Knowing your audience: How the structure of international relations and organizational choices affect amnesty international’s advocacy

Article

Abstract

While research has addressed the effects of international nongovernmental organizations (INGOs) advocacy on human rights outcomes, less is known about how INGOs choose advocacy targets and tactics. We combine insights from political economy and constructivism to understand how INGOs come to choose targets and tactics through the concepts of information and leverage politics, first articulated by Keck and Sikkink (1998), and salience politics, or the need to select cases that energize organization members and donors. INGOs select potential targets for advocacy and choose their tactics based on considerations of leverage potential and political salience, both of which are a function of potential target states’ aid, trade, and security linkages with major Western powers. Using data on Amnesty International’s written advocacy efforts - background reports, press releases, and new data on Urgent Actions - we find robust evidence that Amnesty International accounts for these linkages with Western powers in choosing targets for its advocacy campaigns.

Keywords

Human rights International non-government organizations Amnesty International Trade Arms transfers 

JEL Codes

D73 L31 P45 

Supplementary material

11558_2013_9175_MOESM1_ESM.zip (225 kb)
ESM 1(ZIP 225 kb)

References

  1. Aldrich, H. E. (1979). Organizations and their Environments. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  2. Ali, M. M., & Shah, I. H. (2000). Sanctions and childhood mortality in Iraq. The Lancet, 355(9218), 1851–1857.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ascherio, A., Chase, R., Coté, T., Dehaes, G., Hoskins, E., Laaouej, J., Passey, M., Qaderi, S., Shuqaidef, S., Smith, M. C., & Zaidi, S. (1992). Effect of the Gulf War on Infant and Child Mortality in Iraq. New England Journal of Medicine, 327, 931–936.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ayres, J. M. (1998). Defying Conventional Wisdom: Political Movements and Popular Contention against North American Free Trade. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  5. Barbieri, K., Keshk, O. M. G., & Pollins, B. M. (2009). Trading Data: Evaluating our Assumptions and Coding Rules. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 26(5), 471–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barnett, M. (2005). Humanitarianism Transformed. Perspectives on Politics, 3(4), 723–740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barnett, M. (2009). Evolution Without Progress? Humanitarianism in a World of Hurt. International Organization, 63(4), 621–663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Barnett, M., & Finnemore, M. (2004). Rules For The World: International Organizations In Global Politics. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Bell, S., Clay, K. C., & Murdie, A. (2012). Neighborhood Watch: Spatial Effects of Human Rights INGOs. Journal of Politics, 74(2), 354–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bloodgood, E. A. (2010). The Interest Group Analogy: International Non-governmental Advocacy Organizations in International Politics. Review of International Studies, 36(1), 1–28.Google Scholar
  11. Bob, C. (2012). The Global Right Wing and the Clash of World Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cao, X., & Prakash, A. (2012). Trade Competition and Environmental Regulations: Domestic Political Constraints and Issue Visibility. The Journal of Politics, 74(1), 66–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Carey, S. C. (2007). European Aid: Human Rights Versus Bureaucratic Inertia? Journal of Peace Research, 44(4), 447–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Carleton, D., & Stohl, M. (1985). The Foreign Policy of Human Rights: Rhetoric and Reality from Jimmy Carter to Ronald Reagan. Human Rights Quarterly, 7(2), 205–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chandhoke, N. (2007). Thinking Through Social and Economic Rights. In D. A. Bell & J.-M. Coicaud (Eds.), Ethics in Action: The Ethical Challenges of International Human Rights Nongovernmental Organizations (pp. 181–197). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Cingranelli, D. L., & Richards, D. L. (2010). The Cingranelli and Richards (CIRI) Human Rights Data Project. Human Rights Quarterly, 32(2), 401–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Clark, A. M. (2001). Diplomacy of Conscience: Amnesty International and Changing Human Rights Norms. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Clark, A. M., Friedman, E. J., & Hochstetler, K. (1998). The Sovereign Limits of Global Civil Society: A Comparison of INGO Participation in UN World Conferences on the Environment, Human Rights, and Women. World Politics, 51(1), 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cooley, A., & Ron, J. (2002). The INGO Scramble: Organizational Insecurity and the Political Economy of Transnational Action. International Security, 27(1), 5–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cortright, D., & Lopez, G. A. (2000). The Sanctions Decade: Assessing UN Strategies in the 1990s. Boulder, CO: Lynne Reiner Publishers.Google Scholar
  21. Findley, Michael G., Darren Hawkins, Robert L. Hicks, Daniel L. Nielson, Bradley C. Parks, Ryan M. Powers, J. Timmons Roberts, Michael J. Tierney, and Sven Wilson. 2009. “AidData: Tracking Development Finance.” Presented at the PLAID Data Vetting Workshop, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  22. Frankel, J. A., & Romer, D. (1999). Does Trade Cause Growth? American Economic Review, 89(3), 379–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Franklin, J. (2008). Shame on You: The Impact of Human Rights Criticism on Political Repression in Latin America. International Studies Quarterly, 52(1), 187–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Garfield, R., Devin, J., & Fausey, J. (1995). The Health Impact of Economic Sanctions. Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, 72(2), 454–469.Google Scholar
  25. Ghosn, F., Palmer, G., & Bremer, S. (2004). The MID3 Data Set, 1993–2001: Procedures, Coding Rules, and Description. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 21(2), 133–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gleditsch, K. S. (2002). Expanded Trade and GDP Data. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 46(5), 712–724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gleditsch, K. S., & Ward, M. D. (2001). Measuring Space: A Minimum Distance Database and Applications to International Studies. Journal of Peace Research, 38(6), 739–758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Goering, C. (2007). Amnesty International and Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. In D. A. Bell & J.-M. Coicaud (Eds.), Ethics in Action: The Ethical Challenges of International Human Rights Nongovernmental Organizations (pp. 204–217). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Gourevitch, P., & Lake, D. A. (2012). Beyond Virtue: Evaluating and Enhancing the Credibility of Non-Governmental Organizations. In P. Gourevitch, D. A. Lake, & G. Stein (Eds.), Beyond Virtue: Evaluating the Credibility of Non-Governmental Organizations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Grimmett, R. F. (2010). CRS Reports for Congress: Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 2002–2009. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.Google Scholar
  31. Hafner-Burton, E. M. (2005). Trading Human Rights: How Preferential Trade Agreements Influence Government Repression. International Organization, 59(3), 593–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hafner-Burton, E. M. (2008). Sticks and Stones: Naming and Shaming the Human Rights Enforcement Problem. International Organization, 62(4), 689–716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hafner-Burton, Emilie M. and James Ron. 2012. The Latin Bias: Regions, Human Rights, and the Western Media. International Studies Quarterly.Google Scholar
  34. Hendrix, C. S., & Wong, W. H. (2013). When is the Pen Truly Mighty? Regime Type and the Efficacy of Naming and Shaming in Curbing Human Rights Abuses. British Journal of Political Science, 43(3), 651–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hill, D. W., Jr., Moore, W. H., & Mukherjee, B. (2013). Information Politics v. Organizational Incentives: Why are Amnesty International’s ‘Naming and Shaming’ Reports Biased? International Studies Quarterly, 57(2), 219–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hopgood, S. (2006). Keepers of the Flame: Understanding Amnesty International. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Johnson, E., & Prakash, A. (2007). NGO Research Program: A Collective Action Perspective. Policy Sciences, 40(3), 221–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Keck, M. E., & Sikkink, K. (1998). Activists Beyond Borders. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Keele, L., & Kelly, N. J. (2006). Dynamic Models for Dynamic Theories: The Ins and Outs of Lagged Dependent Variables. Political Analysis, 14(2), 186–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Krain, M. (2012). J’accuse! Does naming and shaming perpetrators reduce the severity of genocides or politicides? International Studies Quarterly, 56(3), 574–589.Google Scholar
  41. Lacina, B. (2004). From side show to centre stage: Civil conflict after the cold war. Security Dialogue, 35(2), 191–205.Google Scholar
  42. Lacy, D., & Niou, E. M. S. (2004). A Theory of Economic Sanctions and Issue Linkage: The Roles of Preferences, Information, and Threats. The Journal of Politics, 66(1), 25–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lake, D. A., & Wong, W. H. (2009). “The Politics of Networks: Interests, Power, and Human Rights Norms”. In Networked Politics: Agency, Power, and Governance, ed. Miles Kahler. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Lewis, K. K. (1999). Trying to Explain Home Bias in Equities and Consumption. Journal of Economic Literature, 37(2), 571–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lopez, G. A., & Cortright, D. (1997). Economic Sanctions and Human Rights: Part of the Problem or Part of the Solution? International Journal of Human Rights, 1(2), 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Mani, A., & Mukand, S. (2007). Democracy, Visibility and Public Good Provision. Journal of Development Economics, 83(2), 506–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Marinov, N. (2005). Do Economic Sanctions Destabilize Country Leaders? American Journal of Political Science, 49(3), 564–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Marshall, M. G., Gurr, T. R., & Jaggers, K. (2009). Polity IV Project: Political Regime Characteristics and Transitions, 1800–2009, Dataset Users’ Manual. College Park, MD: Center for Systemic Peace.Google Scholar
  49. Meernik, J., Alosi, R., Sowell, M., & Nichols, A. (2012). The Impact of Human Rights Organizations on Naming and Shaming Campaigns. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 56(2), 23–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Murdie, A., & Davis, D. R. (2011). Looking in the Mirror: Comparing INGO Networks Across Issue Areas. Review of International Organizations, 7(2), 177–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Murdie, Amanda. (Forthcoming). Scrambling for Contact: The Determinants of Inter-NGO Cooperation in Non-Western Countries. Review of International Organizations.Google Scholar
  52. Murdie, Amanda, and Johannes Urpelainen. (Forthcoming). “Why Pick on Us? Environmental INGOs and State Shaming as a Strategic Substitute.” Political Studies.Google Scholar
