US Foreign Policy

Human Rights Issues

Michael Flynn

Professor

Department of Political Science

011C Calvin Hall

meflynn@ksu.edu

2025-12-03

Key Questions

How have theory and history shaped the place of human rights in US foreign policy?
How do human rights issues intersect with other policy areas?
What are the difficulties associated with humanitarian intervention?
What are some of the pressing human rights issue in the world today?

Historical Overview

Origins of US human rights policy

Classical liberalism
Abolitionist movement
Laws of war
Women’s rights movement

Historical Overview

United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Provides an explicit listing of human rights to which all human beings are entitled
Also reflects ideas and rights with origins in a wide range of cultural and religious traditions

To right: Eleanor Roosevelt, Chair of the UN Human Rights Commission

Historical Overview

Life, liberty, and security of person
No slavery or forced servitude
No torture, cruel and unusual punishment, inhuman or degrading treatment
Recognition as a person before the law
Equal protection before the law
Right to effective remedy by national tribunals
No arbitrary arrest or punishment
Fair and public hearings by an independent and impartial tribunal
Presumed innocence until guilt is proven
Protection from arbitrary interference in an individual’s private, family, or home life, and in personal correspondence
Freedom of movement, both within and between countries
Freedom from persecution and access to asylum
Right to a nationality and to change nationality
Freedom of consensual marriage and to raise a family
Right to own property

Freedom of thought, conscience, and religion
Freedom of opinion and expression
Freedom of peaceful assembly and association
Freedom of political participation and assembly
Access to essential economic, social, and cultural rights necessary for individual development and dignity
Right to work, without discrimination, for fair pay, and in favorable conditions
Right to join trade unions
Right to rest, leisure, and limited working hours
Access to basic standards of living, including healthcare, food, clothing, and housing
Right to equally partake in the cultural and scientific life of the community
Right to enjoy a social and international order that facilitates the realization of these rights
Limitations on these rights only to the extent that they are necessary to secure the ability of others to enjoy their rights
Nothing in the UNDHR will be interpreted as a license to destroy or harm the freedoms outlined herein

Historical Overview

Human Rights Treaties and Covenants

The Universal Declaration is a general list with broad recognition, but it’s not binding in any way
Actual implementation and practice is a different story
There are several treaties that actually involve countries committing to protect various rights in a substantive way
This means ensuring that domestic political institutions and laws align with international human rights law
This is where the rubber meets the road

Historical Overview

Overall US Engagement with Human Rights Regime:

The US was central to the creation of the modern human rights regime, but doesn’t always embrace it
United States has a poor track record when it comes to ratifying human rights treaties
US has signed 23 of 49 total agreements
It’s only ratified 17 of 49 agreements

US Human Rights Treaty Commitments by Topic Area
Category	Total Agreements	Total Ratified
International Bill of Human Rights	4	1
Prevention of discrimination on the basis of race, religion, or belief; and protection of minorities	1	1
Women's Rights	5	0
Slavery	4	1
Torture and Ill-treatment	4	1
Children's rights	3	2
Freedom of association	2	0
Employment and forced labor	7	1
Education	1	0
Refugees and asylum	2	0
Nationality and statelessness	2	0
War crimes and genocide	3	1
Law of armed conflict	6	4
Terrorism and human rights	5	5
Total	49	17
Note: Data obtained from University of Minnesota Human Rights Library http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/research/ratification-USA.html

Institutionalizing Human Rights

Domestic roadblocks to human rights

US is championing international human rights, but there are domestic roadblocks
Much of this effort conflicts with treatment of minority Americans at home
Segregation at home is threatened by international institutions that can enforce human rights agreements

To right: James Byrnes, Secretary of State 1945-1947

Notes on Byrnes, Multilateralism, and Human Rights:

Secretary of State. Also a staunch segregationist.
Byrnes served in the House, Senate, and briefly as an associate justice on the US supreme court (though his tenure is the shortest on record). He played an important role in blocking anti-lynching legislation, blocking support for black colleges and universities, and also in maintaining white control over Democratic Party politics in South Carolina.
The State Department and various US officials worried that the Untied Nations Commission on Human Rights might have the power to investigate human rights abuses within the US. Also worried that it might be able to compel the US to impose equal protections for blacks and other minority groups. Also sought to prevent the commission from having the power to investigate petitions brought by various minority groups.
US immediately sought to weaken these institutions for fear that they would be used against the US. They also sought to limit petitions to come only from member states (i.e. not from individuals or non-governmental organizations).
This is exactly what happened—the National Negro Congress brought a petition to the UN on June 6, 1946 that outlined the oppression of black Americans (See Anderson 2003, 80-81).

Institutionalizing Human Rights

Bricker Amendment

Really a series of amendments
First, introduced by Senator John Bricker (R-OH)
Two key parts
- No treaties can conflict with the Constitution (Duh)
- Strips the president of the power to negotiate executive agreements (Oh…)
To right: Senator John Bricker

Institutionalizing Human Rights

Humphrey-Cranston Amendment (Section 502B of the 1974 Foreign Assistance Act):

Except under extraordinary circumstances no security assistance may be provided to any country the government of which engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights, including torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, prolonged detention without charges, causing the disappearance of persons by the abduction and clandestine detention of those persons or other flagrant denials of the right to life, liberty, and the security of the person.

Institutionalizing Human Rights

Harkin Amendment (Section 116 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1974):

No assistance may be provided under this part to the government of any country which engages in consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights, including torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, prolonged detention without charges, or other flagrant denial of the right to life, liberty, and the security of person, unless such assistance will directly benefit the needy people in such country.”

Institutionalizing Human Rights

Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs

Position created in 1976
Raised profile of human rights issues in State Department
Began practice of drafting annual country reports on human rights performance

To right: James M. Wilson, first Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs

Institutionalizing Human Rights

Undersecretary of State for Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights

Position created in 2012
Replaced Undersecretary for Global Affairs and Democracy
First elevation of human rights in State Department since 1976

To right: Maria Otero, first Undersecretary of State for Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights

Trends in Human Rights

Torture: Purposeful inflicting of extreme pain, whether mental or physical, by government officials or by private individuals at the instigation of government officials

Political Imprisonment: The incarceration of people by government officials because of: their speech; non-violent opposition to government policies or leaders; religious beliefs; non-violent religious practices including proselytizing; or their membership in a group, including an ethnic or racial group

Extrajudicial Killings: Killings by government officials without due process of law. They include murders by private groups if instigated by the government. These killings may result from the deliberate, illegal, and excessive use of lethal force by the police, security forces, or other agents of the state whether against criminal suspects, detainees, prisoners, or others.

Disappearance: Cases in which people have disappeared, political motivation appears likely, and the victims have not been found. Knowledge of the whereabouts of the disappeared is, by definition, not public knowledge. However, while there is typically no way of knowing where victims are, it is typically known by whom they were taken and under what circumstances.

Current Issues

The US is routinely cited for lots of different issues, but some of the most common and/or big ones that pertain to foreign policy are:

The War on Terror
- Torture
- Extrajudicial Killings
- Extraordinary rendition program
- Drone strikes
Military interventions and Responsibility to Protect
Security assistance to allies and proxies
Drug Trafficking
Migrant communities
- Refugees and asylum seekers
- Family separations

Human Rights and the War on Terror

Major issues:

Torture of individuals suspected of, or linked to, terrorist activity
Indefinite imprisonment of suspects in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba
CIA black sites and rendition program
Drone strikes and civilian casualties

Notes

During the 1990s the Clinton Administration coordinated with other countries’ militaries and intelligence services to construct a network of secret prisons to be used for torture and interrogation of suspected terrorists.
After September 11 attacks the Bush Administration dramatically expanded this program
Ran from 2001-2005 with the involvement of about 54 countries, including many democracies.
Roughly 780 people imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay since 2001
40 Still remain in custody
Overwhelmingly citizens of Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Pakistan
Ages ranged from 13 - 89, with 21 children
According to the ACLU over 200 FBI agents reported abusive treatment of detainees
Of the 780 individuals who were detained, Human Rights Watch reports 731 have been released without changes, many after having been imprisoned for years.

Sources: - https://www.aclu.org/issues/national-security/detention/guantanamo-numbers - https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/guantanamo -https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/03/14/the-u-s-carried-out-extraordinary-rendition-flights-from-2001-2005-here-are-15-more-countries-that-helped/

Human Rights and the War on Terror

Anwar al-Awlaki

A prominent leader of al-Qaeda forces in Yemen
Assassinated by a US drone strike in Yemen on September 30, 2011
He was an American-born US citizen
So was his 16 year old son, who was killed by a drone strike two weeks later
Raises issues of due process and the boundaries between citizens, civilians, and enemy combatants

Human Rights and Military Intervention

Responsibility to Protect (R2P):

Calls for other nation states to ensure fundamental human rights are respected around the world
Fundamental question: Can military intervention stop human rights abuses and/or improve conditions on the ground?
The results aren’t great
Military intervention can worsen human rights abuses
Post-conflict reconstruction is really, really complicated

To right: August 2014 protests in Libya after Libyan Parliament voted to request UN intervention, three years after the NATO invervention that toppled the Gaddafi regime.

