a. President's Adress: 'Today...our very freedom came under attack'. The Boston Globe. Retrieved 19/06/2014, from http://www.boston.com/news/packages/underattack/globe_stories/0912/_Today_our_very_freedom_came_under_attack_+.shtml

Bush, George W. 2001b. Text: President Bush Addresses the Nation. The Washington Post. Retrieved 19/06/2014, from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/specials/attacked/transcripts/bushaddress_092001.html

Kirkup, James. 2011. Saudi troops sent to crush Bahrain protests 'had British training'. The Telegraph. Retrieved 10/06/2014, from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/saudiarabia/8536037/Saudi-troops-sent-to-crush-Bahrain-protests-had-British-training.html

Ramzy, Austin. 2011. Hillary Clinton Blasts China's Human Rights Record. Time Magazine. Retrieved 19/06/2014, from http://world.time.com/2011/05/11/hillary-clinton-blasts-chinas-human-rights-record/

Shabi, Rachel. 2003. 'I'm not going to respond to terrorism by becoming a terrorist'. The Guardian. Retrieved 19/06/2014, from http://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2003/feb/22/weekend7.weekend2

Spencer, Richard. 2009. Hillary Clinton: Chinese human rights secondary to economic survival The Telegraph. Retrieved 17/06/2014, from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/4735087/Hillary-Clinton-Chinese-human-rights-secondary-to-economic-survival.html

Stark, Holger. 2011. The Merkel Doctrine: Tank Exports to Saudi Arabia Signal German Policy Shift. Der Spiegel. Retrieved 20/06/2014, from http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/the-merkel-doctrine-tank-exports-to-saudi-arabian-signal-german-policy-shift-a-791380.html

United Nations. 2014. Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Retrieved 20/06/2014, from https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-9&chapter=4&lang=en#12

Human rights violations by liberal democracies – A constructivist analysis

Page | 17

Secondary Sources

Amnesty International. 2013. Amnest International Report 2013: The State of this World's Human Rights. London: Amnesty International.

Breen, T H. 2004. "An Appeal to Heaven: The language of Rights on the Eve of American Independence." In The Future of Liberal Democracy: Thomas Jefferson and the Contemporary World, eds. Robert Fatton and R K Ramazani. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.

Crock, Mary. 2010. Scapegoating boat people a true-blue Australian tradition. Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 20/06/2014, from http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/scapegoating-boat-people-a-trueblue-australian-tradition-20100809-11tzl.html

Devetak, Richard. 2007. "The Modern State and Its Origins." In An Introduction to International Relations: Australian Perspective, eds. Richard Devetak, Anthony Burke and Jim George. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Donnelly, Jack. 1999. "The social construction of international human rights." In Human Rights in Global Politics, eds. Tim Dunne and Nicholas J wheeler. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Donnelly, Jack. 2000. Realism and International Relations. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Donnelly, Jack. 2003. Universal Human Rights: In Theory and Practice. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Donnelly, Jack. 2013. International Human Rights. 4th Edition. Boulder: Westview Press.

Dunne, Tim J and Marianne Hanson. 2009. "Human Rights in International Relations." In Human Rights: Politics and Practice, ed. Michael E Godheart. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Dunne, Tim and Nicholas J Wheeler. 1999. "Introduction: Human Rights and the Fifty Years' crisis." In Human Rights in Global Politics, eds. Tim Dunne and Nicholas J Wheeler. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Falk, Richard. 1999. "The challenge of Human Genocide an Genocidal Politics in an Era of Globalisation." In Human Rights in Global Politics, eds. Tim Dunne and Nicholas J wheeler. New York: Cmabridge University Press.

Finnemore, Martha. 1996. "Constructing Norms of Humanitarian Intervention." In The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in World Politics, ed. Peter J Katzenstein. New York: Columbia University Press.

Human rights violations by liberal democracies – A constructivist analysis

Page | 18

Forsythe, David. 2004. "US Foreign Policy and Human Rights in an Era of Insecurity." In Wars on Terrorism and Iraq: Human Rights, Unilateralism, and US Foreign Policy, eds. Thomas G Weiss, Margaret E Crahan and John Goering.

Forsythe, David. 2012. Human Rights in International Relations. 3rd Edition. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Hancock, Jan. 2007. Human Rights and US Foreign Policy. London: Taylor and Francis.

Hobbes, Thomas. 1651. Leviathan. Reprint. Dayboro: Emereo, 2009.

Hoffmann, Stanley. 1995. "The crisis of liberal internationalism." Foreign Policy(98):159-77.

Hopf, Ted. 1998. "The Promise of Constructivism in International Relations Theory." International Security 23(1):171-200.

