The relational politics of shame: Evidence from the universal periodic review

Article

DOI: 10.1007/s11558-016-9264-x

Cite this article as:
Terman, R. & Voeten, E. Rev Int Organ (2017). doi:10.1007/s11558-016-9264-x

Abstract

International human rights institutions often rely on “naming and shaming” to promote compliance with global norms. Critics charge that such institutions are too politicized; states condemn human rights violations selectively, based on their strategic interests, while protecting friends and allies. In this view, politicization undermines shaming’s credibility and thus its effectiveness. This paper offers an alternative account of such institutions and the mechanism by which they promote human rights. We argue that interstate shaming is an inherently political exercise that operates through strategic relationships, not in spite of them. While states are less likely to criticize their friends and allies, any criticism they do offer is more influential precisely because of this pre-existing partnership. We test this argument through quantitative analysis of the most elaborate human rights mechanism in the international system: the United Nations Universal Periodic Review. We find that states are more lenient towards their strategic partners in the peer-review process. Yet when they do criticize, their recommendations are accepted more often than substantially identical recommendations emanating from other states with fewer strategic ties. Insofar as shaming disseminates powerful signals regarding political relationships between states, these interactions can be meaningful and influential, even as they remain selective and politicized.

Keywords

United Nations Universal periodic review Human rights Naming and shaming Quantitative analysis 

JEL Classification

F53 

Supplementary material

11558_2016_9264_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (228 kb)
ESM 1(PDF 227 kb)

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for International Security & CooperationStanford UniversityStanfordUSA
  2. 2.Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service and Government DepartmentGeorgetown UniversityWashingtonUSA