cynicism on the steep path of human rights: a neo-realist perspective

Respecting for human rights is often hailed as a universal goal, yet the path toward its realization is anything but smooth, just like strengthened the wet thread. In international arena, where interests, power, and security dominate decision-making, a certain degree of cynicism often encountered upon a discussion of human rights. From the perspective of neo-realism in international relations, this cynicism isn't just a moral failure, it's a reflection of the structural forces at play in a world defined by anarchy and power politics.

Cynicism, in international politics, refers to a deep scepticisms or disbelief in the authenticity of state commitments to uphold moral principles like human rights. It’s the belief that such commitments are often rhetorical, deployed selectively or hypocritically to mask national interests or gain diplomatic leverage. On other side, Neo-realism, also known as structural realism, is an international relations theory that sees the global system as anarchic lacking a central authority. According to thinkers like Kenneth Waltz, states are the primary actors, driven by the need to survive in a self-help world. Morality, including human rights, often takes a back seat to national security and power accumulation. From a neo-realist perspective, respect for human rights is not an end, but a tool that states may use to achieve strategic goals. This view generates a pervasive cynicism about the true intentions behind human rights advocacy.

The Syrian Civil War (2011–present) provides a sharp and clear example. Western powers, including the U.S. and several European nations, condemned the Assad regime for its serious human rights violations, including chemical attacks on civilians. Yet, these same states have been selective in their interventions. Strategic interests, like avoiding entanglement, combating ISIS, or maintaining alliances, have often trumped humanitarian considerations. You can read it clear from Richard Spencer Report on Syria

Meanwhile, Russia, a key backer of the Assad regime, has used its veto power at the UN Security Council to block resolutions against Syria, not due to concern for sovereignty or peace, but to maintain its strategic foothold in the region. This selective outcry and inaction reinforce the cynical view that human rights are invoked more often as instruments of influence than as guiding principles.

Are there any good practices that can be emulated?

While cynicism persists, there are international examples where genuine commitment to human rights has shaped policy. Post-apartheid South Africa is one such case. After decades of racial segregation, the country adopted one of the world's most progressive constitutions, explicitly protecting civil, political, and socio-economic rights. Moreover, South Africa has used its experience to advocate for human rights in multilateral forums like the African Union and United Nations Human Rights Council. Despite internal challenges, this leadership is grounded in historical accountability and a sincere desire to institutionalize justice. This stands as a counterpoint to neo-realist cynicism, showing that states can transcend self-interest, though such examples are rare and often fragile.

The tension between cynicism and idealism in human rights advocacy reflects a broader theoretical debate in international relations. Idealist theories, like liberalism and constructivism, argue that norms, institutions, and interdependence can shape state behaviour and elevate moral values. They highlight the role of international law, NGO's, and public opinion in promoting accountability.

Neo-realists, however, argue that without enforcement power or self-interest, moral principles rarely dictate behaviour. In their view, international institutions merely reflect the will of powerful states, rather than serving as independent moral arbiters.

While neo-realism provides a sobering explanation of why human rights are often sidelined, it need not breed total cynicism. Understanding the structural forces behind state behaviour can help civil society, multilateral institutions, and coalitions of the willing to craft more effective strategies, ones that align moral values with strategic incentives. The path to human rights is indeed steep and fraught with duplicity. But awareness, vigilance, and persistent pressure can carve out moments of progress, even within a cynical world. A Call for Sober Realism, Not Defeatism