Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Voting in the UN: a Second Image of China’s Human Rights

  • RESEARCH ARTICLE
  • Published:
Journal of Chinese Political Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

It is generally agreed that China has a poor domestic human rights practice. In contrast, China has a better-than-average voting record on human rights in the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA). Based on a new UNGA human rights dataset that we identified, we found that since joining the United Nations (UN) in 1971, China voted in the affirmative on human rights resolutions 79 % of the time, compared to the world average favoring ratio of 75 %. This positive image of consistently voting in the affirmative on UNGA human rights resolutions suggests a second image of China’s human rights. However, while the Chinese government is willing to accept the international human rights regime, it also strategically alters its endorsement of UNGA human rights resolutions based on changing levels of domestic threats.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The coding criteria of the CIRI dataset “were developed both to reflect the meanings of various human rights as defined in international human rights law and to represent the myriad ways in which the expectations of human rights law and actual government behavior intersect” ([3], 399). Another very popular dataset, the Political Terror Scale (PTS), also provides data on human rights abuses and examines both state and non-state actors on human rights abuses. Although the PTS dataset uses the same sources as CIRI, US State Department and Amnesty International, it is not as detailed in categories as the CIRI dataset.

  2. [1, 2, 16, 29].

  3. When coding values for these categories, “Coders must use only the information included in the US State Department Country Report for the year they are coding. They may not use outside information, including personal information or experiences” ([4], 6).

  4. Among the few existing studies that analyze this research question, [48], for example, investigates China’s positive evolving actions regarding international human rights issues, such as on Darfur.

  5. [13].

  6. [5–9, 11, 18, 22, 26, 38, 41].

  7. E.g., [41], 185-186.

  8. [22], 29; [38], 587; [5], 133; [8], 664.

  9. [5], 133.

  10. E.g., [26], 705.

  11. E.g., [6], 50.

  12. [34], 8.

  13. [39], 40.

  14. [10], 899.

  15. [34], 8.

  16. E.g., [40], 55.

  17. [37], 664.

  18. [28], 3.

  19. [35], 62.

  20. See [14], 173.

  21. When we began this project in late 2014, Erik Voeten’s UN dataset ended in the year of 2012. See [42].

  22. This is because the People’s Republic of China became a UN member in 1971.

  23. This category of human rights resolutions contained the key word “human rights” or “right to” in the title of a resolution.

  24. Among the commonly used categories of the CIRI data, only freedom of assembly and association, freedom of speech, and workers’ rights were missing from the UNGA data. However, these three categories were possibly being addressed by the general category of human rights.

  25. However, among these 704 human rights resolutions, we found that 13 resolutions (i.e., 12 on religion and 1 on racism) contain some controversial language that can be viewed as limiting free speech and thereby undermining human rights. For instance, a 2005 resolution on “combating defamation of religions” contains the language “Urges States to take resolute action to prohibit the dissemination through political institutions and organizations of racist and xenophobic ideas and material aimed at any religion or its followers that constitute incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.” This example indicates limiting free speech in order to protect religion. Nonetheless, the language contained in these 13 resolutions overall supports human rights. In addition, 13 resolutions comprise of less than 2 % of the total resolutions examined in this study. As a result, we expect these 13 resolutions to have a negligible effect on our conclusions.

  26. For each category in the CIRI data, we provided two scores in parenthesis: the first score shows China’s human rights and the second one indicates the world average. The results are the following: disappearance (.629 and .830), extrajudicial killing (.194 and .663), political imprisonment (.016 and .554), torture (.032 and .398), freedom of assembly and association (0 and .543), freedom of domestic movement (.048 and .753), freedom of foreign movement (.306 and .711), freedom of speech (.097 and .496), electoral self-determination (.048 and .553), freedom of religion (.016 and .668), workers’ rights (0 and .465), women’s rights (.443 and .490), and independent judiciary (.129 and .584).

  27. Once again, these resolutions on religion contain some controversial language. However, the language overall supports human rights.

  28. The CIRI data also included a physical integrity rights index that aggregated these four categories.

  29. For 48 resolutions, China was coded as “absent.” Therefore, the total number of resolutions for China was 656 instead of 704.

  30. E.g., [2, 15].

  31. [15], 6.

  32. [23], 313; [36].

  33. This is consistent with the argument that there is a high level of voting cohesion between China and the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) countries (e.g., [27], 1083; [9], 382). In 1991, China’s foreign minister, Qian Qichen, stated at the UNGA that the tenets of the NAM are central to Chinese foreign policy ([27], 1083). Mielniczuk sums up the main tenets as: “mutual respect for sovereignty; mutual non-aggression; non-interference; equality and mutual benefit; and peaceful coexistence.” [27], 1083.

