week seven and eight Flashcards
what are the four types of shaming and blaming?
- Information politics: move politically usable information quickly and credibly to where it will have
the most impact - Leverage politics: call upon powerful actors to affect a situation
- symbolic politics: call upon symbols, actions or stories that make sense of a situation
- accountability politics: oblige more powerful actors to act on policies they formally endorsed
Does “shaming” by human rights international nongovernmental organizations lead to improvements in human rights conditions within a state?
- States targeted by HROs often do improve their human rights practices
- However, mere shaming is not enough
how is shaming more effective?
- when there are large number of HROs present within the state – this domestic presence of HROs helps local social movements pressure their regime for improved human rights “from below”
- shaming of the regime by third-party states, individuals, and organizations – when third parties, citing the work of HROs, join advocacy efforts, the impact of HROs increases due to pressure “from above”
why is shaming and blaming not enough?
shaming and blaming without leading to generating pressures either “from below” or “from above” will be unlikely to be effective to shape states’ preferences
what are the three types of counternarratives from the government?
- sovereignty: claiming that it is within the govt. rights to do so
- justification: claiming that they have a good reason to do so.
- Attacks on Credibility: fabricating things against the shaming.
sovereignty as a counternarrative
Governments often invoke sovereignty as a counternarrative to resist external pressures from INGOs and other international actors.
justification as a counter-narrative
Governments may use justification to explain their human rights practices by arguing that certain measures are necessary for the greater good
attacks on credibility as a counter-narrative
Governments may target the credibility of INGOs, journalists, or other critics by suggesting that they are biased, politically motivated, or lack expertise
what is an example of a government using conternarratives as a response to HROs?
China and Uyghur Muslims
- China rejected criticism from HROs
- dismissed claims of human rights violations as misinformation.
- justified its policies in Xinjiang and stated that it was for combating extremism
- asserted that its actions are necessary for national security and the protection of its citizens’ rights.
horowitz and fuhrmann: what are the two schools of thought that explain the role of leaders in international
politics?
- institutional leadership school
- leader attribute school
Institutional leadership school
- leaders’ choices do matter, they are heavily influenced by international and domestic institutional environments.
- an example is leaders in democracy vs. autocracy.
leader attribute school
- leaders matter because their individual beliefs, attributes and experiences make differences in decision-making.
how the two school of thoughts differ?
in the institutional leadership school: policy outcomes are predictable based on institutional structure. and in leader attribute school: policy outcomes vary significantly depending on the leader in power and determines foreign policy behavior
Fuhrmann & Horowitz: what are the relationships between the rebel experiences of leaders and their actions with nuclear programs?
- they value national independence & self-help
- they discount the risk and overestimating the benefits of pursuing nuclear weapons
examples of rebel leaders and nuclear weapons
- PRC’s Mao Zedong
- Kim Il-Sung (N Korea)
- Muammar Qaddafi (Libya)
