In her timely book, Julie Mertus argues that the United States is one of the world's leading architects and promoters of international human rights. However, the United States, much like an unscrupulous car dealer, “uses its wealth and influence to mislead other states about its commitment to the human rights framework, appearing as universalist when actually it is applying double-standards” (p. 210). In other words, the United States relies on one set of human rights standards for itself and another set of standards to judge other states. Mertus starts out her project hoping to discover that human rights norms have become “deeply embedded,” “institutionalized,” or “internalized” into the U.S. foreign policy framework. Instead, she finds that both the executive branch and the Defense Department routinely override human rights concerns in favor of instrumental foreign policy gains. This American exceptionalism or exemptionalism of excusing itself from institutions and norms that it establishes and purports to follow has prevented human rights norms from fully embedding themselves into U.S. foreign policy. Mertus points to an inherent ambivalence and structural inability of the United States to actually follow through on its very own human rights goals. She finds some evidence to suggest that it indeed does respect and value human rights, but there is strong counterevidence to suggest that it is not able to actually translate human rights aspirations to meaningful policies.

The book is divided into five chapters, of which the middle three chapters seek to establish the main argument by examining the post–Cold War human rights policies of three U.S. presidents, the new humanism of the U.S. military, and the role of civil society in influencing the human rights agenda. All of the chapters are extensively researched and copiously documented. The author draws upon interviews with leading human rights practitioners and policymakers conducted over a three-year period, a written survey of 150 respondents, selected primary documents, and field notes from her research in the former Yugoslavia.

In Chapter 2, Mertus analyzes the independent steps taken by the U.S. military to institutionalize human rights norms into both its operation and culture. Based on firsthand interviews and surveys, this chapter discusses how military lawyers were extensively consulted while air targeting lists against Serbia were being prepared during the Bosnia and Kosovo conflicts in order to avoid collateral damage and prevent any violation of international humanitarian law. She argues that human rights norms “have had an impact on military identity and behavior,” but at the same time she also finds that operational limitations have reduced the ability of the military to fully pursue its newfound humanism (p. 129). The fourth chapter rounds out the book by focusing on the role and influence of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) in affecting U.S. human rights policy. Through her survey research, Mertus finds that the motivations and expectations that guide both career military officers and human rights activists are not radically different, but that their techniques and perceptions significantly vary. By relying on some nifty case studies, this chapter shows how NGOs have shaped the human rights agenda through persuasion. But the author is cautious about overemphasizing the impact of NGOs; she finds that their influence remains inconsistent and incomplete because they are treated as outsiders by the U.S foreign policy establishment.

The author contends in Chapter 2 that despite using different human rights buzzwords and rhetoric and some external variations in policy, all three post–Cold War American presidents were ultimately “driven by the common theme of American exceptionalism” (p. 73). Disconnect between policy and rhetoric was particularly egregious during the presidency of Bill Clinton, who, unlike his predecessors, expressed a genuine concern for human rights and closely identified his presidency with moral idealism. For instance, Mertus points out, the Clinton administration was highly selective when it came to issues of international justice, tribunals, and accountability because the media and public opinion heavily influenced the policies. In contrast, she characterizes George H. W. Bush's policies as pragmatic, managerial, and nondoctrinal, with greater stress on Cold War triumphalism that emphasized electoral democracy, market reforms, and institution building. She reserves her strongest criticism, as many others have done, for the administration of George W. Bush for unilaterally overturning international treaties, for trying to muzzle the United Nations, and for its policies on torture and treatment of foreign detainees at Guantanamo Bay.

All of the empirical chapters principally aim to expose how the double standard of American exceptionalism works to prevent human rights norms from becoming embedded into U.S. foreign policy. Nevertheless, Mertus never really tells us what American exceptionalism is and what are its theoretical and empirical referents. American exceptionalism is equated with the common tendency of U.S. policymakers to exempt themselves from the constraints of human rights norms when it does not suit their objectives. However, if this is indeed the definition of American exceptionalism, then almost every country is guilty of such exceptionalism. Maybe it is simply not a question of U.S. national interests periodically interfering to prevent genuine norm institutionalization but that the superpower status structurally limits American policymakers from pursuing human rights ideals. What is lacking is an examination of the deeper normative foundations of American exceptionalism.

The book, however, is chock-full of rich empirical material, which is enlightening. Much of the focus is on process issues, that is, on how and why human rights have not become deeply embedded into U.S. foreign policy actions. Although the author indicates that the book is motivated by constructivist theory, very little space is devoted to broader theoretical issues. In all fairness, the goal is not about reinterpreting or advancing international relations theory. The aim is to provide a readable account that is accessible to policymakers and academics; in that regard, the book succeeds enormously. Overall, Bait and Switch makes a valuable contribution to the growing literature on human rights, and it will also serve as a nice reader for any course on human rights policy.