  34. Of these six cases, there were three resolutions on human rights in Afghanistan for the years 1985, 1986, and 1987. During that time, the Soviet Union was working with the Afghan government in the civil war and the resolutions contained language criticizing the foreign involvement or “foreign forces.” There were two resolutions on “Occupied Kuwait,” regarding Saddam Hussein’s invasion of that country. The remaining resolution was on Guatemala.

  35. [40], 61.

  36. If we drop the resolutions on Israel from country-specific resolutions, China’s favoring ratio of human rights was fairly low and flat since the early 1990s.

  37. E.g., [17], 720; [24, 32, 44].

  38. [36], 55.

  39. E.g., [32].

  40. E.g., [12, 25].

  41. [31], 16.

  42. [30], 214. Also see [19], 46.

  43. [43].

  44. Relatedly, this decline in China’s support of human rights in the early 1990s can be its strategic response to (i.e., to deflect) the foreign criticisms of the Tiananmen Square incident. We thank a reviewer for suggesting this point.

  45. [33], 17-18; [20]; [21], 182; [47], 37.

  46. We thank a reviewer for suggesting the comparison of the UNSC permanent members’ voting on human rights in the UNGA.

  47. E.g., [18, 26].

  48. [9], 380.

  49. E.g., [45, 46].

References

  1. Ausderan, Jacob. 2014. How naming and shaming affects human rights perceptions in the shamed country. Journal of Peace Research 51(1): 81–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Boockmann, Bernhard, and Axel Dreher. 2011. Do human rights offenders oppose human rights resolutions in the United Nations? Public Choice 146: 443–467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Cingranelli, David L., and David L. Richards. 2010. The Cingranelli and Richards (CIRI) human rights data project. Human Rights Quarterly 32: 395–418.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Cingranelli, David L., David L. Richards and K. Chad Clay. 2014. The CIRI human rights dataset. http://www.humanrightsdata.com.

  5. Costa-Buranelli, Filippo. 2014. May we have a say? Central Asian states in the UN general assembly. Journal of Eurasian Studies 5: 131–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Dixon, William J. 1981. The emerging image of U.N. politics. World Politics 34(1): 47–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Eastin, Luke J.L. 2013. Legitimacy deficit: Chinese leadership at the United Nations. Journal of Chinese Political Science 18(4): 389–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Ferdinand, Peter. 2014. Foreign policy convergence in pacific Asia: The evidence from voting in the UN general assembly. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations 16(4): 662–679.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Ferdinand, Peter. 2014. Rising powers at the UN: An analysis of the voting behaviour of BRICS in the general assembly. Third World Quarterly 35(3): 376–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Finnemore, Martha, and Kathryn Sikkink. 1998. International norm dynamics and political change. International Organization 52(4): 887–917.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Foot, Rosemary. 2014. ‘Doing some things’ in the Xi Jinping era: the United Nations as China’s venue of choice. International Affairs 90(5): 1085–1100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Foot, Rosemary, and Walter Andrew. 2011. China, the United States and global order. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Gladstone, Rick. 2014. United Nations Urges North Korea Prosecutions. New York Times, 18 November. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/19/world/asia/north-korea-united-nations-icc-human-rights-abuses.html?_r=0. Accessed 11 January 2015.

  14. Gopichandran, Vijayaprasad, and Satish Kumar Chetlapalli. 2012. Conditional cash transfer to promote institutional deliveries in India: Toward a sustainable ethical model to achieve MDG 5A. Public Health Ethics 5(2): 173–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Gowan, Richard, and Franziska Brantner. 2010. The EU and human rights at the UN: 2010 review. European Council on Foreign Relations 24: 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Hafner-Burton, Emilie M. 2008. Sticks and stones: Naming and shaming the human rights enforcement problem. International Organization 62(4): 689–716.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Hempson-Jones, Justin S. 2005. The evolution of China’s engagement with international governmental organizations: Toward a liberal foreign policy? Asian Survey 45(5): 702–721.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Holloway, Steven. 1990. Forty years of United Nations general assembly voting. Canadian Journal of Political Science 23(2): 279–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Inboden, Rana Siu, and Titus C. Chen. 2012. China’s response to international normative pressure: The case of human rights. The International Spectator: Italian Journal of International Affairs 47(2): 45–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Jacques, Martin. 2009. When China rules the world: The end of the western world and the birth of a new global order. New York: Penguin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Kennedy, John James. 2010. Supply and support for grassroots political reform in rural China. Journal of Chinese Political Science 15(2): 169–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Kim, Soo Yeon, and Bruce Russett. 1997. The new politics of voting alignments in the general assembly. In The once and future security council, ed. Bruce Russett, 29–57. NY: St. Martin’s Press.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Kinzelbach, Katrin. 2012. Will China’s rise lead to a new normative order: An analysis of China’s statements on human rights at the United Nations. Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights 30(3): 299–332.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Li, Xiaojun. 2010. Social Rewards and Socialization Effects: An Alternative Explanation for the Motivation Behind China’s Participation in International Institutions. Chinese Journal of International Politics 3 (3): 347–377.

