The Review of International Organizations

, Volume 10, Issue 3, pp 329–349 | Cite as

Do human rights violations hinder counterterrorism cooperation? Evidence from the FBI’s deployment abroad

Article

Abstract

The impact of human rights on counterterrorism cooperation has been the subject of speculation, but not of systematic analysis. This study offers such an analysis by examining an important channel of cooperation against terrorism: international police liaisons, such as the FBI agents deployed worldwide. It is hypothesized that police liaisons are less likely to be sent to countries where human rights violations are widespread, since repressive governments see threat in foreign agents stationed on their territory. Survival analysis finds support for this hypothesis. An FBI presence does not require democratic government or a strong rule of law in the host country; but human rights abuse reduces the likelihood of an FBI deployment. These findings substantiate a link between human rights and counterterrorism cooperation, offering insights for the study of cross-border law enforcement and transgovernmental networks.

Keywords

Terrorism Counterterrorism Crime Law enforcement Police Human rights FBI International cooperation Transgovernmental networks 

JEL Classifications

F52 F55 

Supplementary material

11558_2014_9202_MOESM1_ESM.do (4 kb)
ESM 1(DO 3 kb)
11558_2014_9202_MOESM2_ESM.dta (454 kb)
ESM 2(DTA 454 kb)

References

  1. Aldrich, R. J. (2009). US-European intelligence co-operation on counter-terrorism: Low politics and compulsion. British Journal of Politics & International Relations, 11(1), 122–139.Google Scholar
  2. Andreas, P., & Nadelmann, E. (2006). Policing the globe: Criminalization and crime control in international relations. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Axelrod, R. (1984). The evolution of cooperation. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  4. Aydinli, E., & Yön, H. (2011). Transgovernmentalism meets security: Police liasion officers, terrorism, and statist transnationalism. Governance, 24(1), 55–84.Google Scholar
  5. Bach, D., & Newman, A. L. (2010). Transgovernmental networks and domestic policy convergence: Evidence from insider trading regulation. International Organization, 64(3), 505–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bach, D., & Newman A. L. (2014). Domestic Drivers of Transgovernmental Regulatory Cooperation. Regulation and Governance. doi:10.1111/rego.12047.
  7. Barnett, M., & Coleman, L. (2005). Designing police: Interpol and the study of change in international organizations. International Studies Quarterly, 49(4), 593–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bättig, M. B., & Bernauer, T. (2009). National institutions and global public goods: Are democracies more cooperative in climate change policy? International Organization, 63(2), 281–308.Google Scholar
  9. Bayer, M. D. (2010). The blue planet: Informal international police networks and national intelligence. Washington: National Defense Intelligence College.Google Scholar
  10. Box-Steffensmeier, J. M., & Jones, B. S. (2004). Event history modeling: A guide for social scientists. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Carey, S. C. (2007). European aid: Human rights versus bureaucratic inertia? Journal of Peace Research, 44(4), 447–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Carey, S. C. (2010). The Use of repression as a response to domestic dissent. Political Studies, 58(1), 167–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Carothers, T. (2006). The backlash against democracy promotion. Foreign Affairs, 85(2), 55–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chapman, T. L., & Chaudoin, S. (2013). Ratification patterns and the international criminal court. International Studies Quarterly, 57(2), 400–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chenoweth, E. (2010). Democratic competition and terrorist activity. Journal of Politics, 72(1), 16–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Choi, S. W. (2010). Fighting terrorism through the rule of law? Journal of Conflict Resolution, 54(6), 940–966.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cingranelli, D. L., Richards, D. L., & Clay, C. (2013). The Cingranelli-Richards (CIRI) Human Rights Dataset. Retrieved from the CIRI Human Rights Dataset website at: http://www.humanrightsdata.org.
  18. Davenport, C. (1995). Multi-dimensional threat perception and state repression: An inquiry into why states apply negative sanctions. American Journal of Political Science, 39(3), 683–713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Deflem, M. (2002). Policing world society: Historical foundations of international police cooperation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Deflem, M. (2006). Global rule of law or global rule of law enforcement? International police cooperation and counterterrorism. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 603, 240–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Demirel-Pegg, T., & Moskowitz, J. (2009). US aid allocation: The nexus of human rights, democracy, and development. Journal of Peace Research, 46(2), 181–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Deutsche Welle. (2010). Europeans still resisting Obama over Guantanamo inmates. February 17.Google Scholar
  23. Elder, M. (2013). Russia Raids Offices of Amnesty International and Other Human Rights Groups. The Guardian, March 28.Google Scholar
  24. Enders, W., & Sandler, T. (2011). Who adopts MIND/FIND in Interpol’s fight against international crime and terrorism? Public Choice, 149, 263–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Eubank, W., & Weinberg, L. (2001). Terrorism and democracy: Perpetrators and victims. Terrorism and Political Violence, 13(1), 155–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. FATF (Financial Action Task Force). (2008). Terrorist Financing. Paris. February 29.Google Scholar
  27. FBI. (2004). The FBI’s Counterterrorism Program Since September 2001. Report to the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States. April 14.Google Scholar
  28. Findley, M. G., & Young, J. K. (2011). Terrorism, democracy, and credible commitments. International Studies Quarterly, 55(2), 357–378.Google Scholar
  29. Gardeazabal, J., & Sandler, T. (2014). INTERPOL’s Surveillance Network in Curbing Transnational Terrorism. Working paper.Google Scholar
  30. Gerspacher, N. (2008). The history of international police cooperation: A 150-year evolution in trends and approaches. Global Crime, 9(1–2), 169–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gibney, M., Cornett, L., & Wood, R. (2013). Political Terror Scale, 1976–2008. Retrieved from the Political Terror Scale website: http://www.politicalterrorscale.org/
