Thread by @ProfPaulPoast

A question I heard a lot from "Intro to IR" students this term: what can/will 🇺🇸 do about 🇭🇰?

My answer: 🤷‍♂️

But such a question is a great opportunity to teach students about "naming and shaming" in international politics

[THREAD]

A good starting point on this topic is Emilie Hafner-Burton's @IntOrgJournal article from 2008

cambridge.org/core/journals/…

She finds that "naming & shaming" by human rights NGOs can lead governments to improve some human rights practices, but worsen in others. Essentially, there's a "substitution effect": if one tool of repression is taken away by the "spot light", governments will switch to another.

The main data used by Hafner-Burton are @amnesty press releases, such as 👇
amnesty.org/en/press-relea…

@AmandaMurdie & David Davis in @ISQ_Jrnl challenge these findings

academic.oup.com/isq/article/56…

They claim that "shaming alone" is not enough.

Instead, it requires widespread shaming, not just a press release by a single (though prominent) organization

That is what they find: More NGOs involved, greater the likelihood that shaming will lead to improvement in human rights (as captured by CIPRI scores)

In a newly published @InternatlTheory article, Jack Snyder looks more closely at "backlash" (rather than just "substitution"): when "naming & shaming" leads to a *worsening* of human rights practices.

cambridge.org/core/journals/…

Snyder points out the highly conditional findings in the above mentioned pieces

Snyder argues that "cultural outsiders" can lead the "masses" to support the violating practice as a "glorification of deviance"

Snyder suggests that shaming can work if it instead comes from "cultural insiders".

What's interesting about the above quote is that he makes brief mention of "technological power of the modern West" as part of the reason that some Chinese were willing to work with "Westerners" to condemn foot-binding.

Besides being a bit "clashy", this seems to give short shrift to a key factor: power politics.

That is where my colleague, @RochelleTerman steps in. In her new book project, Rochelle explores what could be call the "power politics of human rights shaming".

It's well and good for @amnesty or @hrw to "name & shame", but it helps to have some "state muscle" behind it.

In particular, is the "shaming" coming from a geostrategic ally or a geostrategic adversary?

Think about 🇸🇦 human rights abuses in 🇾🇪, a point of discussion at a recent @UChiPolitics, @PearsonInst, & @pulitzercenter event

politics.uchicago.edu/news/entry/mag…

A major reason folks criticized 🇺🇸 involvement was the idea that 🇺🇸 could effectively pressure 🇸🇦 to end the war (or, at least alter how it conducted the fighting).

Of course, the US didn't

theatlantic.com/international/…

Admittedly, war crimes and crimes against humanity are an extreme form of "shamable" practices. @RochelleTerman is exploring how ally/adversary dynamic can effect backlash v compliance for "less extreme" human rights violations.

The lesson for 🇭🇰 is pretty clear: given 🇺🇸-🇨🇳 rivalry, shaming by 🇺🇸 likely will backfire.

cnbc.com/2019/11/20/hon…

So much more to learn about the international politics of shaming. I wasn't able to give my students a hopeful response, but my goal is ultimately to help them better understand the situation.

[END]