Since Sept. 11, the relationship between the United States and the rest of the world has grown increasingly complex. In many cases, the self-proclaimed protector of freedom asks other countries to conduct themselves according to the dictates of treaties and the international rule of law. Sometimes it even holds itself out as a model of progress, human rights and the rule of law. In reality, the truth about its own human rights record is more complicated.

The United States has a long history of refusing to enforce, within its own borders, the same human rights standards it so often requests of others. Decades after signing international human rights treaties, it frequently exempts itself from the very treaty obligations it purported to undertake. It usually does so by employing one of two methods. In some cases, it refuses to acknowledge treaty obligations as internal U.S. law and its domestic courts decline to enforce them. In other circumstances, the United States employs devices called Reservations, Understandings and Declarations (RUDs) to sign onto an international treaty in a qualified and contingent matter.

One often cited example of the United States' failure to enforce its own international treaty obligations is the country's historical refusal to honor the requirement of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. The convention requires the United States to notify foreign governments whose citizens are involved in capital cases in American courts. Twice, in cases brought by Germany and Paraguay, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ordered the United States not to execute prisoners who failed to receive protections. Nonetheless, American courts allowed the executions to proceed. Last year, in a new case brought by Mexico, the ICJ again instructed the United States to enforce Vienna Convention rights and halt executions.

The irony in the situation is obvious to many. The United States has invoked the Vienna Convention to ensure protection for American citizens abroad but has refused to provide meaningful protections for foreign citizens within its own borders.

Very recently, however, the United States took several actions to lend new force of law to several human rights obligations. The Bush administration issued a memorandum to state courts instructing them to honor the decision of the ICJ in the case brought by Mexico. Then, the Supreme Court of the United States, in Hamden v. Rumsfeld, used one of the nation's oldest human rights treaties, the Geneva Conventions, to strike down the use of criminal tribunals for Guantanamo prisoners. Unfortunately, many legal experts are skeptical about whether the substantive protections that resulted from these actions will endure.

Still, even if foreign nationals are granted full consular notification protections in the future, and the use of criminal tribunals at Guantanamo remains discontinued, the nation should continue to improve its human rights record. The United States ignores the internationally recognized rights of asylum applicants, its minority groups continue to be over-represented among those it executes, serious labor violations and inequities persist and numerous human rights obligations remain unenforced. As the United States' international activism continues in the post-Sept. 11 era, the United States and its citizens will be in a more trusted position to advocate for justice, human rights and the rule of law among nations if they are seen as promoting those same principles at home.