ABSTRACT
Chapter 4 looks at the international politics of international hate speech instruments. We examine the content, demandingness and scope of such instruments compared to domestic hate speech laws. We then explain why some states and not others fully engage with such instruments, using the ICERD as a case study, drawing on insights from realism, institutionalism, constructivism and critical approaches in international relations theory. Next we focus on US foreign policy towards international hate speech instruments, using the ICCPR as a case study. We trace initial disengagement with the ICCPR through to symbolic ratification and onto the current position under the Trump administration which involves not merely a lack of proper engagement with the ICCPR but actually using hate speech about other countries. Following on from that, we argue that states have both primary obligations to adhere to international norms on hate speech and secondary obligations to engage in diplomatic criticism of states that fail to comply with those norms. We also investigate three problems that may undermine the ethical standing and/or persuasive force of diplomatic criticism: norm contestation, counter-accusations of hypocrisy and counter-accusations of postcolonialism and neocolonialism. We argue, however, that all three problems are not insurmountable.
