Abstract
“Naming and shaming” is a popular strategy to enforce international human rights norms and laws. Nongovernmental organizations, news media, and international organizations publicize countries' violations and urge reform. Evidence that these spotlights are followed by improvements is anecdotal. This article analyzes the relationship between global naming and shaming efforts and governments' human rights practices for 145 countries from 1975 to 2000. The statistics show that governments put in the spotlight for abuses continue or even ramp up some violations afterward, while reducing others. One reason is that governments' capacities for human rights improvements vary across types of violations. Another is that governments are strategically using some violations to offset other improvements they make in response to international pressure to stop violations.
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Subject
Law,Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management,Political Science and International Relations,Sociology and Political Science
Reference53 articles.
1. Williamson Richard S. 2004. U.S. Representative to the Commission on Human Rights, Statement on Item 9: March 25. Available at ⟨http://geneva.usmission.gov/humanrights/2004/statements/0325Item9.htm⟩. Accessed 17 July 2008.
2. The Spotlight and the Bottom Line: How Multinationals Export Human Rights
3. Trials and Errors: Principle and Pragmatism in Strategies of International Justice
4. The Impact of Human Rights Trials in Latin America
Cited by
596 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献，注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献，订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
1. Appendix;Positioning Women in Conflict Studies;2024-09-13
2. Women’s Inclusion and Political Violence;Positioning Women in Conflict Studies;2024-09-13
3. Solving the Concept Stretching Problem;Positioning Women in Conflict Studies;2024-09-13
4. Notes;Positioning Women in Conflict Studies;2024-09-13
5. Conclusion;Positioning Women in Conflict Studies;2024-09-13