Human Rights as Instruments of Power: Politicisation, Selective Enforcement, and Glaring Gaps

Background

Human rights are the inalienable entitlements of every person, derived from the simple fact of being human. They are not privileges granted by any state or authority but are universal rights that apply to all people, regardless of nationality, gender, ethnicity, race, religion, language, or any other status. These rights encompass not only the fundamental right to life but also the rights that make life meaningful, such as the rights to food, education, work, health, and liberty (OHCHR, 2025). The foundational international instrument that articulates these principles is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948. As a landmark document, the UDHR has had a profound influence on the global human rights system, serving as the basis for numerous international treaties, conventions, and national constitutions (Beats, 2009).

Human rights are natural, equal, indivisible, universal, and inalienable. These foundational principles demand consistent application without exception. Yet, the selective enforcement of human rights and their politicisation, whether in advocacy, legal development, or international discourse, are fundamentally unjust and undermine their credibility. When rights are applied unevenly or manipulated for political gain, their universal legitimacy is eroded, and the core purpose of the human rights framework is compromised (Donnelly, 2013; McGoldrick, 1996; OHCHR, 2025). Despite the robust commitments articulated in international human rights instruments, a persistent and troubling gap remains between these legal ideals and the real-world practices of states (Bantekas & Oette, 2020). This disjunction not only frustrates the work of rights defenders globally but also diminishes trust in the universality and impartiality of the human rights system.

According to the Human Rights Watch World Report 2024, the year 2023 marked a deeply troubling period for global human rights, characterised by widespread abuses and wartime atrocities. What made these violations even more distressing was the persistent pattern of selective outrage and transactional diplomacy by world governments, where political bargaining took precedence over the protection of human life (HRW, 2024). The report highlights that the rampant politicisation of human rights has not only undermined their enforcement but has also exacerbated the suffering of vulnerable populations whose rights are routinely neglected or ignored. In this context, powerful states have often invoked human rights not as genuine ethical imperatives but as strategic tools to advance foreign policy goals and project soft power. Such instrumentalisation of human rights exposes a stark disparity between rhetorical commitment and actual practice, severely eroding both the credibility and the universality of the international human rights regime (Posner, 2014; Donnelly, 2013; Bantekas & Oette, 2020).

This paper examines the politicisation of human rights, the extent to which their enforcement has been selectively applied, and the discrepancy between rhetorical commitments and actual state practice. At its core, the study seeks to answer the primary research question: “How are human rights selectively applied?” To further explore this issue, two interrelated sub-questions are addressed: “How do powerful states politicise human rights?” and “How is the duality between rhetoric and practice manifested in global human rights enforcement?”

To answer these questions, the paper employs a multi-method approach, including case studies and a comparative chart contrasting human rights rhetoric with actual practice among the P5 countries. Empirical examples are used to illustrate how human rights are often invoked as tools of foreign policy. It is also explored through a comparative analysis of the P5 countries (United States, United Kingdom, France, Russia, and China), highlighting the contradiction between their declared commitments to human rights and their actual behaviours, thereby exposing the inherent duality and inconsistency in global human rights practice.

Selective Condemnations Based on Geopolitical Interests

Jack Donnelly (2023) emphasises that powerful states often invoke human rights discourse not as a reflection of universal moral obligations, but as a tool shaped by their national interests. A clear example of this selective approach is seen in the United States’ strong condemnation of China’s treatment of the Uyghur population in the Xinjiang region, which it frames as a serious human rights violation. While such criticism may be warranted, it starkly contrasts with the U.S.’s continued close diplomatic, economic, and military ties with Saudi Arabia, a country widely criticised for systemic human rights abuses, including repression of dissent, gender-based discrimination, and the conduct of its war in Yemen. This inconsistency illustrates how human rights rhetoric is selectively applied, depending not on the severity of violations but on strategic geopolitical considerations.

