Are US Foreign Policy Tools Effective in Improving Human Rights Conditions?

Abstract

This is the first empirical study to evaluate, in combination, the relative impact of the US’s four major foreign policy tools (i.e., military intervention, military assistance, economic sanctions, and economic assistance) on human rights conditions abroad. This study presents a Hegemonic Intervention Hypothesis, which cautions against US action to promote human rights, and a Coercion Hypothesis, which assesses punitive actions as likely to be more harmful than acts of assistance. Relying on a dataset of 144 countries for the years 1975–2005, this study finds that, contrary to Washington’s stated desire to promote human rights, all forms of US foreign policy intervention are either neutral in effect or linked to increases in the level of state repression.