International Human Rights Law And The United States Double Standard

Student’s Name Professor’s Name Subject DD MM YYYY International Human Rights Law and the United States Double Standard International human rights law exists in the world today to ensure the respect for human rights remains fundamental, regardless of where a human is. The United States has played a critical role in the formulation of international law that ensures the safety and value of every human being on earth. While their role in promoting the universal human rights protections based on international law cannot be overstated, the US does not embrace the same international laws it urges others to. The US requires other countries to adhere to international law in domestic and foreign affairs. The same commitment is not honored by any of the three arms of the US government. For example, President’s Clinton move to support the creation of the International Criminal Court (ICC) provided that the powers of the court are limited shows the hypocrisy and double standards backed by the president (Goldsmith 366). The defensive and conditional support is necessitated by the actions of US troops and other officials of the US government that go against the international law, yet the other US expects other nations to strictly remain within the boundaries of the international court or else face the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. Other arms of the US government portray the same double standards. The presidency together with the country’s Senate has consistently made domestic laws that are in contrary to the provisions of the international law. For example, Goldsmith points out the Genocide Convention, the first postwar human rights treaty that internalized crimes of genocide in light of the Nazi atrocities (366-367). While the significance of the treaty was undeniably critical and required urgent consent globally, Goldsmith notes that the US Senate only gave the treaty its approval after ensuring that it would not have any significance in the domestic affairs of the country (367). Even for uncontroversial issues requiring urgent action such as the genocide issue, the US still manages to show its biasness and double-standards in its domestic adaptation while requiring commitment elsewhere. Goldsmith argues that the US has replicated all its responses regarding human rights treaties based on Genocide Conversion. The responses given by the US depicts its blatant disregard for international laws regarding their domestic laws whole expecting other countries to strictly adapt to the international laws. For instance, some of the responses that show the US non-commitment to international laws are as follows. The first response is the view that the international standards suggested by the international laws are different from the American standards and their implementation would threaten American liberties. International law is requiring a prohibition on “incitement to commit genocide” was viewed as a threat to the freedom of speech a...