Intervention in Libya: The Politicisation of Responsibility to Protect (R2P)

NATO’s 2011 intervention in Libya, led primarily by the United States, was initially justified under the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine, framed as a mission to prevent mass atrocities and protect civilians. However, the operation quickly expanded beyond its humanitarian mandate into a regime change campaign, including direct military support for rebel forces. This shift triggered a protracted civil conflict, caused widespread instability, and resulted in thousands of civilian deaths and a deepening humanitarian crisis. As Conner (2017) argues, the Libyan case illustrates how R2P was co-opted as a tool of realpolitik, serving strategic interests rather than principled humanitarian concerns. The ethical foundations of R2P, meant to prevent atrocity crimes, were severely compromised. Ultimately, R2P in Libya failed, leading not to stability or peace but to increased chaos, human suffering, and a long-term collapse of governance.

Domestic Double Standards in Human Rights Discourse

Western countries and their media often frame human rights violations as issues primarily afflicting non-Western states, projecting themselves as global champions of rights and democratic values. However, this narrative frequently obscures the growing human rights challenges within their own borders, including the systematic mistreatment of racial minorities, indigenous populations, asylum seekers, and immigrants. These domestic injustices stand in stark contrast to their international rhetoric. Moreover, the historical legacy of Western powers reveals deep-rooted patterns of violence and oppression, particularly during the colonial era. A stark example is the British suppression of the Mau Mau uprising in Kenya during the 1950s, which involved widespread torture, extrajudicial killings, and internment (Thakur, 2016). Similarly, as Bass (2013) details, U.S. officials, renowned diplomat Henry Kissinger, knowingly ignored the genocide in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) in 1971 to preserve diplomatic opportunities with China as part of a broader strategy to counter Soviet influence illustrating how even grave human rights abuses are sometimes overlooked when they conflict with strategic interests (cited in Thakur, 2016). These examples expose the double standards in Western human rights advocacy, where principles are often subordinated to political and geopolitical priorities.

Bloc Politics in International Human Rights Forums

International institutions established to promote and protect human rights, particularly the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), have become increasingly politicised. From its inception, the Human Rights Council has struggled with allegations of bias, selectivity, and political manipulation. Rather than decisions being made through impartial assessments of human rights records, voting patterns and state support within the UNHRC often reflect geopolitical alliances and bloc politics. Member states frequently align their positions based on strategic partnerships and regional interests, rather than on consistent application of human rights principles. In many cases, governments use their influence within such bodies to shield allies from scrutiny or to deflect criticism from their own rights violations, undermining the perceived neutrality and credibility of these institutions (Freeman & Houghton, 2017). This politicisation raises serious concerns about the impartiality and effectiveness of international human rights mechanisms.

Global Backlash and the Erosion of Legitimacy

The highly politicised and selective application of human rights by powerful states has triggered a significant global backlash, particularly from non-Western countries. Many in the Global South perceive international human rights institutions as ideologically driven and dominated by Western political agendas, rather than as impartial defenders of universal values. This perception has led to growing resistance and scepticism, undermining the authority of global human rights norms and eroding the credibility and legitimacy of institutions such as the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) and the International Criminal Court (ICC) (Hopgood, 2013, p. 13). In response to criticism, states like China and Russia routinely dismiss human rights allegations as politically motivated attacks, rooted in Western interests rather than objective standards. This backlash not only challenges the moral authority of Western-dominated institutions but also contributes to the fragmentation of the international human rights system, weakening its capacity to function as a truly global framework for justice and accountability.

Comparative summary table

Mechanism	Example	Impact
Selective Condemnations	China vs USA: The USA and the West condemn China against its treatment of Uyghur Muslims, but remain silent on Human Rights violations in their Allies	Undermines the universality of Human Rights, enhances mistrust, and criticism
Politicised humanitarianism	NATO’s Libya intervention	Blurs ethical goals, Weakens human rights values of R2P.
Domestic Double Standards	Western countries’ treatment towards minorities, migrants,	Erodes moral authority to criticise others; victims of human rights abuse increases,
Politicisation of institutions	Biased and bloc voting against anything other than allies	Weakens’ trust, effectiveness and concept of neutrality
Backlash from emerging power	China, Russia and other countries are rejecting criticism of Western power	Issues become politicised, damage consciences, and real victims are ignored.

