The flawed implementation of the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998: A European perspective

Abstract

Religious freedom has always been at the core of American life and public policy. As the first freedom enumerated in the Bill of Rights, religious freedom is a cornerstone of American liberty. Due to the importance of this liberty, religion has had a constant presence in U.S. foreign policy debates for the last fifty years. Just before the Second World War, President Franklin D. Roosevelt stressed the importance of religious liberty for all and identified guaranteeing this freedom as a compelling reason for Americans to join the struggle for freedom in Europe. Many of the United States' concepts of religious freedom are also reflected in international law.Although the United States has a relatively modest record of ratifying international human rights treaties, it not surprisingly ratified three key international documents relating to religious freedom.' The United States was also one of the original supporters of the resolution that created the Special Rapporteur of the Commission of Human Rights on the Elimination of all Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination based on Religion and Belief. Despite this apparent commitment to religious freedom, however, the United States' recent efforts to protect such freedom abroad have fallen short, as illustrated by the compromised and ultimately problematic implementation of the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 (IRFA)7. While IRFA sets out to protect international religious freedom, its enforcement is undermined by the United States' other foreign policy interests, such as the war on terrorism, and a decidedly unilateral approach to the achievement of religious liberty around the globe.