Radhika ganesh prabhu february 24 2009 international organizations professor james vreeland
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 12

Radhika Ganesh Prabhu February 24, 2009 International Organizations Professor James Vreeland PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 74 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

“Justice Lost! The Failure of International Human Rights Law to Matter Where Needed Most” ( Hafner-Burton, Emilie Marie, and Kiyo Tsutsui. 2007 ). Radhika Ganesh Prabhu February 24, 2009 International Organizations Professor James Vreeland. A Lesson in Commitment?.

Download Presentation

Radhika Ganesh Prabhu February 24, 2009 International Organizations Professor James Vreeland

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Radhika ganesh prabhu february 24 2009 international organizations professor james vreeland

“Justice Lost! The Failure of International Human Rights Law to Matter Where Needed Most”(Hafner-Burton, Emilie Marie, and Kiyo Tsutsui. 2007 )

Radhika Ganesh Prabhu

February 24, 2009

International Organizations

Professor James Vreeland


A lesson in commitment

A Lesson in Commitment?

Source: http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cartoonists/mba/lowres/mban935l.jpg


Is seeing believing

Is seeing believing?


Radhika ganesh prabhu february 24 2009 international organizations professor james vreeland

REPRESSOR STATES:

WHAT YOU SEE IS NOT ALWAYS WHAT YOU GET!

Source: http://www.miketodd.ca/web/archives/000816.html


Key findings of authors

Key Findings of Authors

Governments, including repressive ones, frequently make legal commitments to human rights treaties

Commitments mostly have no effects on the world’s most terrible repressors even long into the future

Change does not happen on the margins

Realistic institutional reforms will probably not help solve this problem.

(Hafner-Burton, Emilie Marie, and Kiyo Tsutsui. 2007 )


Policy implications why should we care

Policy Implications: Why should we care?

  • Is the bare minimum the litmus test we are going for?

  • Are we teaching governments they can get their cake and eat it too?

  • Why are so many Northern governments, concerned with ratification?

Hafner-Burton, Emilie Marie, and Kiyo Tsutsui. 2007


Treaties they consider

Treaties they consider:

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR)

International Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT)


Two models of the paper

Two Models of the Paper

MODEL 1:

  • Do repressors sign on as frequently as those that are “reasonably protective”?

    MODEL 2:

  • After a year, do the treaties make a difference for those that ratified them?

    (Hafner-Burton, Emilie Marie, and Kiyo Tsutsui. 2007)


Findings

Findings

Hafner-Burton, Emilie Marie, and Kiyo Tsutsui. 2007)

“Repressors” commit to treaties as do “protectors”

Repressors certainly aren’t afraid to ratify.

Commitment, but no follow through.

“Democratic” repressors - is that an oxymoron? YES!

What will happen in a decade and a half? If you are a repressor state, pretty much nothing.

What happens when you make a deeper commitment to human rights treaty law, (ratifying the CCPR Optional Protocol)?


Strengths

Strengths

  • Provides a comprehensive overview of literature that supports the pros and the cons of the HR regime.

  • Addresses real world applicability

  • Provides robust statistical evidence


Weaknesses

Weaknesses

  • CAT and CCPR are not the only treaties…

  • “Don’t get married” advice

  • Reform is not the only end goal of the treaties

  • No counterfactual

    • Indirect effects (Bashir and the ICC)

  • Do not define protectors as strictly as do repressors


Realism vs constructivism

Realism vs. Constructivism

  • “Constructivism fails”

    • Treaties do not reform the countries

    • Socialization is how people claim reform takes place only there is no evidence to show socialization works!

    • Repression pays so leaders continue doing it!

  • Why does the North push for the “legal regime”?

    • Norms or Power?

      • This is an open ended question that the authors do not answer (perhaps to entice us to read their next article!) 

Hafner-Burton, Emilie Marie, and Kiyo Tsutsui. 2007)


  • Login