Sources: Conner, 2017; Donnelly, 2023; Hopgood, 2013; Freeman & Houghton; Thakur, 2016.

Rhetoric vs Practices in Human Rights Issues:

All countries of the world have pledged to uphold and promote human rights for every individual, including their own citizens, through the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and various other international human rights conventions and instruments. However, a significant gap persists between these commitments and the actual practices of states. This gap is particularly evident in the conduct of powerful nations, especially the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), known as the P5: China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. While these countries often present themselves as defenders or champions of human rights in international forums, their domestic and foreign policies frequently contradict this rhetoric.

Stephen Hopgood (2013) argues that human rights have increasingly become a tool of soft power for Western countries, serving strategic rather than moral purposes. Similarly, Posner (2014) notes that P5 nations tend to selectively invoke human rights norms only when doing so aligns with their geopolitical interests, thereby undermining the legitimacy of these norms. Meanwhile, countries like China and Russia criticise Western double standards while failing to take responsibility for their own human rights violations. This stark dissonance between rhetoric and behaviour not only erodes the credibility of the international human rights regime but also fuels growing scepticism among non-Western nations (Hopgood, 2013; Posner, 2014).

The comparative chart below demonstrates the public human rights positions of the P5 countries with their actual records. This chart is based on literature reviews of academic journals, books, reports and media reporting. 

Country	Human Rights Position	Practice/Gap
China	Advocate “developmental rights” and economic rights over civil-political ones; stress non-interference.	Mass detentions in Xinjiang, systematic suppression of dissent in Tibet and Hong Kong, pervasive censorship, and the strategic use of human rights conditions in BRI.
France	Assert to be a defender of human rights and an international humanitarian actor.	Accused of selective asylum enforcement, religious bias, and police brutality, misbehave to immigrants.
Russia	Criticise the ‘Western hypocrisy’, focuses on traditional values, and emphasises sovereignty. Guaranteed freedom of speech, associations.	Restricting civil society, censorship on the media, anti-LGBTQ law, the use of human rights discourse to justify authoritarian government, and violations of human rights in Ukraine, and aggression in Ukraine.
UK	Promotes democracy, the rule of law, and human rights globally.	Strong surveillance law for migrants, sells arms to oppressive regimes, ties with oppressive regimes for economic issues
USA	It declares itself the global defender of freedom, democracy, and universal human rights.	Exchange on Economic benefits, silent on their allies’ issues, partnership with oppressive countries, the Guantanamo detention centre, and silent on Gaza, unlawful killings, discrimination, gender related violence, and arbitrary detention.
European Union and the USA	Champion of human rights, democracy, and the rule of law,	They criticise Russian aggression in Ukraine in the name of international law, fully supporting Ukraine, but have not taken enough action against the Israeli extreme use of force in Gaza. And backed Israel’s aggression in Iran.

Sources: Geeraerts (2016); OHCHR, 2022; Fassin, 2011; OHCHR, 2025; Gerber, 2017; OHCHR, 2024; Amnesty International, 2023; Amnesty International, 2025; Poraza, 2025; Kravik, 2024.

Western countries, including the United States, the European Union, and several European nations, have supported Israeli and U.S. military actions against Iran, justifying them on grounds of national security and deterrence. At the same time, these same states invoke the principles of territorial integrity and opposition to unlawful aggression to defend their strong support for Ukraine in response to Russia’s invasion. This selective application of international norms, values, and human rights reveals a clear double standard, wherein similar actions are interpreted differently depending on the political alignment of the actor involved in the conflict (Wintour, 2023; Kravik, 2024; Malik, 2023).

