Party positions over international human rights treaties in the United States in the Post-Cold War

  • Flávio Contrera Universidade Federal de São Carlos
  • Matheus Lucas Hebling Universidade Estadual de Campinas

Resumo

This article aimed to verify the occurrence of convergence and congruence in the positions that the Democratic and Republican parties express about human rights treaties in the Electoral, in the Executive, and the Legislative arenas, in the Post-Cold War (1992-2016). The use of the comparative method guided the study of six specific cases, analyzed using qualitative techniques. The results point to two trends. The first is that the possibility of convergence between the Democratic and Republican parties tends to diminish when their positions on human rights treaties are anchored by ideological perspectives, and the second is that a party’s position on a treaty tends to be congruent among political arenas. Moreover, the divergence of positions between the parties clarifies the liberal internationalist character of the Democratic positions and the conservative isolationist approach of the Republican positions.

Downloads

Não há dados estatísticos.

Biografia do Autor

Flávio Contrera, Universidade Federal de São Carlos

Doutor e Mestre em Ciência Política pelo Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ciência Política da UFSCar. Recebeu o Best Dissertation Award da Fulbright e Menção Honrosa no Prêmio CAPES por sua Tese de Doutorado. É Bacharel em Ciências Sociais pela Faculdade de Ciências e Letras da UNESP, campus de Araraquara. Atualmente, realiza estágio de pós-doutorado no Programa de Pós-Graduação em Relações
Internacionais Santiago Dantas. É pesquisador membro do Instituto Nacional de Ciência e Tecnologia para Estudos sobre os Estados Unidos (INCT-INEU) e do Núcleo de Estudos dos Partidos Políticos Latino Americanos (NEPPLA). Tem experiência na área de Ciência Política, com ênfase em Análise de Política Externa, atuando nos seguintes temas: Política Externa dos Estados Unidos, Relações Estados Unidos-América Latina, Segurança Internacional no Pós-Guerra Fria, Partidos Políticos e Eleições, e Metodologia de
Pesquisa.

Matheus Lucas Hebling, Universidade Estadual de Campinas
Doutorando em Ciência Política pela Universidade Estadual de Campinas com estágio sanduíche no GIGA - German Institute of Global and Area Studies. Mestre em Ciência Política pela Universidade Federal de São Carlos. Graduado em Ciências Sociais com ênfase em Ciência Política pela mesma instituição. Tem experiência e interesse nos temas: Presidencialismo, Política Comparada, Metodologia de Pesquisa com foco em Pesquisa Qualitativa, Processos Decisório e Legislativo, Política Externa, Discurso Político, Agenda e Terrorismo.

Referências

ALDRICH, J. Why Parties? A Second Look. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 2011.

BECKMANN, M.; MCGANN, A. Navigating the legislative divide: polarization, presidents, and policymaking in the United States. Journal of Theoretical Politics, v. 20, n. 2, p. 201-220, 2008.

BRADLEY, C. A. Unratified Treaties, Domestic Politics, and the U.S. Constitution. Harvard Journal of International Law, v. 48, p. 307-336, 2008.

BRUNELL, T. et al. Components of party polarization in the US House of Representatives. Journal of Theoretical Politics, June 9, p.1-27, 2015.

CARMINES, E. G. et al. How Abortion Became a Partisan Issue: Media Coverage of the Interest Group‐Political Party Connection. Politics & Policy, v. 38, p. 1135-1158, 2010.

CARTER, A.; PERRY, W. Preventive Defense: A New Security Strategy for America. Washington: Brookings Institution Press, 1999.

DAHL, R. A. Polyarchy: participation and opposition. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1971.

DELLA PORTA, D. Comparative Analysis: Case-oriented versus Variable-oriented research. In Donatella Della Porta and Michael Keating (eds.), Approaches and methodologies in the social sciences: a pluralist perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008.

DEUTSCH, K. Political Community and the North Atlantic Area: International Organization in the Light of Historical Experience. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1957.

DOWNS, A. An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper and Row, 1957.

ELSIG, M. et al. Who Is in Love with Multilateralism? Treaty Commitment in the Post-Cold War Era. European Union Politics, v. 12, n. 4, p. 529–50, 2011.

GOLDSTEIN, J. et al. Introduction: Legalization and world politics. International Organization, v. 54, n.3, p. 385-399, 2000.

HAAS, E. B. Beyond the nation-state: functionalism and international organization. Stanford University Press, 1964.

