The ratification of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) marked an important point in human history when 58 nation-states intended to construct a document that would solidify commonly shared values and norms. Although its elaboration necessitated titanic efforts and a strong willingness to negotiate, compromise, and cooperate from all the delegates, many hoped that the document would lead to substantial changes in international politics (Glendon, 2002). For instance, Eleanor Roosevelt – the U.S. representative – aspired that the Declaration would be as important from the historical perspective as the Magna Carta or the American Bill of Rights (Glendon, 2002). However, from the scholarly perspective, not every researcher shares positive expectations regarding the UDHR ratification.
The supporters of the realistic approach present the most notable skeptical interpretation concerning the concept of human rights within international politics. They claim that states would support the Declaration as long as it has a direct benefit (Koh, 1999). Otherwise, the country leaders would seek any possibility to violate these rules. This approach is largely opposed by other prominent international relations schools of thought, namely Gender, Liberalism, and Constructivism. Yet, the current essay argues that among them, the latter framework has the most explanatory power concerning the human rights concept.
Constructivists’ views better than other approaches explain why such an initiative as the development of the declaration of universal human rights was even possible. For instance, Theys (2017) states that reality, according to this framework, is based on socially constructed ideas and is dynamic in nature. Moreover, Havercroft (2018) argues that constructivism’s central premise regards popular ideas as the foundation of a nation’s identity, which, in turn, affects the latter’s preferences and behavior. Thus, this approach allows analyzing how the change in historical ideas throughout the history of humanity is related to the corresponding transformations in domestic and international political behavior and vice versa.
In contrast, liberalism, as well as the gender approach, would provide a limited understanding of the historical process. While the former views the historical process only as the struggle to achieve liberal freedoms and rights, the latter would consider the questions of women’s exclusion and patriarchy. In a similar vein, realism’s concentration on self-interest and rational behavior does not allow such analysis. Only constructivism provides the framework that helps build a connection between the increased interdependence of the world and the subsequent necessity of the nation-states to elaborate on the common values (Bauböck, 2008). Therefore, the first aspect of constructivism’s explanatory power is the theory’s ability to establish the link between the historical process, ideas, and political behavior.
Constructivism provides a strong basis for a belief that the country’s efforts to ratify the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and promote human rights, in general, were not futile. As such, Koh (1999) maintains that international relations are not strictly based on rational choices and actions but are also determined by the values that nation-states share. It implies that while the country leaders can be rational in pursuing to protect national interests, the latter is, in fact, socially constructed (Koh, 1999). Then, such a view allows presuming that the behavior of international partners will be guided by the desire to promote human rights.
Realists, however, would argue that nation-states would abide by the postulates of UDHR until it is beneficial to them. Indeed, the historical evidence seemingly provides sufficient support for their views. For example, Glendon’s (2002) description of the Declaration ratification process reveals that many nation-states sought to amend the document’s articles in a manner that would be beneficial to them. Additionally, not long after the UDHR appeared, the Cold War, which almost nullified all the previous efforts to construct common values, started (Nye & Welch, 2014). Yet, Koh (1999) maintains that in order to become a state’s guiding behavior principle, the values should be first internalized. This process may require many years to complete, similarly to other ‘big’ ideas such as the value of democratic rule over authoritarian regimes, for example. As a result, constructivism’s framework helps to establish a strong case for the likely prevalence of the values promoted by UDHR around the world in the future.
The constructivism framework helps to reveal how non-governmental actors can affect the promotion of human rights. According to Nye (2017), the modern reality is characterized by the partial transfer of the power to affect the international relations from the governments to other agents such as NGOs, TNCs, and media. It implies that the long-held realist notion that the state is a unitary decision-maker loses its significance under the new realities. Instead, new agents can shape the opinions of society regarding political issues and affect governmental decisions and behavior to some extent. In this respect, constructivism’s framework allows capturing the presence of multiple power streams within one state as well as providing multiple explanations on the role and essence of human rights within international relations.
In summary, the current essay presented the arguments in favor of constructivism’s better explanatory power compared to other international relations theories. First of all, it was shown that this framework could reveal why the UDHR ratification was historically predetermined. Secondly, constructivism recognizes the dynamic nature of political power, which allows it to consider how ideas influence the notion of self-interest. This, in turn, helps consider human rights not merely as an instrument to achieve a state’s egoistic ends but as the ideal that can guide behavior. Similarly, constructivism is able to capture the presence of various actors that can affect political decisions within a country, which again allows understanding of various roles of human rights within international relations.
References
Bauböck, R. (2008). Normative political theory and empirical research. In D. D. Porta & M. Keating (Eds.), Approaches and Methodologies in the Social Sciences (pp. 40-60). Cambridge University Press.
Glendon, M. A. (2002). A world made new: Eleanor Roosevelt and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Random House Trade Paperbacks.
Havercroft, J. (2017). Social constructivism and international ethics. In B. J. Steele & E. A. Heinze (Eds.), Routledge handbook of ethics and international relations (pp. 112-126). Routledge.
Koh, H. H. (1998). How is international human rights law enforced? Indiana Law Journal, 74(4), 1397-1417.
Nye, J. S., & Welch, D. A. (2014). Understanding global conflict & cooperation: Intro to theory & history (9th ed.). Pearson Education.
Nye, J. (2017). Soft power: The origins and political progress of a concept. Palgrave Communications, 3(1), 1-3.
Theys, S. (2017). Constructivism. In Stephen McGlinchey et al. (Eds.), International relations theory (pp. 36-41). E-International Relations.