Changing Human Rights Practices (Final)

Question 1

The spiral model of human rights change: 5 steps

Answer 1

1. Repression and activation of network (instrumental rationality): Instrumental rationality refers to behavior guided by strategic, goal-oriented reasoning—actors weigh costs and benefits to maximize their interests.
2. Norm denial (instrumental rationality): Denying the validity of the norms themselves. This is supposed to change when the spiral enters the third phase.
3. Tactical confessions: The accumulation of pressure from outside ends up forcing them to make some tactical concessions (mostly cosmetic/strategic). Even though they tend to be strategic and cosmetic, it will start to give some room for the domestic opposition to be an activated. Once these tactical concessions are made, a spiral within a spiral will begin, with pressure coming from within as well as from outside. This pressure will force the govt to make changes (democratization).
4. Prescriptive status (instrumental and argumentative rationality): A commitment to human rights that started as merely strategic ends up bringing about effective significant improvement in HR practices, and translates to commitments of a deeper nature.
5. Rule-consistent behaviour (institutionalization and habitualization): The persistence of the important changes that happen in the fourth phase, which usually implies internalization of the value of HR.

Question 2

The Spiral Model: Some Critiques - Willingness versus capacity to comply

Answer 2

1. Authors noted the importance of differentiating between consolidated vs limited statehood: Consolidated states have the capacity and control to respond to external and internal pressures, negotiate with international actors, and actually implement human rights reforms. Limited statehood creates a gap between commitment and compliance—a government might sign treaties or make rhetorical commitments (reaching phase 4), but actual implementation (phase 5) remains weak or symbolic.
2. Centralized vs decentralized rule implementation: Sometimes the central authority that is receiving the naming and shaming are willing to comply and are persuaded, but they are not able to make them because they don’t have fun control over those who actually commit the HR violations.
3. State vs private violations (e.g. gender-based violence): Might be doing a good job in terms of pressuring the govt to give up HR violations, but many of these practices might be happening in the private sphere and not in front of the eyes of the govt, so they can’t do much.
4. Policy implication (the importance of capacity building): If you want compliance rates to change, you need to help them build the capacity that is required to overcome the HR violations.

Question 3

The Spiral Model: Some Critiques - “World time”

Answer 3

There are times in history in which human rights have acquired a certain saliency and level of legitimacy that is remarkable compared to other times. That global cultural context might enhance the effectiveness of naming & shaming and other practices. It’s much easier to put effective pressure on governments when the context is already putting on the govt.

Question 4

The Spiral Model: Some Critiques - Regime vulnerability

Answer 4

External (material & social) and internal (institutional). Some states can afford more hostility in the material sense than other states (if you have a huge economy you can afford many states putting economic sanctions against you). In a social sense, it points more to the question of status and prestige. Some states are more sensitive about their status. Has to do with the status they already enjoy: If a state already has a terrible status, it will be less effective.

Question 5

The Spiral Model: Some Critiques - Internal blocking factors

Answer 5

1. Civil war / terrorism: Puts the state in a state of emergency that is not helpful for the model to effectively bring about changes in HR practices. Govt will be more focused on the security threats that they are facing.
2. Counter-narratives (sovereignty, culture wars): Alternative discourses that challenge the legitimacy, relevance, or authority of international human rights norms. Counter-narratives will embrace the value of sovereignty (who are u to tell us, a sovereign nation, how to behave). Culture wars: You are trying to “westernize” us.
3. From attacking the norm to attacking the advocates: Framing and constructing the advocacy as foreign agents who are trying to “westernize” and destroy traditional family identities. They do this because if you block human rights advocacy, chances are you will never have to change HR practices.