Policy and other behaviours of Western countries

Issues	Ukraine (Russia)	Israel/Iran/Gaza (West/Allies)
Big Military and Financial support	Support to Ukraine	Direct military intervention for Israel
Condemnation of Aggression	Strong consistent	Selective Support for Israel, silent on Gaza war
Application of International Law	Assertive, emphasised, enforced	Applied selectively, often ignored
Refugee Policy	Open borders for Ukrainians	Closed borders for many other refugees
Human Rights criticism	Focus on Russia’s violations,	Less critical of Gaza. Critical of Iran, Support Israel.
Aggression	Support Ukraine	Support Israel/USA

Sources: G7 canada, 2025; G7 Hiroshima, 2023; Poraza, 2025; Kravik, 2024; Wintour, 2023

Discussion

The above Tables 1, 2, and 3 clearly illustrate the gap between rhetoric and practice within specific mechanisms, highlighting the serious impact on human rights. The politically interest-driven positions and inconsistent behaviours of the actors involved further underscore this discrepancy.

 The principle of universal human rights is founded on the belief that all individuals possess inherent and inalienable rights simply by virtue of being human. However, in practice, these rights are frequently manipulated and misused as instruments of geopolitical strategy, rather than being upheld as consistent moral or legal obligations. The behaviour of the P5 states clearly illustrates this trend. Their selective engagement reveals that the international human rights framework suffers from deep politicisation, inconsistent enforcement, and glaring double standards.

Powerful countries such as the United States and its allies often publicly condemn human rights violations committed by adversaries, as seen in their vocal opposition to Russian aggression in Ukraine. Yet, these same states remain silent or complicit when similar or even more severe abuses are carried out by strategic partners, such as Israel. The failure of Western governments to hold Israel accountable for its systematic violence against Palestinians, despite credible accusations of apartheid and even genocide from respected human rights organisations, exemplifies this selective morality. In contrast, the robust international support for Ukraine is framed in terms of international law and human rights, revealing a clear inconsistency rooted not in principle, but in political alignment.

Conclusion

The instrumentalisation of human rights erodes the legitimacy of international institutions and undermines the moral authority of states that claim to defend these rights. If human rights are to serve as a truly universal standard, rather than a diplomatic tool, then the international community, especially the most powerful states, must confront this hypocrisy and commit to applying these principles consistently, irrespective of political or strategic interests. 

The selective application of human rights norms does not protect the rights of all people; instead, it deepens human suffering and increases the number of victims. Tragically, the global human rights discourse is increasingly marked by hypocrisy, empty rhetoric, political bias, and power-driven agendas, which are factors that obscure genuine values and respect for human dignity. As a result, humanity, human life, and human rights now face unprecedented and mounting threats.

References

Amnesty International, 2023. UK: Government is ‘bulldozing’ UK human rights – global human rights review. London https://www.amnesty.org.uk/press-releases/uk-government-bulldozing-uk-human-rights-global-human-rights-review

Amnesty International, 2025. United States of America 2024. https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/americas/north-america/united-states-of-america/report-united-states-of-america

Banketas. I, & Oette, L. 2020. International Human Rights Law and Practice. Cambridge University Press. London. 1. 

Conner, P. E. T. A. (2017). Inconsistency, Hegemony, Colonialism and Genocide: How R2P Failed Libya. E-International Relations.

De Baets, A. (2009). The impact of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on the study of history. History and Theory, 48(1), 20-43.

Donnelly, J. (2013). Universal human rights in theory and practice. Cornell University Press.

Fassin, D. (2011). Policing borders, producing boundaries. The governmentality of immigration in dark times. Annual Review of anthropology, 40(1), 213-226. https://ecourse.auca.kg/pluginfile.php/350019/mod_resource/content/1/BordersFassin-Policing-ARA.pdf

Freedman, R., & Houghton, R. (2017). Two steps forward, one step back: Politicisation of the human rights council. Human Rights Law Review, 17(4), 753-769.