Human Rights Watch. 2014. Human Rights in Israel/Palestine. Retrieved 20/06/2014, from http://www.hrw.org/middle-eastn-africa/israel-palestine

Hurrell, Andrew. 1999. "Power, principles and prudence: protecting human rights in a deeply divided world." In Human Rights in Global Politics, eds. Tim Dunne and Nicholas J Wheeler. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Jackson, Robert H. 1990. Quasi-States: Sovereignty, International Relations, and the Third World New York: Cambridge University Press.

Jarvis, Samuel Andrew John. 2013. "Obama's Adoption of the Responsibility to Protect: A Constructivist Analyis." Journal of Politics & International Studies 9:212-49.

Kant, Immanuel. 1917. Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Essay. London: George Allen and Unwin.

Kielsgrad, Mark D. 2013. "Evolving Human Rights Methodology: Have Incursions into State Sovereignty Gone Too Far?" Tulane Journal of International and Comparative Law 22(1):43-61.

Kliman, Jodie and Roxana Llerena-Quinn. 2002. "Dehumanizing and rehumanizing responses to September 11." Journal of Systemic Therapies 21(3):8-18.

Kober, Stanley. 2006. "Spreading Democracy or Undermining It?" Global Dialogue 8(3/4):69-79.

Krasner, Stephen D. 1999. Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Lukes, Steven. 2005. "Liberal Democratic Torture." British Journal of Political Science 36(1):1-16.

Human rights violations by liberal democracies – A constructivist analysis

Page | 19

Mertus, Julie A. 2010. Bait and Switch: Human Rights and US Foreign Policy. 2nd Edition. New York: Taylor and Francis.

Midgley, Mary. 1999. "Towards an ethic of global responsibility." In Human Rights in Global Politics, eds. Tim Dunne and Nicholas J Wheeler. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Morgenthau, Hans J. 1954. Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. 2nd Edition. New York: Alfred A Knopf.

Morgenthau, Hans J. 1979. Human Rights and Foreign Policy. (79-53084). Library of Congress, New York.

Neier, Aryeh. 2012. The International Human Rights Movement: A History. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Peatling, Stephanie. 2013. Children and families become 'it' and 'them' as asylum seekers are dehumanised. Syndey Morning Herald. Retrieved 20/06/2014, from http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/children-and-families-become-it-and-them-as-asylum-seekers-are-dehumanised-20130717-2q3lz.html

Reus-Smit, Christian. 2008. "Reading History through constructivist eyes." Journal of Politics & International Studies 37(2):395-419.

Rezaee, Besmellah. 2014. The Human Face of Refugee Policy. Right Now. Retrieved 20/06/2014, from http://rightnow.org.au/topics/asylum-seekers/the-human-face-of-refugee-policy/

Richardson, James L. 2007. "Liberalism." In An Introduction to International Relations: Australian Perspectives, eds. Richard Devetak, Anthony Burke and Jim George. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Ryan, Alan. 2004. "Liberal Imperialism." In The Future of Liberal Democracy: Thomas Jefferson and the Contemporary World, eds. Robert Fatton and R K Ramazani. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.

Schiemann, John W. 2012. "Interrogational Torture: Or How Good Guys Get Bad Information with Ugly Methods." Political Research Quarterly 65(1):3-19.

Schonberg, Karl. 2006. Paradoxes of Power: A Constructivist Analysis of U.S. Foreign Policy Since 9/11. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the International Studies Association March 22-25, San Diego, CA.

Skitka, Linda J and Elizabeth Mullen. 2002. "The Dark Side of Moral Conviction." Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy 2(1):35-41.

Human rights violations by liberal democracies – A constructivist analysis

Page | 20

Steans, Jill, Lloyd Pettiford and Thomas Diez. 2005. Introduction to International Relations: Perspectives and Themes. Essex: Pearson Longman.

Vincent, R J. 1986. Human Rights and International Relations. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Wadi, Ramona. 2013. Israel's dehumanisation of Palestinian children. MEM - Middle East Monitor. Retrieved 20/06/2014, from https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/blogs/lifestyle/5277-israels-dehumanisation-of-palestinian-children

Weber, Martin. 2007. "Constructivism and Critical Theory." In An Introduction to International Relations, eds. Richard Devetak, Anthony Burke and Jim George. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Wendt, Alexander. 1992. "Anarchy is what states make of it: the social construction of power politics." International Organization 46(2):391-425.

Wendt, Alexander. 1999. Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wilkinson, Paul. 2011. Terrorism versus Democracy: The liberal state response. 3rd Edition. New York: Routledge.

Zehfuss, Maja. 2002. Constructivism in International Relations: The Politics of Reality. New York: Cambridge University Press.