  32. Hafner-Burton, E. M., & Shapiro, J. N. (2010). Tortured relations: Human rights abuses and counterterrorism cooperation. PS: Political Science and Politics, 43(3), 415–419.Google Scholar
  33. Kaczmarek, S., & Newman, A. L. (2011). The long arm of the law: Extraterritoriality and the national implementation of foreign bribery legislation. International Organization, 65(4), 745–770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Keck, M. E., & Sikkink, K. (1998). Activists beyond borders: Advocacy networks in international politics. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Koschut, S. (2007). Germany and the USA in the War against Terror: Is Extraordinary Rendition Putting Transatlantic Cooperation under Strain? Internationale Politik und Gesellschaft, 3, 36–52.Google Scholar
  36. Kristof, N. D. (2011). Repressing Democracy, With American Arms. New York Times, December 17.Google Scholar
  37. Kurrild-Klitgaard, P., Justesen, M. K., & Klemmensen, R. (2006). The political economoy of freedom, democracy and transnational terrorism. Public Choice, 128, 289–315.Google Scholar
  38. La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F., Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. (1999). The quality of government. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 15(1), 222–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lai, B. (2007). “Draining the swamp”: An empirical examination of the production of international terrorism, 1968–1998. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 24(4), 297–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Levitsky, S., & Way, L. A. (2010). Competitive authoritarianism: Hybrid regimes after the cold war. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lupu, Y. (2013). Best evidence: The role of information in domestic judicial enforcement of international human rights agreements. International Organization, 67(3), 469–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Maggetti, M., & Gilardi, F. (2011). The Policy-making Structure of European Regulatory networks and the domestic adoption of standards. Journal of European Public Policy, 18(6), 830–847.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mansfield, E. D., Milner, H. V., & Rosendorff, B. P. (2002). Why democracies cooperate more: Electoral control and international trade agreements. International Organization, 56(3), 477–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Masse, T., & Krouse, W. (2003). The FBI: Past, Present, and Future. Congressional Research Service. October 2.Google Scholar
  45. Mendelsohn, B. (2009). Combating Jihadism: American hegemony and interstate cooperation in the war on terror. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Nadelmann, E. (1993). Cops across borders: The internationalization of U.S. criminal law enforcement. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Neumayer, E. (2003). Do human rights matter in bilateral aid allocation? A quantitative analysis of 21 donor countries. Social Science Quarterly, 84(3), 650–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Raustiala, K. (2002). The architecture of international cooperation: Transgovernmental networks and the future of international law. Virginia Journal of International Law, 43, 1–92.Google Scholar
  49. Regan, P. M., & Henderson, E. A. (2002). Democracy, threats and political repression in developing countries: Are democracies internally less violent? Third World Quarterly, 23(1), 119–136.Google Scholar
  50. Sandler, T., Arce, D. G., & Enders, W. (2011). An evaluation of interpol’s cooperative-based counterterrorism linkages. Journal of Law and Economics, 54(1), 79–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Schmitt, E. & Schmidt M. S. (2013). 2 U.S. Agencies Added Boston Bomb Suspects to Watch Lists. New York Times, April 24.Google Scholar
  52. Shane, S., & Nixon, R. (2012). Charges Against U.S.-Aided Groups Come With History of Distrust in Egypt. New York Times, February 6.Google Scholar
  53. Sikkink, K. (2004). Mixed signals: U.S. human rights policy and Latin America. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Simmons, B. A. (2009). Mobilizing for human rights: International law in domestic politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Simmons, B. A., & Lloyd, P. (2010). Subjective Frames and Rational Choice: Transnational Crime and the Case of Human Trafficking. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1653473.
  56. Slaughter, A. M. (2004). A new world order. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Strezhnev, Anton, and Erik Voeten. 2013. United Nations General Assembly Voting Data. http://hdl.handle.net/1902.1/12379.
  58. Svendsen, A. D. M. (2011). Exemplary ‘friends and allies’? Unpacking UK–US relations in the early twenty-first century. Journal of Transatlantic Studies, 9(4), 342–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. The Economist. 2009. The Dark Pursuit of the Truth. July 30.Google Scholar
  60. Tomz, M. (2007). Reputation and international cooperation: sovereign debt across three centuries. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  61. U.S. Department of Justice. (2004). Federal Bureau of Investigation Legal Attaché Program. Audit Report 04–18. March.Google Scholar
  62. U.S. Department of Justice. (2007). The Drug Enforcement Administration’s International Operations. Audit Report 07–19. February.Google Scholar
  63. U.S. Department of State. (2012). Treaties in Force: A List of Treaties and Other International Agreements of the United States in Force on January 1, 2012.Google Scholar
  64. U.S. Senate. (1996). Committee on Appropriations. Subcommittee on Foreign Operations. Hearing on International Crime. March 12.Google Scholar
  65. Walsh, J. I., & Piazza, J. A. (2010). Why respecting physical integrity rights reduces terrorism. Comparative Political Studies, 43(5), 551–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Weiner, T. (2012). Enemies: a history of the FBI. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  67. Wilson, M. C., & Piazza, J. A. (2013). Autocracies and Terrorism: Conditioning Effects of Authoritarian Regime Type on Terrorist Attacks. American Journal of Political Science, 57(4), 941–955.Google Scholar
  68. 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

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Lauder School of Government, Diplomacy and Strategy and Institute for Policy and StrategyInterdisciplinary Center (IDC)HerzliyaIsrael

Personalised recommendations