  25. Li, Xiaojun. 2012. Understanding China’s behavioral change in the WTO dispute settlement system: power, capacity, and normative constraints in trade adjudication. Asian Survey 52(6): 1111–1137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Marin-Bosch, Miguel. 1987. How nations vote in the general assembly of the United Nations. International Organization 41(4): 705–724.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Mielniczuk, Fabiano. 2013. Brics in the contemporary world: Changing identities, converging interests. Third World Quarterly 34(6): 1075–1090.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Millennium Development Goals Report. 2013. New York: United Nations. http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/pdf/report-2013/mdg-report-2013-english.pdf. Accessed 11 January 2015.

  29. Murdie, Amanda M., and David R. Davis. 2012. Shaming and blaming: Using events data to assess the impact of human rights INGOs. International Studies Quarterly 56(1): 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Nathan, Andrew J. 2010. China and international human rights: Tiananmen’s paradoxical impact. In The impact of China’s 1989 Tiananmen massacre, ed. Jean-Philippe Beja, 206–220. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  31. ____________________. 2015. China’s Rise and International Regimes: Does China Seek to Overthrow Global Norms? Unpublished manuscript.

  32. Pearson, Margaret M. 2006. China in Geneva: Lessons from China’s early years in the world trade organization. In New directions in the study of China’s foreign policy, ed. Alastair Iain Johnston and Robert S. Ross, 242–275. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Perry, Elizabeth J., and Merle Goldman. 2007. Introduction: Historical reflections on grassroots political reform in China. In Grassroots political reform in contemporary China, ed. Elizabeth J. Perry and Merle Goldman, 1–19. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  34. Risse, Thomas, and Kathryn Sikkink. 1999. The socialization of international human rights norms into domestic practices: introduction. In The power of human rights: International norms and domestic change, ed. Thomas Risse, Stephen C. Ropp, and Kathryn Sikkink, 1–38. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  35. Rocha, Cecilia. 2009. Development in national policies for food and nutrition security in Brazil. Development Policy Review 27(1): 51–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Sceats, Sonya, and Shaun Breslin. 2012. China and the international human rights system. London: Chatham House.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Stein, Alfredo, and Philipp Horn. 2012. Asset accumulation: An alternative approach to achieving the millennium development goals. Development Policy Review 30(6): 663–680.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Stone, Randall W. 2004. The political economy of IMF lending in Africa. American Political Science Review 98(4): 577–591.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Sugiyama, Natasha Borges. 2011. Bottom-up policy diffusion: National emulation of a conditional cash transfer program in Brazil. Publis: The Journal of Federalism 42(1): 25–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Volgy, Thomas J., Derrick V. Frazier, and Robert Stewart Ingersoll. 2003. Preference similarities and group hegemony: G-7 voting cohesion in the UN general assembly. Journal of International Relations and Development 6(1): 51–70.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Voeten, Erik. 2000. Clashes in the assembly. International Organization 54(2): 185–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Voeten, Erik, Anton Strezhnev and Michael Bailey. 2009. United Nations General Assembly Voting Data, http://hdl.handle.net/1902.1/12379, Harvard Dataverse, V11.

  43. Wan, Ming. 2007. Human rights lawmaking in China: Domestic politics, international law, and international politics. Human Rights Quarterly 29(3): 727–753.

  44. Wang, Qingxin K. 2011. The rise of neoclassical economics and China’s WTO agreement with the United States in 1999. Journal of Contemporary China 20(70): 449–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Wang, T.Y. 1999. U.S. foreign aid and UN voting: An analysis of important issues. International Studies Quarterly 43(1): 199–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Wittkopf, Eugene R. 1973. Foreign aid and United Nations votes: A comparative study. American Political Science Review 67(3): 868–888.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Wright, Teresa. 2011. Perpetuating communist party rule in China. Journal of International Affairs 65(1): 31–45.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Wu, Chengqiu. 2010. Sovereignty, human rights, and responsibility: Changes in China’s responses to international humanitarian crises. Journal of Chinese Political Science 15(1): 71–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Robbie Barnett, Jack Donnelly, Andy Nathan, Nancy Chunjuan Wei, Liz Wishnick, and two excellent reviewers for their helpful suggestions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Global Affairs, Rutgers University, 175 University Avenue, Newark, NJ, 07102, USA

    Christopher B. Primiano

  2. Department of Economics and Division of Global Affairs, Rutgers University, 360 MLK Blvd, Newark, NJ, 07102, USA

    Jun Xiang

Authors
  1. Christopher B. Primiano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jun Xiang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jun Xiang.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Primiano, C.B., Xiang, J. Voting in the UN: a Second Image of China’s Human Rights. J OF CHIN POLIT SCI 21, 301–319 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11366-016-9399-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11366-016-9399-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation