Shaming by international organizations: Mapping condemnatory speech acts across 27 international organizations, 1980–2015

Abstract

In the face of escalating conflicts or atrocities, international organizations (IOs), alongside non-governmental organizations (NGOs), often vocalize public condemnation. Researchers have examined NGO shaming, but no extant literature has comparatively explored if, how and why IOs shame. This article fills this gap. We conceptualize IO shaming as condemnatory speech acts and distinguish between the agent, targets and actions of shaming. We theorize how compliance and socialization are motives that lead IOs to shame. Empirically, we use new data on more than 3000 instances of IO shaming, covering 27 organizations between 1980 and 2015 to examine empirical patterns across the three dimensions of agents, targets and actions. We find that the majority of IOs do employ shaming but to varying degrees. Global, general-purpose IOs shame the most and regional, task-specific IOs the least. IOs mainly shame states, but there is a rise in the targeting of non-state and unnamed actors. While many condemned acts relate to human rights and security issues, IOs shame actions across the policy spectrum. These findings indicate that IO shaming is driven by compliance and socialization motives and that it is a wider phenomenon than previously recognized, suggesting possible avenues for further inquiry.

Disentangling institutional contestation by established powers: Types of contestation frames and varying opportunities for the re-legitimation of international institutions

“…Defenders will be prompted to respond to revisionist frames in a more confrontational and less conciliatory manner than they would do with reformist frames. Moreover, the polarization between contesters and defenders of the institution incline defenders to take a strong stance to save the institution and reconstitute its legitimacy (Minkus, Deutschmann and Delhey 2019; Panke and Petersohn 2016; Squatrito, Lundgren and Sommerer 2019). Revisionist frames may thus contribute to a ‘rally-around-the-flag effect’ (Mueller 1970) as defenders rush to the rescue of the attacked institution.…”

Avoiding disciplinary garbage cans: a pledge for a problem-driven approach to researching international public administration

“…In addition to the general influence potential that lies in organizational routines (Bayerlein et al, 2020), the literature has identified various active strategies by which influence can be exerted. IPAs can persuade decision-makers of the benefits of certain policy options (Hanrieder, 2011) or publicly shame their principals where they see implementation failure (Squatrito et al, 2019), to name just a few strategies. In addition, IPAs often offer expertise in exchange for discretion when member states lack this expertise themselves (Johnson, 2014).…”

Revisão Periódica Universal: Socialização E Difusão De Normas Internacionais De Direitos Humanos

“…Um ponto que diferencia essas percepções concerne às interpretações sobre quais os atores capazes de exercer o shaming gerando mais potencial de impacto nas ações estatais. Algumas interpretações incluem organizações não-governamentais (Ron, Ramos & Rodgers, 2005), organizações internacionais (Squatrito, Lundgren & Sommerer, 2019), atores estatais ou atores não-estatais por meio de pressão pública (Carraro & Jongen, 2018;Terman & Voeten, 2018;Carraro, Conzelmann & Jongen, 2019) e redes transnacionais de advocacy (Risse-Kappen, Ropp & Sikkink, 1999).…”

“…Existem ainda autores que analisam o shaming exercido por organizações internacionais (Squatrito, Lundgren & Sommerer, 2019) e aqueles que dão preponderância ao exercido por organizações não-governamentais (Ron, Ramos & Rodgers, 2005;Hafner-Burton, 2013). Daremos especial atenção ao grupo que confere peso à ação das redes transnacionais de advocacy nos processos de socialização e internalização (Keck & Sikkink, 1999;Risse-Kappen, Ropp & Sikkink, 1999) a fim de inseri-los no contexto da RPU como propulsores de mudanças domésticas a partir do shaming da Revisão.…”