Carrots or Sticks? EU and US reactions to Human Rights violations (1989-2000)

Abstract

The dissertation shows that countries with severe human rights violations and/or dictatorships are likely to be subjected to sanctions, irrespective of their strategic or economic importance to the West. A considerable number of states are never sanctioned for violating human rights, but these countries tend to be liberal democracies, allies and at peace. I found that the differences between the E.U. and the U.S. are negligible with respect to the use of punitive measures, but striking when it comes to the use of positive measures. The E.U. uses a combination of “carrots” and “sticks”, while “engagement” essentially means free trade and little else for the U.S. I argue that the institutional set up of the E.U. and the U.S. political systems can largely account for the differences in their reactions, while their common adherence to liberal norms can account for the similarities. Historically and institutionally speaking, it is easier for the E.U. to decide on positive measures than on negative measures. The institutional set up of U.S. sanctions policy, in contrast, favors the use of sticks, given the role of Congress in the decision-making and the small constituencies which favor positive measures. The findings, which largely undermine Realism and support Liberalism and Constructivism, challenge the conventional wisdom in the field, both among scholars and in the wider policy world according to which Western states pursue rather inconsistent human rights policies.