Responses by the United States Government to International Human Rights Abuses

Simple item page
dc.contributor.advisorDalrymple, Terry
dc.contributor.authorAdams, Abigail D.
dc.contributor.committeeMemberBechtol, Bruce
dc.contributor.committeeMemberCelso, Anthony
dc.contributor.committeeMemberTaylor, William
dc.creatorAdams, Abigail D.
dc.date.accessioned2015-01-15T17:46:19Z
dc.date.accessioned2018-02-16T18:45:28Z
dc.date.available2015-01-15T17:46:19Z
dc.date.available2018-02-16T18:45:28Z
dc.date.created2014-12
dc.date.submittedDecember 2014
dc.date.updated2015-01-15T17:46:19Z
dc.description.abstractThe questions of why and how the US responds to international human rights abuses are complex and multifaceted. Policy decisions regarding Nigeria, North Korea, and Syria all condemn abuses and demand that those responsible stop their actions. However, enforcing those demands is another matter. The three case studies show that specific human rights policies cannot exist outside of other political and diplomatic considerations. Terrorism, nuclear concerns, and regional stability all affect US interests and overshadow human rights questions. Moreover, respect for human rights cannot be forced on a government from the outside, and US sanctions do little when governments are not interested the well-being of their citizens. Promoting stability and democracy worldwide is the best way to promote human rights. Additionally, aiding refugees and giving aid wherever possible is the best way to realistically fulfill the international responsibly to protect and advance universal human rights.
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2346.1/30272
dc.language.isoen_US
dc.subjectHuman rights
dc.subjectNorth Korea
dc.subjectSyria
dc.subjectNigeria
dc.titleResponses by the United States Government to International Human Rights Abuses
dc.typeThesis
dc.type.materialtext

Files

Collections

Angelo State University