ABSTRACT
In this chapter, we will discuss the problematic place of ‘human rights’ (HR) in diplomatic discourse and practice. The central question we ask is, why do politicians and diplomats have such a hard time credibly defending HR? We start with some preliminaries regarding the ‘nature’ of HR and discuss some paradoxes and inconsistencies that flow from it. We question the ‘universality’ of HR, except of the so-called basic or fundamental HR. We criticise the proliferation of HR (from first- to second- and then third-generation HR) and regret the growing banalisation of HR discourse. Together with these three conceptual vulnerabilities, we identify a legal vulnerability in HR discourse, all of which make their effective defence difficult. We then suggest that the concept of Rule of Law (RoL) may be better suited to international politics and that its effective defence is therefore more promising. What RoL does is replacing the substantive but vulnerable HR approach with a formal, procedural one. We explore two models of RoL, a minimalist and a maximalist one. In passing, we say something about attempts at conducting an ‘ethical foreign policy’ and explain why these often end up in a failure.