Human Rights and Security Assistance

Figure 1: To left: A Palestinian man carries a child casualty following Israeli strikes on houses in Rafah in the southern Gaza Strip October 17. REUTERS/Ibraheem Abu Mustafa. Photo and caption source. To right: A man walks past an unexploded tail section of a 300mm rocket which appear to contained cluster bombs launched from a BM-30 Smerch multiple rocket launcher embedded in the ground after shelling in Lysychansk, Lugansk region on April 11, 2022. Photo and caption source.

Notes

US support for allies can lead to conflict

Allies don’t always behave in a way that aligns with US interests or goals
Israeli military’s targeting of civilian centers in the 2023 Gaza War has caused growing divisions between Israeli and the United States.
US provision of cluster munitions to Ukraine are controversial because they can be difficult to control and have been linked with high numbers of civilian casualties.
“They are controversial because the submunitions have high dud rates. They often land wrong, so the fuse does not function. Dud rates vary from 2 percent to 40 percent, with U.S. submunitions on the lower end and Russian submunitions on the higher end. Duds act like landmines and can injure civilians. For this reason, the Convention on Cluster Munitions was established. Signed by 123 nations, it came into effect in 2010. The convention prohibits using, developing, producing, acquiring, stockpiling, or transferring cluster munitions.

Russia, Ukraine, and the United States have not signed the convention. The United States has not signed because it wants to retain the right to use such munitions in combat emergencies.

Although the United States did not sign the convention, it stopped producing cluster munitions in 2008 and has produced only unitary warheads since then. It has gradually converted inventories to convention-compliant configurations. For example, it has replaced the cluster munition warhead on many MLRS rockets with an inert warhead appropriate for training.

The United States tried to develop submunitions with dud rates under 1 percent. However, this was not technically feasible. Before ceasing production in 2008, DOD was able to produce submunitions with dud rates under 2.35 percent, and these are the cluster munitions being sent to Ukraine.” Source here

Human Rights and Drug Trafficking

Drug Trafficking

Trump Administration began using GWOT tactics on alleged drug traffickers
Issues in question:
- Targeting civilian vessels operating in international waters
- Due process
- Violations of military and international laws of war
- Freedom of movement
- Cruel and unusual punishment

To right: Photo of a boat recently struck by US missiles. Photo obtained from the BBC via Defense Secretary Hegseth’s X account.

Notes

Throughout the fall of 2025 the Trump Administration launched a series of attacks on boats, mostly operating in the Carribbean off the coast of Venezuela, but some in the Pacific as well.
In late November the Washington Post published an article claiming that the SOCOM commander overseeing the first strikes launched a second strike to kill survivors. This was reportedly to be in line with Defense Secretary Hegseth’s command to “kill them all”.
This is a violation of international humanitarian law, and the laws of war.
DOD even has a Law of War Manual that forbids this!
Chapter V Section 4 Paragraph 7: “Prohibition Against Declaring That No Quarter Be Given. It is forbidden to declare that no quarter will be given.145 This means that it is prohibited to order that legitimate offers of surrender will be refused or that detainees, such as unprivileged belligerents, will be summarily executed.146 Moreover, it is also prohibited to conduct hostilities on the basis that there shall be no survivors, or to threaten the adversary with the denial of quarter. This rule is based on both humanitarian and military considerations.148 This rule also applies during non-international armed conflict.”

Human Rights and Immigration, Asylum, and Refugees

US offers to let in people who may be persecuted in their home countries.
Groups are classified as one of two types.
- Asylum Seekers
- Refugees
Trump Administration has sought to reduce access across the board, including general immigration, asylum seekers, and refugees
Refugees and Asylum seekers are been particular targets

Human Rights and Immigration, Asylum, and Refugees

So what do these terms mean?

Refugee According to 8 U.S. Code § 1101(a)(42)(A)

Any person who is outside their home country and who is unable or unwilling to return to that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.

Asylum

Meet criteria for refugee status, but apply after they are in the United States, or at a port of entry.

Notes

Must apply for asylum within one year of arriving in US.
Refugee definition: Under Section 101(a)(42) of the INA, a refugee is an alien who, generally, has experienced past persecution or has a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.
Note five protected groups: Race, religion, nationality, social group, or political opinion.
Individuals who meet the statutory definition may be considered for either refugee status under Section 207 of the INA if they are outside the United States, or asylum status under Section 208 of the INA, if they are already in the United States or present themselves at a U.S. port of entry.
Criteria for asylum and refugee admissions is the same, but there is no cap on asylum seekers like there is on refugee status. Cap is set on refugees each year, but there is no limit on asylum seekers.

Human Rights and Immigration, Asylum, and Refugees

Large focus on Southwest Border
This is the border between the US and Mexico
Trump campaigned in 2015-2016 on cutting down on migration from Mexico and central America, claiming broad patterns of violence and crime for which there’s little evidence
Escalated existing deterrence strategies employed by previous administrations to reduce migration
But what does it take for deterrence to work?
- Is the threat credible?
- What is the cost-benefit calculus of immigrants?

