Dissertation
Explaining human rights cooperation and state compliance: analysis of the Universal Periodic Review at the United Nations Human Rights Council
University of Iowa
Doctor of Philosophy (PhD), University of Iowa
Summer 2021
DOI: 10.17077/etd.005975
Abstract
Do states comply with international human rights institutions? What factors facilitate international cooperation for providing global public goods of human rights? Some scholars are pessimistic about the effectiveness of international human rights institutions, while others argue that they are effective for reducing human rights. This study attempts to resolve these mixed findings focusing on the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) at the United Nations Human Rights Council with aims to examine the factors that facilitate human rights cooperation, and to provide an answer to the question of whether states comply with international human rights institutions. In the first paper, I examine network effects on states’ naming and shaming of human rights violations. Naming and shaming, condemnation of human rights violators in public with the aim of changing a state’s behavior, has been a crucial form of international cooperation to promote global human rights. I examine whether interstate relationships have any influence on states’ shaming behavior and how the choices of one state affect the choices of another. I expand on the literature by incorporating social relations and networks that matter in the decision of state-to-state shaming. I develop a theory of the interdependent nature of state shaming, mainly through the work of non-state actors, by focusing on the case of state recommendations in the UPR. While individual states’ strategic interests matter, social processes also influence why some states shame others. The collective nature of shaming in the UPR helps states believe their costs are lower than when they shame alone. Using original qualitative data collected from Geneva, Switzerland during the 32nd Human Rights Council Working Group on the UPR (2019), I empirically demonstrate this interdependent relationship. A series of Exponential Random Graph Models (ERGM) find evidence of bandwagon effects in the UPR network, supporting my hypothesis that a reviewer state is more likely to shame a state under review (SuR) when other states also shame the SuR. Institutional dynamics help states achieve better cooperation on the issue area of human rights, sometimes working against their own foreign policy preferences.
The second paper examines how the NGOs’ and IGOs’ activities influence the convergence of states’ interests related to global human rights politics. In this study, I examine the dyadic similarity of the language which states use in the multilateral dialogue on human rights. I argue that states are likely to be influenced by the joint activities of NGOs, and that human rights norms are transmitted through IGOs. Using text analysis methods, I systematically quantify the similarity between state recommendations during the UPR process. My analyses suggest that a pair of countries is likely to use similar language when they provide recommendations to other states regarding their human rights concerns as the number of shared memberships in NGOs and IGOs increases. The effects of NGOs and IGOs on the convergence of human rights norms are robust, even after controlling for different types of political relationships between states such as formal military alliance, foreign policy preference similarity, trade dependency, aid relations, and regime type similarity.
The third paper seeks to answer the question of whether states observe international human rights institutions. I examine why and how states comply with UPR recommendations based on the three compliance mechanisms in international relations theory: coercion, self-interest, and legitimacy. The unique architecture of the UPR, such as self-reporting and peer-review mechanisms covering a series of human rights issues on every state, allows all three kinds of compliance mechanisms to work in the process, as the three frameworks that explain compliance are not mutually exclusive, but complementary. Then, I argue that the UPR process inflicts peer and public pressures that motivate states to comply. In order to test my argument, I analyze the effects of UPR recommendations on the ratification of 14 international human rights treaties between 2008 and 2018 using the pooled event history analysis method. The results show that states under review are more likely to implement the recommendations made by other states during the UPR when these pressures increase. My findings indicate that the UPR recommendations help states more engage with the UN treaty bodies. For states, ratifying international human rights treaties might have potential costs to sovereignty without many tangible consequences. However, the UPR creates pressure that is conducive to cooperation.
Details
- Title: Subtitle
- Explaining human rights cooperation and state compliance: analysis of the Universal Periodic Review at the United Nations Human Rights Council
- Creators
- Yooneui Kim
- Contributors
- Sara McLaughlin Mitchell (Advisor)Kelly M Kadera (Committee Member)Brian Lai (Committee Member)Elizabeth J Menninga (Committee Member)Erik Voeten (Committee Member)
- Resource Type
- Dissertation
- Degree Awarded
- Doctor of Philosophy (PhD), University of Iowa
- Degree in
- Political Science
- Date degree season
- Summer 2021
- Publisher
- University of Iowa
- DOI
- 10.17077/etd.005975
- Number of pages
- xii, 140 pages
- Copyright
- Copyright 2021 Yooneui Kim
- Language
- English
- Description illustrations
- color illustrations
- Description bibliographic
- Includes bibliographical references (pages 127-140).
- Public Abstract (ETD)
Since the United Nations defined a variety of internationally accepted human rights in its Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1945 and in 1948, international institutions concerning human rights have thrived in the international system for decades. Some scholars are pessimistic about the effectiveness of these international human rights institutions, while others argue that they are effective for reducing human rights violations. This project attempts to resolve these mixed findings focusing on the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) at the United Nations Human Rights Council. In order to provide an answer to the question of whether states comply with international human rights institutions, I first focus on the factors that facilitate human rights cooperation, such as network effects and participation of transnational non-governmental organizations (NGOs). I also examine cooperation between intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) with and without human rights mandates. As for the network effects, I argue that states’ active participation and countries’ choices to participate in the international human rights institutions are influenced by other states’ choices in a global network. I also contend that the activities of transnational NGOs and IGOs contribute to the convergence of state interests related to global human rights. Then, I seek to contributes to the literature that claims the effectiveness of the UPR recommendations on state compliance by showing that countries are likely to comply with UPR recommendations that require them to change their behavior.
- Academic Unit
- Political Science
- Record Identifier
- 9984124267902771
Metrics
11 File views/ downloads
172 Record Views