Yet, they have often been heavily criticized for advancing their own interests and of double standards.
They often have not ratified various international human rights related treaties (and where it has, there have been many, many reservations).
US diplomats were influential in drawing up the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, yet the USA has not always put (some of their own) words into action.
Amnesty International has long called for the USA to have a greater respect for human rights.
The USA is engaged in a cruel, brutalizing, unreliable, unnecessary and hugely expensive activity for no measurable gain.
... There is no evidence that the US authorities have prevented a single crime with this policy ... They have diverted countless millions of dollars away from more constructive efforts to fight crime. And the macabre absurdity is that it creates more victims - the family members of the condemned - often in the name of victims' rights.
The death penalty is a symptom of a culture of violence, not a solution to it. The sooner US politicians begin to find the political courage to educate public opinion rather than hide behind it, the better.
There have been about half a million murders in the USA since 1977. In the same period, 716 men and women have been executed. This is a punishment, these bare statistics suggest, reserved for the worst of the worst of murderers in the USA. But how can that be true if, for example, learning disabled prisoners are among the condemned? ... It is time they [U.S. leaders] took it upon themselves to measure US standards of decency against the aspirations of the international community on the death penalty.
USA: Time to recognize international standards of decency , Amnesty International, 5th June, 2001.
Police brutality in the US has been a known problem. (The previous link is from an article about a 450-page report released by Human Rights Watch that accuses local governments and federal officials of failing to address this issue.) Probably the most well known recent case was the 1991 Rodney King incident in Los Angeles that led to riots in that city.
The Republican Convention and Democratic Convention for the 2000 elections had been accompanied by large public protests. However, the mainstream media did not report much on the police brutality involved to silence the dissenters. There were many, many mainstream and alternative sites around the world following the 2000 election race (as it was a global issue -- one Ugandan citizen lamented at how he didn't have a right to vote in the U.S. elections, and yet the U.S. influences his country more than his own government!). However, to look at the issues not covered by the mainstream (and an analysis of the issue that are covered!), you can start at the ZNet Convention Convergence section.
In what is the second most hazardous industry to work in, after mining, agriculture is also the most hazardous for children, in the United States. Human Rights Watch reports how the US fails to protect child workers.
In Amnesty International's 2001 report, they pointed out that there were many cases of torture and ill-treatment in prisons and jails, where [a]buses included beatings and excessive force; sexual misconduct; the misuse of electro-shock weapons and chemical sprays; and the cruel use of mechanical restraints, including holding prisoners for prolonged periods in four-point restraint as punishment. Many reported abuses took place in isolation units or during forced removal of prisoners from cells ( cell extractions ). The USA incidentally also has the world's largest prison population of roughly 2 million people, which accounts for approximately a quarter of the world's prison population.
For 2000, for example, Human Rights Watch also reported that the United States made little progress in embracing international human rights standards at home.
In early March 1999, President Clinton made an apology for US support of successive right-wing governments in Guatemala (which got a brief mention in US mainstream media compared to all the things that could have been revealed). While this was a positive step, some were hoping that this could lead towards a US Truth Commission to look into and expose Washington's similar aid (sometimes worse) during the Cold War to repressive government regimes in other nations, especially in Latin America. That is not too likely, given the time that has since elapsed and lack of discussions on such a notion.
US corporations have been heavily criticized for supporting regimes that abuse people's rights, or even employing local militias and militaries to violate people's rights. The corporations often seek out cheaper resources and labor. Sweatshop labor can result in some countries, manufacturing products for consumption in America. See the corporations section on this web site for more information.
Critics had pointed out that the U.S's recent go-alone stances on many international issues had been factors as well. Examples include not supporting the international criminal court, not supporting the international landmine treaty, its stance on the death penalty, not paying its dues at the U.N. (leaving it to others to make up in some way, especially European nations), backing down from Kyoto, and so on.
Admittedly, the U.S. has been more vocal than many nations on some human rights issues, but when it has come to major initiatives and substantial changes to promote and support human rights, the U.S. has, as mentioned above, often been alone, acting in their own interests, as some examples throughout this web site will show.
Moreover, being voted off, the US Congress decided to withhold $244 million in dues owed to the United Nations. As the previous link suggests, this is a very arrogant stance. If other nations were to do such things, they would be rightly criticized of bribing or bullying to get their way.
On the same day, the commission also voted the U.S. off the International Narcotics Control Board.
In 2002, the U.S. were voted back onto the Commission.
It is interesting to look at the USA's position on some of the standard international human rights treaties, given the US's vocal position on human rights and insistence that it is the premier promoter of human rights.
The Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (OPT), which is supervised by the Human Rights Committee to receive and consider, as provided in the present Protocol, communications from individuals claiming to be victims of violations of any of the rights set forth in the Covenant.
The Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aimed at the abolition of the death penalty (OPT2).
Many nations have not ratified and/or signed these last three, but the US does stand out in this area overall given the position it claims to lead. Some of the reasons of not signing these include geopolitical reasons, internal politics etc. In a couple of cases, it could be argued that given the strong US Constitution, that some of these do not need to be ratified. However, it would be an even stronger and more responsible step to ensure that these are ratified due to that reason.
Many immigration policies for migrants are harsh and often they do not have all the political rights and protection needed.
As many people have commented upon for years, (and detailed for example in this report from Human Rights Watch), US labor standards are poor, despite rhetoric of the opposite, and often violate basic rights.
That is not to say that other countries do not have problems with their policies. Indeed, in some areas, the United States fairs better than others who have ratified some of these treaties. The point then, is not to do some US-bashing, but more to highlight some of the reality of the US's human rights situation, versus the rhetoric that it portrays to its citizens and others.
If the United States claims to be the beacon for human rights promotion around the world, then it only makes sense that it must be subject to detailed analysis and criticism itself. This is especially so if all other nations were to follow its examples -- to do less would be to lower the high standards, which are the rhetoric, from being a reality, within both the United States and elsewhere.
Shah, Anup. “The USA and Human Rights.” Global Issues . 21 Aug. 2002. Web. 25 Apr. 2019. <http://www.globalissues.org/article/139/the-usa-and-human-rights>.