HAFNER-BURTON, E. M. et al. International human rights law and the politics of legitimation. International Sociology Journal, v. 23, n. 1, p. 115-141, 2008.

HATHAWAY, O. Why Do Countries Commit to Human Rights Treaties? Journal of Conflict Resolution, v. 51, n. 4, p. 588-621, 2007.

HOFFERBERT, R. I.; BUDGE, I (1992). The Party Mandate and the Westminster Model: Election Programmes and Government Spending in Britain, 1945-1985. British Journal of Political Science, v. 22, n. 2, p. 151-182, 1992.

HUNTINGTON, S. P. The erosion of American national interests. Foreign Affairs, v. 76, n. 5, p. 28-49, 1997.

KEOHANE, R. O.; NYE, J. S. (1977). Power and Interdependence. New York: Little, Brown, 1977.

KRASNER, S. Structural causes and regime consequences: Regimes as intervening variables. International Organization, v. 36, n. 2, p. 185-205, 1982.

LINDSAY, J. Congress and the Politics of US Foreign Policy. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994.

MAHONEY, J. Qualitative Methodology and Comparative Politics. Comparative Political Studies, v. 40, n. 2, p. 122-144, 2007.

MITRANY, D. A Working Peace System. Chicago: Quadrangle Press, 1966.

MEERNIK, J. Presidential Support in Congress: Conflict and Consensus on Foreign and Defense Policy. The Journal of Politics, v. 55, n. 3, p. 569-587, 1993.

NELSON, M; TILLMAN, T. The presidency, the bureaucracy, and foreign policy: Lessons from Cambodia. The presidency and the political system, edited by Michael Nelson. Washington, DC: CQ Press, 1984.

NYE, J. S. Redefining the national interest. Foreign Affairs, v. 78, n. 4, p. 22-35, 1999.

ORNSTEIN, N. Foreign Policy and the 1992 Election. Foreign Affairs, v. 71, n. 3, p. 01-16, 1992.

POOLE, K.; ROSENTHAL, H. Congress: A Political-Economic History of Roll Call Voting. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997.

POPE, J C.; WOON, J. Measuring Changes in American Party Reputations, 1939-2004. Political Research Quarterly, v. 62, n. 4, p. 653-661, 2008.

PUTNAM, R. Diplomacy and domestic politics: The logic of two-level games. International Organization, v, 42, n. 3, p. 427-460, 1988.

RAGUSA, J. M. Partisan Cohorts, Polarization, and the Gingrich Senators. American Politics Research, v. 44, n. 2, p. 296-325, 2016.

RAGIN, C. C. Fuzzy Set Social Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000.

REILLY, T. P. The National Security Strategy of the United States: Development of Grand Strategy. Strategy Research Project. Carlisle Barracks: U.S. Army War College, 2004.

RICE, C. Campaign 2000: Promoting the National Interest. Foreign Affairs, v. 79, n. 1, p. 45-62, 2000.

ROHDE, D. Parties and leaders in the Postreform House. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991.

ROSATI, J. A.; SCOTT, J. M. The Politics of United States Foreign Policy. Wadsworth: Thomson Learning, 2011.

ROSENAU, J. ; CZEMPIEL, E. (Eds.) Governance without Government: Order and Change in World Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992.

SCHMITZ, D. F.; WALKER, V. Jimmy Carter and the Foreign Policy of Human Rights. Diplomatic History 28, p.113-143, 2004.

SCOTT, D. C. Presidential Power to “Un-sign” Treaties. The University of Chicago Law Review, v. 69, p. 1447-1477, 2002.

THERIAULT, S. Party Polarization in the US Congress Member Replacement and Member Adaptation. Party Politics, v. 12, n. 4, p. 483-503, 2006.

WILLIAMS, G. I. The Democrats Embrace God: An Unqualified Blessing? Forum on Public Policy Online: A Journal of the Oxford Roundtable Summer, p.1-29, 2007.

ZHOU, M. Signaling Commitments, Making Concessions: Democratization and State Ratification of International Human Rights Treaties, 1966-2006. Rationality and Society, v. 26, n.4, p. 475-508, 2014.

Publicado
29-04-2021
Como Citar
Contrera, F., & Hebling, M. L. (2021). Party positions over international human rights treaties in the United States in the Post-Cold War. Estudos Internacionais: Revista De relações Internacionais Da PUC Minas, 9(1), 24-50. https://doi.org/10.5752/P.2317-773X.2021v9n1p24-50