Gerber, T. P. (2017). Public opinion on human rights in Putin-era Russia: Continuities, changes, and sources of variation. Journal of Human Rights, 16(3), 314-331.

Geeraerts, G. (2016). China, the EU, and global governance in human rights. In China, the European Union, and the International Politics of Global Governance (pp. 233-249). New York: Palgrave Macmillan US.

Human Rights Watch, 2024. The World Report 2024, events of 2023. Human Rights Watch. USA. https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/media_2024/01/World%20Report%202024%20LOWRES%20WEBSPREADS_0.pdf

Human Rights Watch, 2024. World Report 2023, events of 2022. New York. https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2023/country-chapters/united-states

Kravik, A.M. 2024. We must avoid a double standard in Foreign Policy. Alzezira/Opinion. https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2024/4/18/we-must-avoid-double-standards-in-foreign-policy

Malik, Z. 2023. Hypocrisy and Double Standards: The Selective Justice of Western Leaders. The Review of Religions. https://www.reviewofreligions.org/44768/hypocrisy-and-double-standards-the-selective-justice-of-western-leaders/

McGoldrick, D. (1996). Sustainable development and human rights: an integrated conception. International & Comparative Law Quarterly, 45(4), 796-818.

Muzaffar, C. (1995). Human Rights and Hypocrisy in the International Order. Just World Trust (JUST), 80.

MoFA Japan, 2023. G7 Hiroshima Summit Session 8 : Ukraine. Hiroshima, Japan. https://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/economy/summit/hiroshima23/en/topics/detail044

Noor, I. J. (2024). Challenging the American empire: A history of hypocrisy and double standards in human rights. Tapestries: Interwoven voices of local and global identities, 13(1), 3.

OHCHR, 2022. OHCHR Assessment of human rights concerns in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, People’s Republic of China.  https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/countries/2022-08-31/22-08-31-final-assesment.pdf

OHCHR, 2025. Country report. France: Country & Territories, https://www.ohchr.org/en/countries/france

OHCHR, 2024. Torture in the Russian Federation: a tool for repression at home and aggression abroad”. https://www.ohchr.org/en/documents/country-reports/a79508-situation-human-rights-russian-federation-report-special

OHCHR, 2025. What are human rights? Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.  Geneva. Webpage. https://www.ohchr.org/en/what-are-human-rights#:~:text=Human%20rights%20are%20rights%20we,language%2C%20or%20any%20other%20status.

PM of Canada, 2025. G7 Leaders’ Statement on recent developments between Israel and Iran.  https://www.pm.gc.ca/en/news/statements/2025/06/16/g7-leaders-statement-on-recent-developments-between-israel-and-iran#:~:text=We%2C%20the%20leaders%20of%20the,of%20the%20protection%20of%20civilians.

Posner, E. A. (2014). The twilight of human rights law. Oxford University Press.

Podraza, A. (2025). Inconsistency of US policy toward Russia in the 21st century and the outbreak of war in Ukraine in 2022. Comparative Strategy, 44(2), 201-219.

Slimia, A., & Othman, M. F. (2022). The double standards of Western countries toward Ukraine and Palestine: “Western Hypocrisy”. Central European Management Journal, 30(4), 476-485.

Terman, R., & Byun, J. (2022). Punishment and politicisation in the international human rights regime. American Political Science Review, 116(2), 385-402.

Thakur, R. (2016). Ethics, international affairs and Western double standards. Asia & Pacific Policy Studies, 3(3), 370-377.

Wintour, P. 2023. Why the US double standard on Israel and Russia plays into a dangerous game. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/dec/26/why-us-double-standards-on-israel-and-russia-play-into-a-dangerous-game

Photo by Markus Spiske on Unsplash