Search

National human rights institutions (NHRIs) have in recent years been established in many countries of the world and, under the auspices of the UN, have formed transgovernmental networks. In part because of their recent origin, NHRIs and their networks have received very little attention from scholars studying (international) human rights politics and scholars studying transitions to democracy. This paper argues that networks of NHRIs are potentially an important actor in human rights politics and transition processes and need to be given more scholarly attention. It also argues that recent research in international relations has provided theoretical lenses that are very useful for studying the potential significance and implications of the recent growth of networks of NHRIs. Using the framework developed by Anne-Marie Slaughter in her recent and widely acclaimed book A New World Order, this paper applies the theoretical insights of recent research on global governance to NHRIs networks to a) argue that these networks need to be studied in terms of global political trends and processes, b) explore how and why NHRIs can be an influential actor in the expansion of human rights and democratic practices worldwide, c) explore the relative strengths of this new actor compared to other actors active in the areas of human rights and democracy promotion, and d) highlight some of the policy implications that the growth of transgovernmental NHRI networks entails. ..PAT.-Conference Proceeding [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recently introduced by critical security theorists into the literature on international relations, the concept of ?human security?, as opposed to state-centric or traditional security, identifies individuals and collectivities as the objects of security and emphasizes human rights, good governance, and, more generally, quality of life issues as the central dimensions of (international) security. Although the concept of human security has received considerable attention, some of the core arguments and hypotheses put forward by critical security theorists have not been empirically tested. This paper attempts to empirically address one of the most interesting and intriguing hypotheses advanced by critical security theorists. This hypothesis identifies global civil society as the central agent of change in international security and posits that transformative human security initiatives will emerge in global civil society in the post Cold War era, transformative initiatives being initiatives that represent a fundamental change in ideas about the nature and object of international security. In two case studies of initiatives concerned with (human) security, namely, the Kimberley Process and Jubilee 2000, this paper attempts to explore the questions of whether or not global civil society has been the source of transformative security initiatives over the past 10-15 years since the end of the Cold War, and of whether or not it has been successful. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In recent years there has been growing interest in the prospects for democracy in the Middle East. The Arab world is the only region to be virtually untouched by the Third Wave of democratization, and since the World Trade Center terrorist attacks and the U.S. war in Iraq, the prospects of democracy within this region have increasingly preoccupied both academics and policymakers. Recent scholarship, in an attempt to move beyond cultural explanations of the lack of democratic institutions in the Middle East, has explored the relationship between the nature of authoritarianism and political change. Most of this research, however, has attempted to shed light on this relationship by using comparative case studies. In addition, these studies tend to be informed by only one theoretical framework, and thus do not integrate other important explanatory variables. This paper attempts to address some of these shortcomings. In particular, we consider which combination of structural characteristics within the Middle East is most conducive to regime change in general, and democratization more specifically. These structural conditions include both traditional variables such as modernization, oil rent and ethnic fractionalization, as well as more recently introduced factors such as the nature of Middle Eastern authoritarianism (i.e. Sultanism, Dynasticism, etc.). To explore these relationships, we combine case studies with statistical analysis to gain a more nuanced understanding of these processes over time. Moreover, we draw on different theoretical traditions to provide a more complete account of the relationship between structural characteristics and regime change and democratization. Our findings suggest that the explanations of regime change and democratization in the Middle East are much more complex than many scholars suggest. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

“Responsibility to protect (R2P) is not yet dead, but it is fragile” concludes a recent “Economist” article (5/15/08), which is in my view an accurate description of R2P. R2P establishes a responsibility to protect civilians from severe human rights viol ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since the 1990s, Canada has taken the initiative on several pressing human rights issues. Canada was a key actor in the global effort to ban landmines and cooperated closely with the International Campaign to Ban Landmines. Canada also sponsored the Inter ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research on transnational advocacy networks (TANs) has applied the theoretical literature on social movements to transnational activism. One of the central concepts in social movement theory is the structure of political opportunities (political opportunity structure or POS). The POS refers to the structural and contextual factors that encourage or inhibit social movement mobilization, and social movement scholars have examined how political opportunities affect both the emergence and the outcomes of social movements.Like so many of the other approaches and concepts in social movement theory, the POS is a concept that was originally developed to understand the mobilization and outcomes of social movements in national contexts. It has recently been modified and adapted to study international phenomena. In this paper I review the ways that the international structure of political opportunities has been conceptualized. I then draw on other theoretical formulations to propose an alternative conceptualization of the international political opportunity structures. Using examples of TANs, I demonstrate how drawing on both social movement approaches and other theoretical frameworks in international relations can enhance our understanding of the structures of political opportunity that TANs face and how these structures vary across issue areas. This variation in the POS can in turn help explain the variation in the political outcomes of TAN campaigns. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Transnational advocacy networks (TANs) are among the most salient new actors in international politics and an important part of a novel and growing research agenda focusing on issues of transnationalism and global governance. Despite the increasing attention social scientists have devoted to the study of transnationalism and TANs, there have been relatively few comparative studies of TANs. Moreover, different aspects of TANs have been studied in different subfields of political science, and there have been few attempts to integrate the sub-disciplinary perspectives.What is needed, therefore, are more comparative and theoretically grounded studies that integrate the theoretical and empirical insights of the relevant literatures in international relations and comparative politics. Arguing that research on TANs can be fruitfully grounded in the theoretical literatures on social movements and international regimes, this paper draws on the theoretical lenses developed by these literatures to compare three TANs: The International Campaign to Ban Landmines, the Kimberley Process and the International Action Network on Small Arms. These three TANs have had varying degrees of success, and the paper explores two related questions: What are the dynamics and processes that underlie and explain their success or the lack thereof? How and under what circumstances do transnational advocacy networks contribute to global governance? Using data gathered in interviews with NGO staff and activists involved with these TANs, the paper finds that a combination of concepts and variables advanced by these two bodies of literature to explain the emergence/outcomes of social movements/international regimes can explain when and how TANs can be successful in introducing new instruments of global governance. ..PAT.-Conference Proceeding [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper explores the potential role of networks of national human rights institutions in international human rights politics and processes of democratic transitions. It highlights their significance in the context of global governance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]