  53. Oestreich, J. E. (2007). Power and Principle: Human Rights Programming in International Organizations. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Pape, R. A. (1997). Why Sanctions Do Not Work. International Security, 22(2), 90–136.Google Scholar
  55. Pape, R. A. (1998). Why Sanctions Still Do Not Work. International Security, 23(1), 66–77.Google Scholar
  56. Peksen, D. (2009). Better or Worse? The Effect of Economic Sanctions on Human Rights. Journal of Peace Research, 46(1), 59–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Peksen, D., & Drury, A. C. (2010). Coercive or Corrosive: The Negative Impact of Economic Sanctions on Democracy. International Interactions, 36(3), 240–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Poe, S. C. (1992). Human Rights and Economic Aid Allocation under Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter. American Journal of Political Science, 36(1), 147–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Poe, S. C., & Tate, C. N. (1994). Repression of Human Rights to Personal Integrity in the 1980s: A Global Analysis. American Political Science Review, 88(4), 853–872.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Poe, S. C., Carey, S. C., & Vasquez, T. C. (2001). How Are These Pictures Different? A Quantitative Comparison of the US State Department and Amnesty International Human Rights Reports, 1976–1995. Human Rights Quarterly, 23(3), 650–677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Prakash, A., & Gugerty, M. K. (Eds.). (2010). Advocacy Organizations and Collective Action. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Ramos, H., Ron, J., & Thoms, O. N. T. (2007). Shaping the northern media’s human rights coverage, 1986–2000. Journal of Peace Research, 44(4), 385–406.Google Scholar
  63. Redfield, P. (2006). A Less Modest Witness: Collective Advocacy and Motivated Truth in a Medical Humanitarian Movement. American Ethnologist, 33(1), 3–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Reimann, K. D. (2006). A View from the Top: International Politics, Norms, and the Worldwide Growth of INGOs. International Studies Quarterly, 50(1), 45–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Rich, R. (2004). Applying Conditionality to Development Assistance. Agenda, 11(4), 321–334.Google Scholar
  66. Ron, J., Ramos, H., & Rodgers, K. (2005). Transnational Information Politics: INGO Human Rights Reporting, 1986–2000. International Studies Quarterly, 49(3), 557–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Roth, K. (2004). Defending Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights: Practical Issues Faced by a Human Rights Organization. Human Rights Quarterly, 26(1), 63–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Shawki, N. (2011). Organizational Structure and Strength and Transnational Campaign Outcomes: A Comparison of Two Transnational Advocacy Networks. Global Networks, 11(1), 97–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Signorino, C. S., & Ritter, J. M. (1999). Tau-b or Not Tau-b: Measuring the Similarity of Foreign Policy Positions. International Studies Quarterly, 43(1), 115–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Sikkink, K. (1993). Human rights, principled issue-networks, and sovereignty in Latin America. International Organization, 47(3), 411–441.Google Scholar
  71. Sikkink, K. (2004). Mixed signals: U.S. human rights policy and Latin America. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  72. Stockholm Peace Research Institute. (2010). SIPRI Yearbook 2010. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  73. Stroup, S. S. (2012). Borders Among Activists. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  74. Stroup, S. S., & Murdie, A. (2012). There’s No Place like Home: Explaining International NGO Advocacy. Review of International Organizations, 7(4), 425–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Thompson, A. (2008). Beyond Expression: Amnesty International’s Decision to Oppose Capital Punishment, 1973. Journal of Human Rights, 7(4), 327–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Tsebelis, G. (1990). Are Sanctions Effective? A Game-Theoretic Analysis. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 34(1), 3–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Vuong, Q. H. (1989). Likelihood Ratio Tests for Model Selection and Non-Nested Hypotheses. Econometrica, 57(2), 307–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Weaver, C. (2008). Hypocrisy Trap: The World Bank and the Poverty of Reform. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  79. Welch, C. E. (2001). Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch: A Comparison. In C. E. Welch (Ed.), INGOs and Human Rights: Promise and Performance. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
  80. Werker, E., & Ahmed, F. Z. (2008). What Do Nongovernmental Organizations Do? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 22(2), 73–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Winston, M. E. (2001). Assessing the Effectiveness of International Human Rights INGOs: Amnesty International. In C. E. Welch (Ed.), INGOs and Human Rights: Promise and Performance. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
  82. Wong, W. H. (2012). Internal Affairs: How the Structure of NGOs Transforms Human Rights. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  83. Wood, R. M., & Gibney, M. (2010). The Political Terror Scale (PTS): A Re-introduction and a Comparison to CIRI. Human Rights Quarterly, 32(2), 367–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Wu, H. D. (2000). Systemic determinants of international news coverage: a comparison of 38 countries. Journal of Communication, 50(2), 110–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Josef Korbel School of International StudiesUniversity of DenverDenverUSA
  2. 2.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations