Search

The paper argues that there are significant differences among democracies in terms of the incentives that the logic of electoral competition creates in them for the politicians to monitor, expose and combat human rights violations. We argue that, in order to function as an effective constraint on human rights violations, democratic competition must first of all put politicians in a situation when it is electorally beneficial for them to monitor abuses and to publicly expose incumbent officials who fail to protect human rights. Conversely, in absence of proper electoral incentives, both incumbent politicians and the opposition leaders may strategically choose to ignore the poor human rights practices, therefore treating such practices as de facto acceptable for a given political system. Our central theoretical argument establishes a link between political (electoral) incentives and human rights practices. The key premise is that democratic institutions could positively influence the practice of human rights by modifying electoral incentives. Appropriate incentives arise when the logic of electoral competition and political survival punishes those who abuse and reward those who respect human rights, as well as those who are willing to expose human rights abuses. As electoral competition is shaped by the rules of elections, it is natural to begin the analysis of incentives related to protection of human rights by asking whether different electoral rules systematically work better or worse in stimulating protection of human rights. In the paper we demonstrate that certain electoral rules are associated with better human rights practices. Our analysis does not seek to produce a set of recommendations for "the best institutions" to support human rights practices, but to emphasize that the goal of institutional selection is to create congruence between electoral incentives of politicians and good human right practices. It could be achieved through a variety of institutional means taking into account social, economic and cultural characteristics of particular nations. Importantly, our theoretical approach of focusing on incentives for politicians to protect human rights offers a unifying framework for analysis of various institutional and non-institutional effects on different categories of human rights. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents the conference paper titled "Do Human Rights Matter? A Global Analysis of U.S. Foreign Economic Aid Allocation" prepared for the "International Studies Association Annual Meeting" held in Honolulu, Hawaii. It examines the effect of human rights violations on the decision of the U.S. to allocate aid to recipient countries. The paper mentions that the promotion of democracy has been the constant U.S. foreign policy goal following World War II.

Existing literature on human rights violations/state repression ignores the diversity among authoritarian governments. At present, diverse groups of political systems (e.g., personalist, military and single-party regimes as well as hybrid combinations) are collapsed together, leaving their unique approaches to maintaining political order unexamined. This limitation is extremely important for those parts of the world where political democracy and economic development appear to be quite elusive (e.g., in Africa). Within this study, I explore an alternative path to coercive pacification: what is referred to as the ?dictatorial peace?. Examining 137 countries from 1976 to 1996, I find that single-party regimes are generally less repressive than other forms of authoritarian governments. Across regions, however, there is some variation; some relationships are consistent across regions, while others vary. These results are important for they suggest that there are alternative routes to peace but, at the same time, they reveal that these alternative paths must be uniquely tailored to geo-political context. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The use of the ASEAN Way guarantees the protection of national sovereignty and anti-interference. This principle is accepted as a regional norm and a key to regional cooperation among ASEAN members. Also, this is a main reason why Socialist countries like Myanmar, Vietnam and Laos decided to join ASEAN in the 1990s. Considering a greater diversity in domestic politics after the ASEAN enlargement, the use of the ASEAN Way may expectedly be strengthened. This paper argues that the use of the ASEAN Way is not consistently strengthened after the enlargement due to international pressures. No development in a roadmap to democracy and a violation of human rights in Myanmar have become a regional issue that ASEAN decided to make pressure on and to get involved with Myanmar's political reform. On the other hand, in Thailand several thousands were killed as a result of war on drugs and a flaming situation of the Southern separatists led to massacres by military forces. These incidents, however, have never been discussed as a regional issue on any ASEAN meeting table. Why does ASEAN treat Myanmar's democracy as a regional issue, compared to the violation of human rights in Thailand? This paper suggests that international pressures are the factor that significantly influences the different uses of the ASEAN Way. The international pressures are defined as a global economic interlock and an international diplomacy with the ASEAN dialogue partners. These two components manipulate the different behaviors of ASEAN in responding to the cases of Myanmar and Thailand. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is global consensus that the fall of the Berlin Wall and the dissolution of the Soviet Union marked the end of the cold war. However, the mood with which the end of the cold war was received varied around the world. One response was the attitude of triumphalism commonly identified with Francis Fukuyama’s version of the ‘end of history’. Triumphalists experience the end of the cold war as the victory of the ‘good’ over the ‘evil’ empire. This mood is similar to what the allied forces experienced in the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials after the end of World War II. Both historical moments show how at the end of a war triumphalists exalt their virtues and condemn the principles and actions of the enemy. From a critical point of view, the end of the cold war is a moment for self-criticism, introspection, an opportunity to face our fears and change our mentalities and views about the other. A critical attitude calls for structural reform through introspection and dialogue with the ‘other’. This critical attitude inspired the creation of truth commissions in Argentina (1983), Chile (1990), El Salvador (1992), South Africa (1995), Guatemala (1997), and Peru (2001). In opposition to the arrogant attitudes of triumphalists, truth commissions are institutional initiatives directed at investigating past human rights violations with a focus on restoring dignity to victims. What follows discusses the potential and limitations of truth commissions in questioning the arrogance of US power. Do truth commissions have the potential to challenge U.S. hegemony? Or, on the contrary, are truth commissions another instrument of U.S. human rights imperialism? Is a truth commission for the U.S. possible? Sorting out these questions demands a discussion of the relationship between truth, human rights, and U.S. hegemony. The analysis approaches this task in five ways. First, it examines critically the function of truth commissions in relation to truth and hegemony. An important limitation of truth commissions overlooked by supporters and critics is the nationalist framework within which they operate. The history truth commissions investigate is the national history of human rights violations committed by Argentines against Argentines, Chileans against Chileans, and so forth. The reconciliation sought by truth commissions is national reconciliation. National reconciliation is closing the historical gap that has divided the nation into the warring factions of a civil (domestic, internal) war. However, truth commissions’ nationalist framework reinforces post-cold war triumphalism. By framing human rights violations within the boundaries of the nation, truth commissions end up silencing the responsibility of the United States or other great powers. Second, the chapter analyzes the functions of insincere apologies from such hegemonic states as the US as variation of the triumphalist approach. And third, the paper argues why investigating the direct participation of the United States could help national reconciliation by helping the parties involved to realize that the perceptions of themselves and the other, as well their mutual behavior, was to certain degree conditioned by a third party. Theoretically, understanding that violence is related to global strategic interests, as well as poverty and that poverty is also related to global inequalities could help reconciliation between Peruvians. All the above are reasons why investigating U.S. involvement in human rights violations could help the national reconciliation between Peruvians sought by Peru’s TRC. The reconciliation policy advanced by Peru’s TRC and other similar experiences is predicated on the assumption that such policy will establish the basis of a peaceful society. The theory is that the distancing or alienation between Peruvians is the root of violence; thus, reconciliation is the solution. Is such theory applicable to international relations, that is, to relations between Peruvians and Americans? Addressing this set of questions is the fourth line of inquiry developed in this chapter. By overlooking the direct involvement of the U.S., truth commissions overlook the reconciliation and democracy building in a global context. A strong case could be made that the violence that causes human rights violations around the world could be significantly reduced if the United States engages in multiple processes of international reconciliation. The chapter concludes by taking on the argument for not investigating the direct involvement of the United States: this case is based on the realities of power. The fact that only two truth commission reports mentioned the direct participation of the United States is in itself revealing. One could even speculate whether a truth commission would have been possible if it explicitly announced that one of its purposes was to investigate the direct involvement of U.S. government, corporations, and individuals in human rights violations. Similar to what is said about human rights violations themselves, the problem is not that the truth about direct U.S. involvement is unknown. U.S. direct involvement has been well documented and analyzed in a several studies. The problem is not truth itself, but the extent of public awareness and the political function that such truth could have in changing power relations. In other words, truth commissions are limited by existing power relations, but, at the same time, have the potential of challenging power relations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Are truth commissions a fad, a product of a particular period of time? They have frequently been advocated as a means to address a legacy of human rights abuses. Many countries have taken at least tentative steps toward democracy and are muddling along as quasi-democracies if not something better, marking perhaps the end of the so-called Third Wave of democratization. As the trend wanes, however, there would appear to be less demand for truth commissions. What is more, the human rights community has tended to have an ambivalent view of truth commissions. While some see clear benefits in the truth commission model, many see them as second best to trials. Given the development of universal jurisdiction and the International Criminal Court, prosecution appearing to be more likely in the future. Finally, and ironically given its antagonism toward the ICC and international tribunals, the Bush administration has demonstrated a preference for retributive forms of justice. Whether this trend is a product of the current administration or a more general tone under the open-ended ?war on terrorism,? it appears as if truth commissions need to continue to evolve into different forms more amenable to the current global mood. Despite these developments, human rights seems likely to remain globally important and, therefore, demands for some form of accountability increasingly vocal. This paper examines these trends and suggests what role the truth commission form may have for the future. ..PAT.-Conference Proceeding [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Throughout the 1970s and 80s, many countries transitioned from military rule to democracy. These military regimes were often responsible for serious violations of human rights including kidnapping, rape, torture, and execution. Once the democratic transition began, the new civilian government faced a difficult choice: prosecute and risk upsetting the transition or move on and provide immunity for the military leaders. In Argentina, after initial efforts to prosecute the military, the new government under Raul Alfonsín backed off in an effort to limit the scope of its prosecutions. After several military rebellions, the government stopped all judicial proceedings and in 1990, Argentine President Carlos Menem pardoned the members of the military regime.In Chile, General Pinochet ensured his departure would not expose himself to prosecution by remaining head of the armed forces until 1997. Subsequently, he and other members of the military government became senators for life, a title that brought an exemption from prosecution. Thus, in both Argentina and Chile, while truth commissions endeavored to chronicle the past, almost no one from the military regime appeared likely to pay for their crimes. Despite the apparent finality of judicial proceedings in these two countries, the desire to bring the perpetrators to justice remained. In Chile, Pinochet?s indictment while in the United Kingdom sparked a legal battle that holds out hope for bringing him and others to justice. In Argentina, the efforts of President Nestor Kirchner and the Argentine legislature have also opened the door for renewed efforts to prosecute surviving members of the junta, over ten years after the matter seemingly had ended.Several questions are evident that will be the focus of this paper. Why has the desire to hold these leaders accountable remained despite the passing of several years and a multitude of obstacles? What are the key factors that rekindled these efforts and why now? What lessons can be learned for others to hold leaders accountable for human rights abuses? ..PAT.-Conference Proceeding [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Transitional justice scholars often argue that accountability mechanisms, such as trials and truth commissions, are essential for new democracies, post-authoritarianism or post-conflict, because they send a signal to the citizenry that the new government is legitimate and adhering to rule of law. A survey of democracies that have experienced civil war indicates, however, that state actors often avoid accountability for their participation in human rights violations. Why and when do state actors avoid human rights accountability in democracies? Through an examination of the Northern Ireland case, I argue that the extension and normalization of an emergency regime greatly weakens democratic normative and institutional constraints, which creates significant barriers for societal groups aiming to hold the state accountable. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

For the past three decades, more and more states experienced democratic transition. As states go through transitions, they are increasingly facing the issue of transitional justice ? a question of how to seek to address gross and systemic human rights violations committed by past regimes. The mechanisms of transitional justice vary across states including truth commissions, criminal prosecutions, amnesty, reparation, restitution, purge, lustration, and finally, doing nothing. In this study I focused on two major transitional justice measures ? trials and truth commissions. This study seeks to explain two questions by analyzing pooled time-series cross-sectional data set of 90 states between 1974 and 2004. First, why do some states seek to address gross and systemic human rights violations committed by former regimes in a certain way while others do not? Second, what is the impact of addressing past human rights violations and what differences do various transitional justice mechanisms make to the state and society? In answering first research question, I examined theories and hypotheses and subject them to empirical tests using event history analysis. I tested whether (1) level of repression, (2) region, (3) culture, (4) domestic group, (5) international pressure, (6) strength of outgoing regime, (7) political stability, (8) existence of alternative transitional justice measures have an effect on country?s decision to adopt trials and/or truth commissions. In answering second research question, I intend to examine the validity of four hypotheses that explain three national level impacts of transitional justice measures: impacts on (1) the recurrence of violence, (2) human rights violations, and (3) democratic consolidation. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Even prior to being designated in the ?axis of evil? Iran was not in good standing with some in the international community due to the theocratic political system, human rights violations, its support for terrorist organizations, and potential weapons program. Some have suggested that a more moderate and less religiously oriented government would lead to a decrease in terrorism and human rights violations and improved relations with other states. This essay analyzes the potential for the gradual transformation of Iran. There are various similarities with Ireland. Ireland throughout most of the 20th century was a religious defined state and Catholicism and the Catholic Church had a significant influence on politics and society. Religion in Ireland influenced its record on human rights as well as its support for the IRA. Since the 1980s and 1990s, Ireland has evolved into a more secular society with greater respect for human rights. We have also seen that there has been decreased support for the IRA in Northern Ireland and improved relations with Great Britain. By looking at the transformation of Ireland this essay analyzes what conditions are required for the gradual moderation of Iran. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]