The human rights trend in the European Union is already very worrying, so it is difficult to believe that the Amsterdam Treaty will ensure that protecting them will take on greater importance for Europe.
Take Algeria, where 80,000 people have been killed since the start of the conflict in 1992 - men, women and children shot, decapitated, hacked, burned alive.
It would have seemed reasonable for the European Union to have sponsored a resolution at the recent UN Commission on Human Rights - the body set up to monitor the human rights of member-states. Such a resolution would have sought an international investigation into the massacres, with properly resourced on-site missions finding out the facts and who bears the responsibility.
This is precisely what is needed as both government and armed opposition are guilty of atrocities. Salima Ghezali, a journalist, and Mustapha Bouchechi, a human rights lawyer, are two independent human rights defenders in Algeria who risk their lives daily. They talk about going to bed afraid, waking up afraid and going to work afraid, and recently went around Europe begging for support for a resolution.
Salima, who lives separated from her children for their safety, said: "Something in my heart and mind is broken", while Mustapha told our officials in the Department of Foreign Affairs: "If you do not do something then I don't know if I will be able to come back next year".
Amnesty International, the International Federation of Human Rights, Human Rights Watch and Reporters Sans Frontieres all called for effective action. Within the European Union this call fell on deaf ears. It is not that there was no political will by the European Union but rather there was a political will to do nothing. No one in the EU was willing to take the initiative. Ireland pushed for a resolution but was unwilling to sponsor one by itself, although as a member of the Commission it could have done so.
Of most importance to the EU was avoiding a split - and as Spain, Italy, France and Greece did not want any action to be taken, the European Union decided not to take any action.
Although the Amsterdam Treaty has fine words on respect for human rights it contains no specific obligation to ensure that measures taken within the Common Foreign and Security Policy conform with international human rights standards.
Yes, there are very good declarations in the Amsterdam Treaty on human rights, but how will these be implemented when even those within the European Union who are traditionally more concerned about human rights - the Nordics, Netherlands and Austria - are becoming less and less willing to take action?
Amnesty International is concerned that arms exports from the territory of the European Union should not contribute to human rights violations and it has urged the council to develop a binding EU code of conduct on arms transfers. With such a code, maybe in the future we would not be shamed by French training for the security forces and death squads in Rwanda; the Belgian sale of arms to the perpetrators of the genocide in Rwanda; German submachine guns used in a prison massacre in Brazil; British Hawk jets sold to Indonesia and used to kill the people of East Timor; or UK arms to Nigeria and Turkey.
Article J7 of the revised treaty is both vague and ambiguous, stating that "the progressive framing of a common defence policy will be supported, as member-states consider appropriate, by co-operation between themselves in the field of armaments".
Finally, Amnesty International is seriously concerned about the protection of refugees. EU governments are building a fortress Europe. Ireland is building a fortress Ireland. The European Union is harmonising its asylum policies and reducing its standards of protection for asylum-seekers to the lowest common denominator.
Amnesty has noted with great concern that, although the Amsterdam Treaty refers to the 1951 UN Refugee Convention, it does not include a commitment to respect all international standards in this field, such as those laid down by the UN High Commission for Refugees. A protocol annexed to the treaty makes it almost impossible for nationals of an EU member-state to seek asylum in another member-state. This decision constitutes a clear violation of the 1951 Refugee Convention. This is very dangerous because we cannot predict if human rights will always be respected in the future in all the EU states or the enlarged Union.
It seems to me that Ireland as part of Europe is more concerned with being a good European than protecting human rights. Bit by bit Ireland is losing all independence and being absorbed into cheap, quick-fix solutions proposed by the EU, where trade is more important than life. The cohesion of the EU is becoming the mantra, but if we lose our integrity, what have we left?
Mary Lawlor is director of Amnesty International (Irish Section)