Using the 1950 International Court of Justice (ICJ) Paris Peace Treaties advisory opinions as a vantage point, this articles explores the changing attitude of the American government towards the emerging United Nations human rights regime and the latter became entangled in Cold War politics. The first part situates the contribution of this article within the postwar human rights historiography. The second part explores how US legal advisors constructed arguments destined to insulate the American domestic legal system from the alleged domestic disruptive effects of the new human rights. The final section delves into the cases of Cardinal Mindszenty of Budapest and Archbishop Stepinac of Zagreb, and how they reverberated at the ICJ. It argues that US legal advisors sought to turn the human rights violations that triggered the judicial proceedings into violations of treaty provisions. In the process, the ICJ validated this transformation and, thus contributed, to marginalizing the emerging United Nations human rights regime.

本文以 1950 年国际法院 ( ICJ ) 的《巴黎和平条约》咨询意见为切入点，探讨了美国政府对新兴的联合国人权制度及其卷入冷战政治的态度转变。第一部分介绍了本文在战后人权史学中的贡献。第二部分探讨了美国法律顾问如何构建旨在使美国国内法律体系免受新人权所谓的国内破坏性影响的论点。最后一节深入探讨了布达佩斯红衣主教敏德森蒂和萨格勒布大主教斯特皮纳克的案件，以及他们如何在国际法院引起反响. 它辩称，美国法律顾问试图将引发司法程序的侵犯人权行为转变为违反条约规定。在此过程中，国际法院证实了这一转变，从而有助于将新兴的联合国人权制度边缘化。