Human Rights and Immigration, Asylum, and Refugees

Mass Deportations

Federal enforcement
Deportation to third-party countries
Due process violations
Torture

Human Rights and Immigration, Asylum, and Refugees

Child separations

First Trump Administration instituted policy to separate children from their parents when they’re apprehended
Did previous presidents do this, too?
Yes, though Not as a systematic policy tool:
- Children could be separated from parents when parents were criminally charged after apprehension or where officers suspected human trafficking
- Trump administration instituted a “zero-tolerance” policy, meaning all unlawful entrants will be systematically subject to criminal prosecution.
- Systematically charging unlawful entrants with a crime means children are then treated as unaccompanied minors
- This meant that individuals would be detained, and if they were accompanied by children, those children would be detained separately from parents.
- Obama Administration housed women and children together while cases were pending. Families could be detained indefinitely.

Notes

Family separations:

Policy really spearheaded by then Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein (see https://www.vox.com/2020/10/7/21506059/trump-family-separations-sessions-rosenstein)
Explicitly directed US Attorneys to prosecute families with children as young as infants
Trump administration began to actively prosecute anyone who crossed the border illegally—even if they had children.
This meant that individuals would be detained, and if they were accompanied by children, those children would be detained separately.
Obama Administration has previously expanded detention facilities for families, housing women and children together while cases were pending. this was explicitly intended to deter other migrants from attempting to come up to the US. Families could be detained indefinitely.
So what’s different?
- the 1997 Flores agreement, unaccompanied children could be held only for a specified period of time. A 2016 court ruling determined that this time limit applied to families, too.
- Obama Administration detained families in ICE detention facilities, which were not technically prisons. This differed from the Trump Administration’ss approach which referred adults caught crossing the border for criminal prosecution.
- Obama Administration also did not prosecute first-time offenders for crossing the border illegally.
Note that detentions under Obama Administration could still be a violation of human rights. Indefinite detention violations Constitutional principles AND human rights law.
- From NYT: Technically, there is no Trump administration policy stating that illegal border crossers must be separated from their children. But the “zero tolerance policy” results in unlawful immigrants being taken into federal criminal custody, at which point their children are considered unaccompanied alien minors and taken away…Unlike Mr. Obama’s administration, Mr. Trump’s is treating all people who have crossed the border without authorization as subject to criminal prosecution, even if they tell the officer apprehending them that they are seeking asylum based on fear of returning to their home country, and whether or not they have their children in tow. See: (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/16/us/politics/family-separation-trump.html)
- Attorney General Sessions framed the issue as smuggling: ““If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law,” Sessions said at a law enforcement event in Scottsdale, Ariz. “If you don’t like that, then don’t smuggle children over our border.” See: http://time.com/5314769/family-separation-policy-donald-trump/
- From NYT: “The situation was even more complicated when children were involved. A 2008 law meant to combat the trafficking of minors places strict requirements on how unaccompanied migrant children from Central America are to be treated. Minors from Mexico or Canada — countries contiguous with the United States — can be quickly sent back to their home countries unless it is deemed dangerous to do so. But those from other nations cannot be quickly returned; they must be transferred within 72 hours to the Office of Refugee Resettlement at the Department of Health and Human Services, and placed in the least restrictive setting possible. And the Flores ruling meant that children and families could not be held for more than 20 days.” See: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/16/us/politics/family-separation-trump.html
- In 2018 articles came out discussing how Homeland Security “lost” 1,500 children. Unclear how many were actually lost versus cases where status could not be verified due to someone not answering the phone.
- Across all administrations, human rights groups and immigration activists have highlighted the poor conditions within detention facilities. The argument is that even though the government says they’re not prisons, they’re basically prisons. More recently, the family separation policy has

Human Rights and Immigration, Asylum, and Refugees

Fallout

Zero-tolerance officially in effect from April 2018-June 2018
Preceded by an undisclosed “pilot program” in El Paso, Texas in 2017
Policy affected more than 5,500 children in total
Many parents have been deported to home countries, and some have opted to leave children in the United States with friends or family members. In many cases US authorities did not keep records of who children’s parents were, making reunification difficult or impossible.
More recently children have been released from US custody into Mexico without an accompanying adult and with no family members residing in Mexico. Most initially end up under the care of Mexican child welfare workers.
More than 550 children were expelled into Mexico in this way
Biden administration has worked to reunite children separated from families, but Justice Department has continued to litigate against recognizing rights of separated families to sue and argued that federal government under Trump administration had broad discretion to enforce immigration.