ABSTRACT
The United States has engaged in international human rights practice in two significantly different ways. This mix is not so much a sign of schizophrenia as one of maturing. Initially as an international judge, the United States traditionally declared human rights legal standards through its foreign policy. This declaratory posture has been both positive and negative. Positively, it has contributed to a growing body of international legal human rights standards and instruments. But as the US government itself has generally abstained from ratifying international human rights covenants, its partici-patory role has been minimal. A double standard incites counterjudgments from various parts of the world, as others question the consistency, responsibility, and reciprocity in US standards, practices, and opinions.1 Such foreign-policy debates wallow in harangue and rhetoric that create more intransigence than progress.
