Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The West Divided? A Snapshot of Human Rights and Transatlantic Relations at the United Nations

  • Published:
Human Rights Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Based mostly on extensive interviews with diplomats and human rights activists, this article questions the claim advanced by the German philosopher Jürgen Habermas that current transatlantic relations can be described in terms of a “Divided West.” We examine the scope and depth of shared understandings between key actors in the United States, Germany, and Canada with regard to the definition, monitoring, and implementation of international human rights and to the reform of human rights-related mechanisms within the broader context of current UN reforms. While we do find differences between US, German, and Canadian perspectives, we argue that the meaning attributed to these differences by diplomats and nongovernmental organizations does not justify the polarizing discourse of the Divided West. In addition, we argue that this discourse tends to obfuscate other important trends in the human rights world such as the growing assertiveness of non-Western powers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Habermas (2006).

  2. See Haumann and Petersen (2004). On the more positive Canadian attitudes toward the US, see Jedwab (2007).

  3. See Markovits (2007).

  4. In this article, we use the terms such as “the West” or “Western” countries as convenient labels without implying any intrinsic relationship between the West and human rights. Unlike some participants in the debate about the Divided West, we are well aware that, not a very long time ago, the normative consensus of Western civilization coalesced around slavery, colonialism, and racism, not around human rights.

  5. For an analysis of the mixed results of this process, see Smith (2006).

  6. See Voting Practices in the United Nations (2007).

  7. The transatlantic differences regarding Israel and Palestine must not be exaggerated. While it is true that Europeans sponsored, for example, a number of resolutions at the Commission expressing concern about the expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, they have not done so since the establishment of the Council. Also, they have most of the time voted (with Canada) against resolutions introduced by the Arab League and others in special sessions of the same Council. These resolutions regularly condemn Israel's alleged human rights abuses in the occupied territories and are rejected by the EU (most of the time) and by Canada (always) as unbalanced and one-sided (the US has not been sitting on Council since its inauguration in 2006). For an ongoing analysis, see “Anti-Israel Resolutions at the HRC,” UN Watch, Geneva, available at http://www.unwatch.org.

  8. See, e.g., the Report from the Third Survey of the 2020 Global Stakeholder Panel (2005).

  9. See, e.g., Ghanea (2006).

  10. Within the EU, the Scandinavian member states were more active than Germany, while countries like Spain and Italy came third, according to an assessment of a human rights expert in Berlin. Others have disputed this ranking by pointing out that Germany, in particular, was a strong advocate of the UPR.

  11. Statement by Secretary-General Kofi Annan, UN press release, April 7, 1999.

  12. See Diehl (2008).

  13. See, e.g., the U.S. Mission to the United Nations in Geneva Press Release (2007).

  14. “Islam will not be crucified in this Council,” is a famous recent exclamation. See UN Ruling (2008).

  15. For details, see Smith (2006), pp. 119, 132.

  16. Gowan and Brantner (2008). One diplomat explicitly referred to this study as missing the very meaning of the European project.

  17. For an attempt at theorizing this kind of implicit knowledge, see Pouliot (2008).

  18. “Question of detainees in the area of the United States naval base of Guantanamo” (E/CN.4/2005/L.094).

  19. “Rights of persons held in the custody of the United States in Afghanistan or Guantanamo Bay,” Resolution 1340 (2003), Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.

  20. “Situation of Human Rights in Uzbekistan” (A/C.3/61/L.39).

  21. “Moratorium on the use of the death penalty” (A/C.3/63/l.19/Rev.1).

  22. “Human rights and access to safe drinking water and sanitation” (A/HRC/RES/7/22).

  23. See Malici (2006).

  24. See article 6, paragraph 2 of the ICCPR (1989).

  25. The secretary-general of the Council of Europe, Terry Davies, has called Canada and, by implication, Europe far more “civilized” than the US because of their rejection of the death penalty (which Canada has recently somewhat diluted). See the quote in O'Neil (2007).

  26. See Smith (2006), p. 126.

  27. See, e.g., Canada and the United Nations Human Rights Council: At the Crossroads (2007), p. 51.

  28. See Smith (2007).

  29. See, e.g., Edwards (2008).

  30. For more on this relationship, see Heins (2008).

  31. See, for example, the defense of the Canadian idea of “bridge building” by the prominent Canadian Amnesty International activist Alex Neve in Canada and the United Nations Human Rights Council: At the Crossroads (2007), p. 51.

  32. See Viljoen (2004).

  33. We are paraphrasing from Zupančič (2008).

References

  • ‘Canada and the United Nations Human Rights Council: At the Crossroads.’ Interim Report of the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights, Ottawa, May 2007.

  • ‘Conclusion of the UN Human Rights Council's Fifth Session and First Year.’ U.S. Mission to the United Nations in Geneva, press release, June 19, 2007.

  • Jackson Diehl, ‘A ‘League’ By Other Names,’ Washington Post, May 19, 2008, A17.

  • Steven Edwards, ‘Major aid recipients snub Canadian-led censure of Iran,’ Ottawa Citizen, December 1, 2008, A3.

  • Nazila Ghanea, ‘From UN Commission on Human Rights to UN Human Rights Council: One step forwards or two steps sideways?,’ International and Comparative Law Quarterly 55 (2006), pp. 695–705.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richard Gowan and Franziska Brantner, ‘A Global Force for Human Rights? An Audit of European Power at the UN,’ Policy Paper, European Council on Foreign Relations, September 2008.

