Author's Keywords: Universal Declaration of Human Rights; economic and social rights; United States; foreign policy; state; civil society; market; welfare; Franklin Roosevelt; American Bar Association; Jimmy Carter	Convention All Academic Convention is the premier solution for your association's abstract management solutions needs. Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf. Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets! Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more! Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering. Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more! Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches! Click here for more information.
Association: Name: International Studies Association URL: http://www.isanet.org
Citation: URL: http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p69743_index.html Direct Link: HTML Code:

Whelan, Daniel. "Understanding Economic and Social Rights and American Exceptionalism: A New Conceptual Framework" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association, Hilton Hawaiian Village, Honolulu, Hawaii, Mar 05, 2005 <Not Available>. 2009-05-25 <http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p69743_index.html>

Whelan, D. J. , 2005-03-05 "Understanding Economic and Social Rights and American Exceptionalism: A New Conceptual Framework" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association, Hilton Hawaiian Village, Honolulu, Hawaii Online <.PDF>. 2009-05-25 from http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p69743_index.html

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript Review Method: Peer Reviewed Abstract: Many human rights scholars and advocates have criticized the American rejection of economic and social rights within both foreign and domestic policy. Not only does this rejection undermine one of the core principles of international human rights-that all human rights are indivisible, interdependent, and interrelated, regardless of their separation into distinct treaties-it also raises a significant question about how American policy understands the concepts and objectives of universal human rights. While many of these critiques of American human rights policy have extensively described the depth of the lack of American commitment to the protection, promotion and fulfillment of all human rights, few if any have attempted to understand the historical and normative basis for this form of American exceptionalism. U.S. human rights policy changed dramatically from its initial commitment to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights-which included a number of what would later be dubbed economic and social rights-to its later support for the division of human rights into the two major human rights treaties. Most historical scholarship attributes this shift in attitude as a reflection of Cold War politics. Contemporary, post-Cold War reflections on the American rejection of economic and social rights focus on the rise of conservatism within U.S. domestic politics-a twenty-year shift away from welfare-statism to a greater ideological commitment to the minimalist state and free market economic policy. Thus, U.S. human rights policy is a reflection of this domestic consensus. For the U.S., human rights only include a limited catalogue of basic civil and political rights. Most policy prescriptions aimed at bringing the U.S. into line with its major allies and economic partners (most of whom accept the concept of indivisibility and a more robust interpretation of what human rights mean) suggest that the U.S. need simply to play the game,-especially when it comes to ratification of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Women's Convention, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. But experience and history demonstrate that American domestic policy has often had a strong commitment to many of the principles found within the ICESCR, suggesting that the problem may not be the object of human rights, but rather tied to unsettled disputes over implementation. If this is so, what actually sits at the heart of U.S. human rights exceptionalism has more to do with those institutions though which human rights gain their meaning-namely the state and civil society (including the market)-rather than the character or quality of the rights themselves. To explore this possibility, this paper will examine the theoretical and philosophical assumptions of American policy when it comes to human rights in general, and economic and social rights in particular. Through this case, this paper will attempt to underscore a significant yet often overlooked problem surrounding international human rights-namely whether the lists of rights catalogued within the main human rights instruments say more about the character of the ideal liberal democratic state and its obligations, rather than the importance of certain specific rights. In doing so, it will suggest a re-conceptualization of U.S. human rights policy consistent with American practice and the ideals of democratic liberalism.

Domestic Political Structure and Social Norms: Explaining State Resistance and Cooperation towards the Global Human Rights Regime: The Case of United States and China

Race and the State: The Importance of Original Incorporation in the Development of the United States for the Current Political-Social-Economic Status of National-Origin Groups

Maximizing the Effects of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: An Investigation into Canada's Compliance of Domestic Law with Respect to its International Economic Human Rights Obligations