Shaming and Blaming: Using Events Data to Assess the Impact of Human Rights INGOs1

Murdie, Amanda; Davis, D. Russell

doi:10.1111/j.1468-2478.2011.00694.x

Cited by 368 publications

(231 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

218

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…783-784. 20 Iriye, Goedde, and Hitchcock, 2012. 21 See Hafner- Burton, 2008;Murdie and Davis, 2012;and Dai, 2005. Simmons argues that some human rights treaties were "successful at improving human rights practices through agenda setting, litigation, and mobilization" (Simmons, 2009, p. 7).…”

Section: Establishing and Advancing Human Rightsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Testing the Value of the Postwar International Order

Mazarr¹,

Rhoades²

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited. Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.The RAND Corporation is a research organization that develops solutions to public policy challenges to help make communities throughout the world safer and more secure, healthier and more prosperous. RAND is nonprofit, nonpartisan, and committed to the public interest.RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.Support RAND Make a tax-deductible charitable contribution at www.rand.org/giving/contribute www.rand.org Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available for this publication.ISBN: 978-0-8330-9977-8 For more information on this publication, visit www.rand.org/t/RR2226Published by the RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif. © Copyright 2018 RAND CorporationR® is a registered trademark.iii PrefaceThis project was sponsored by the Office of Net Assessment, Office of the Secretary of Defense, and conducted within the International Security and Defense Policy Center of the RAND National Defense Research Institute, a federally funded research and development center sponsored by the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, the Unified Combatant Commands, the Navy, the Marine Corps, the defense agencies, and the defense Intelligence Community. For more information on the RAND International Security and Defense Policy Center, see www.rand.org/nsrd/ndri/centers/isdp or contact the director (contact information is provided on the web page). SummarySince 1945, the United States has pursued its interests in part through the creation and maintenance of international economic institutions, global organizations including the United Nations and G-7, bilateral and regional security organizations including alliances, and liberal political norms that collectively are often referred to as the "international order." In recent years, rising powers have begun to challenge aspects of this order. This report is based on a RAND project, entitled "Building a Sustainable International Order," that aims to understand the existing order, assess its status and current challenges, and recommend future U.S. policies. The study has produced multiple reports and essays. 1 Other analyses in the study have defined the order, assessed its current status, and pointed to alternative structures for future world orders, as well as evaluating the approaches of specific countries to the order. The purpose of this report is very specific: to evaluate the order's value-to assess its role in promoting U.S. goals and interests, a...

show abstract

Section: Establishing and Advancing Human Rightsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Testing the Value of the Postwar International Order

Mazarr¹,

Rhoades²

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…International human rights advocacy INGOs, like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, serve as key conduits of "shaming and blaming" in the international press (Risse, Ropp and Sikkink, 1999;Ron, Ramos and Rodgers, 2005;Franklin, 2008;Murdie and Davis, 2012). Human rights INGOs gather information, issue press releases, contact journalists.…”

Section: The Influence Of Human Rights Ingo Shaming On Aid Delivery Tmentioning

confidence: 99%

Human Rights Shaming Through INGOs and Foreign Aid Delivery

Dietrich

Murdie

2015

SSRN Journal

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Does the "shaming" of human rights violations influence foreign aid delivery decisions across OECD donor countries? We examine the effect of shaming, defined as targeted negative attention by human rights international nongovernmental organizations (INGOs), on donor decisions about how to deliver bilateral aid. We argue that INGO shaming of recipient countries leads donor governments, on average, to "bypass" the recipient government in favor of non-state aid delivery channels, including international and local NGOs and international organizations (IOs). However, we expect this relationship to be conditional on a donor country's position in the international system. Minor power countries have limited influence in global affairs and are therefore more able to centrally promote human rights in their foreign policy. Major power countries, on the other hand, shape world politics and often confront "realpolitik" concerns that may require government-to-government aid relations in the presence of INGO shaming. We expect aid officials of minor donor countries to be more likely to condition aid delivery decisions on human rights shaming than their counterparts of major donor countries. Using compositional data analysis, we test our argument using originally collected data on human rights shaming events in a time-series cross-sectional framework from 2004 to 2010. We find support for our hypotheses: On average, OECD donor governments increase the proportion of bypass when INGOs shame the recipient government. When differentiating between donor types we find that this finding holds for minor but not for major powers. These results add to both our understanding of the influences of aid allocation decision-making and our understanding of the role of INGOs on foreign-policy.

show abstract

“…It is well known that treaty ratification is a common demand of international organizations and international nongovernmental organizations (Murdie & Davis, 2012). These pressures also exist at the domestic level.…”

Section: Treaty Commitments As a Policy Concessionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ratification as accommodation? Domestic dissent and human rights treaties

Ryckman

2016

Journal of Peace Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Repression is the expected response to anti-government protest; however, leaders can also accommodate demonstrators. Committing to human rights treaties is considered in this environment, where treaty commitments are conceptualized as a policy concession that leaders can grant dissenters. Past research has shown that top-down domestic pressures, such as new democratic regimes, can influence treaty commitments. This article extends this line of research by considering the influence of bottom-up domestic pressure, arguing that nonviolent, pro-democracy movements can pressure leaders into concessions, as these movements are risky to repress but threatening to ignore. Leaders are expected to seek 'cheap' accommodations and commitments to human rights treaties provide a relatively low-cost concession that also addresses demonstrators' pro-democracy demands. Using commitments to the nine core UN human rights treaties, results are generally supportive. Governments experiencing a nonviolent, prodemocracy movement are consistently likely to sign human rights treaties. Ratification is also likely but in more limited contexts, and is more closely related to movement success. This suggests that bottom-up pressures can influence commitment to human rights treaties, but there may be little substance behind those concessions. The status quo and cost-adverse preferences of leaders lead them to grant accommodations that result in minimal change and cost.

show abstract

Shaming and Blaming: Using Events Data to Assess the Impact of Human Rights INGOs1

Cited by 368 publications

References 40 publications

Testing the Value of the Postwar International Order

Testing the Value of the Postwar International Order

Human Rights Shaming Through INGOs and Foreign Aid Delivery

Ratification as accommodation? Domestic dissent and human rights treaties

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About