When Is the Pen Truly Mighty? Regime Type and the Efficacy of Naming and Shaming in Curbing Human Rights Abuses

• Published in: British journal of political science Vol. 43; no. 3; pp. 651 - 672
• Main Authors: Hendrix, Cullen S., Wong, Wendy H.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Cambridge, UK Cambridge University Press 01.07.2013
• Subjects: Advocacy; Amnesty International; Authoritarian regimes; Authoritarianism; Authoritarianism (Political Ideology); Autocracy; Civil society; Criticism; Democracy; Democratic regimes; Effectiveness; Freedom of the press; Human Rights; Human rights movements; Human rights violations; Illiberal democracy; Incentives; Influence; International organizations; International relations; International studies; Media; Natural rights; News media; NGOs; Nongovernmental organizations; Political Opposition; Political parties; Political science; Transnationalism
• ISSN: 0007-1234; 1469-2112
• DOI: 10.1017/S0007123412000488

Does naming and shaming states affect respect for human rights in those states? This article argues that incentives to change repressive behaviour when facing international condemnation vary across regime types. In democracies and hybrid regimes – which combine democratic and authoritarian elements – opposition parties and relatively free presses paradoxically make rulers less likely to change behaviour when facing international criticism. In contrast, autocracies, which lack these domestic sources of information on abuses, are more sensitive to international shaming. Using data on naming and shaming taken from Western press reports and Amnesty International, the authors demonstrate that naming and shaming is associated with improved human rights outcomes in autocracies, but with either no effect or a worsening of outcomes in democracies and hybrid regimes.