ABSTRACT
Ever since the end of World War II human rights have been a controversial and complex topic. Realists have been disappointed because of their central conviction that foreign policy should be governed exclusively by the pursuit of material interests. Liberal internationalists, believers in soft power, have been disappointed because political leaders often failed to take seriously human rights concerns in their dealings overseas. These opposing outlooks are further confused by the extent to which there are multiple roles for a human rights diplomacy. Even the most cynical realist appreciates a selective emphasis on the failures to respect human rights that can be attributed to hostile states. And most liberal internationalists are deferential to strategic relationships, and tend to overlook the violations of aligned states.