  • Jürgen Habermas, The Divided West, trans. Ciaran Cronin (Cambridge, UK: Polity, 2006)

    Google Scholar 

  • Helga Haftendorn, ‘A German Perspective,’ in The Strategic Triangle: France, Germany, and the United States in the Shaping of the New Europe, H. Haftendorn et al., eds. (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2006), p. 382

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilhelm Haumann and Thomas Petersen ‘German Public Opinion on the Iraq Conflict: A Passing Crisis with the USA or a Lasting Departure?,’ International Journal Public Opinion Research 16 (2004), pp. 311–330

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Volker Heins ‘Crusaders and snobs: moralizing foreign policy in Britain and Germany, 1999–2005,’ in David Chandler and Volker Heins, eds., Rethinking Ethical Foreign Policy: Pitfalls, Possibilities and Paradoxes (London: Routledge, 2007), pp. 50–69

    Google Scholar 

  • Volker Heins, Nongovernmental Organizations in International Society: Struggles over Recognition (New York: Palgrave, 2008).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • ‘Holding court,’ Interview with Irwin Cotler, Jerusalem Post, July 11, 2006 (online edn.).

  • ‘In Larger Freedom: towards development, security and human rights for all.’ Report of the Secretary-General, March 2005, A/459/2005.

  • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and Protocol 2 to the ICCPR (1989).

  • Jack Jedwab, ‘Melting the Ice: Six Years after 9-11 Canadians regard US as a country with which they are most likely to share values and goals,’ Association for Canadian Studies, September 13, 2007, available at: http://www.acs-aec.ca/ (‘polls’).

  • Todd Landman, Protecting Human Rights: A Comparative Study (Washington DC: Georgetown University Press, 2005) ch. 4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Akan Malici, ‘Germans as Venutians: The Culture of German Foreign Policy Behavior,’ Foreign Policy Analysis 2 (2006), pp. 37–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andrei S. Markovits, Uncouth Nation: Why Europe Dislikes America (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2007).

    Google Scholar 

  • Jane Mayer, The Dark Side: The Inside Story of How the War on Terror Turned into a War on American Ideals (New York: Doubleday, 2008), p. 124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russell Miller ‘The Shared Transatlantic Jurisprudence of Dignity,’ German Law Journal 4 (2003), pp. 925–934

    Google Scholar 

  • Peter O'Neil, ‘Europe condemns Canada's stance on US death penalties,’ The Gazette (Montreal), November 21, 2007 (online edn.).

  • Vincent Pouliot, ‘The Logic of Practicality: A Theory of Practice of Security Communities,’ International Organization 62 (2008), p. 257 (257–288).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas Risse and Kathryn Sikkink, ‘The socialization of international human rights norms into domestic practices: introduction,’ in The Power of Human Rights: International Norms and Domestic Change, Thomas Risse, Steve C. Ropp and Kathryn Sikkink, eds. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), p. 19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heather Michelle Smith, Explaining Ratification of Human Rights Treaties: Signaling for Aid during Regional Crises, Ph.D. thesis, University of California, San Diego, 2007.

  • Karen E. Smith, ‘Speaking with One Voice? European Union Co-ordination on Human Rights Issues at the United Nations,’ Journal of Common Market Studies 44 (2006), pp. 113–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ‘UN Ruling: Islamic Sharia Taboo in Human Rights Council Debates,’ July 1, 2008, available at: http://blog.unwatch.org/

  • Frans Viljoen, ‘Fact-Finding by UN Human Rights Complaints Bodies: Analysis and Suggested Reforms,’ Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law 8(1) (2004), pp. 49–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ‘Voting Practices in the United Nations, 2007,’ U.S. State Department, Bureau of International Organization Affairs, p. 3, available at: http://www.state.gov/p/io/rls/rpt/c25867.htm.

  • ‘What Global Leaders Want: Priorities for Development, Governance, and UN Reform.’ Report from the Third Survey of the 2020 Global Stakeholder Panel, February 2005, p. 22.

  • Alenka Zupančič, The Odd One In: On Comedy (Cambridge, MA: MIT, 2008), p. 29.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Social Research, Goethe University, 60325, Frankfurt, Germany

    Volker Heins

  2. Department of Political Science, McGill University, Montreal, Canada

    Aditya Badami

  3. Department of Political Science, University of Michigan, 5700 Haven Hall, 505 South State Street, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109-1045, USA

    Andrei S. Markovits

Authors
  1. Volker Heins
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Aditya Badami
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Andrei S. Markovits
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Volker Heins or Aditya Badami.

Additional information

This article is based on the findings from a research project funded by the Stiftung Deutsch–Amerikanische Wissenschaftsbeziehungen (SDAW/Foundation German–American Academic Relations). An earlier version was presented at the International Studies Association (ISA) Annual Convention in New York in February 2009. We thank Klaus Günther for his general support as well as Bethany Barratt, Tristan Borer, and René Provost for their critical comments.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Heins, V., Badami, A. & Markovits, A.S. The West Divided? A Snapshot of Human Rights and Transatlantic Relations at the United Nations. Hum Rights Rev 11, 1–16 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12142-009-0133-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12142-009-0133-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation