| Summary: | This article aimed to verify the occurrence of convergence and congruence in
the positions that the Democratic and Republican parties express about human
rights treaties in the Electoral, in the Executive, and the Legislative arenas, in
the Post-Cold War (1992-2016). The use of the comparative method guided the
study of six specific cases, analyzed using qualitative techniques. The results
point to two trends. The first is that the possibility of convergence between the
Democratic and Republican parties tends to diminish when their positions on
human rights treaties are anchored by ideological perspectives, and the second is
that a party’s position on a treaty tends to be congruent among political arenas.
Moreover, the divergence of positions between the parties clarifies the liberal
internationalist character of the Democratic positions and the conservative
isolationist approach of the Republican positions.
|
|---|
