Abstract
This dissertation focuses on two empirical patterns of HRO
advocacy. Why are some states frequently shamed for human rights
violations despite having reasonable human rights records while
many states are rarely criticized despite being serious violators?
Why are states shamed differently by different HROs for precisely
the same human rights violations? The process by which HROs collect
information is critical to understanding these patterns. HROs that
largely rely on third parties to generate information tend to focus
on states with relatively good records; and, they shame these
states severely. In contrast, HROs that directly engage states tend
to focus on the worst human rights violators but they are less
likely to harshly criticize these states. HROs that indirectly
monitor via third parties receive a relatively large amount of
information from states in which there is a well-organized civil
society prepared and willing to expose violations, and these states
generally have reasonable human rights records. HROs that directly
engage states focus on serious abuses; however, in order to gain
access, HROs are more likely to negotiate the information that they
will release publicly. I conclude my dissertation by explaining why
HROs choose particular information collection strategies, focusing
on variation in the material costs of investigative missions and
the political costs of potentially risking an image of
impartiality. To evaluate the empirical implications of my
argument, I have compiled a comprehensive dataset on the shaming
behavior of over 90 HROs. Utilizing text analysis techniques based
on NLP, I have examined and processed nearly 40,000 reports. I find
that by choosing an indirect approach, HROs tend to have far more
information about abuses in places with strong civil societies and
they are likely to both over-report on states with generally good
records and under-report on states with relatively bad records.
These HROs criticize states harshly and they do not withhold
information. HROs that directly engage states; however, tend to
focus on states with the worst human rights conditions, but they
are less likely to criticize states harshly.
Table of Contents
NA
About this Dissertation
Rights statement
- Permission granted by the author to include this thesis or dissertation in this repository. All rights reserved by the author. Please contact the author for information regarding the reproduction and use of this thesis or dissertation.
| School |
|
|---|
| Department |
|
|---|
| Degree |
|
|---|
| Submission |
|
|---|
| Language |
|
|---|
| Research Field |
|
|---|
| 关键词 |
|
|---|
| Committee Chair / Thesis Advisor |
|
|---|
| Committee Members |
|
|---|