Files
Abstract
Since the 1970’s, more than 50 countries transitioned to democracy, however, the literature has not explored whether these transitions affect foreign policy. This dissertation demonstrates that after a democratic transition, a new democracy will support human rights at multilateral fora, recasting sovereignty as limited by human rights and subject to international supervision. This comparative study of foreign policy, particularly at the United Nations (UN), is structured around two main factors: the mode of transition, by rupture or pact; and the state’s reputation on human rights, particularly if criticized by a multilateral forum. This dissertation applied a multi-method approach to test a series of hypotheses. After analyzing speeches at the UN General Assembly, this study demonstrates that new democracies arising from transitions by rupture emphasize human rights at their first speeches, while new democracies from pacted transitions gradually increase their support to human rights. This dissertation also explored the 20 attempts to create the post of UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, undertaking statistical models, based on standard cross-national ratings on regimes, and found that democracies consistently supported the proposal to create the post, while autocracies generally opposed it. Finally, this dissertation presents two case studies of new democracies: Argentina and Poland, including with interviews of government officials, to identify the relevant causal mechanisms. After the 1990’s, these new democracies, joining forces with old democracies, shifted the balance of global politics in favor of human rights.