1. The Politics of Shame: Condemnation of Country Practices in the UNCHR
-Acknowledges that the practice of the UNCHR has been ignored by political scientists.
-Analyzes the “name and shame” approach of the Commission between 1977 – 2001 and concludes that the commission’s targeting and punishment of countries that violated human rights was based on actual violations, treaty commitments, and participation in peacekeeping operations.
-These findings reject the realist argument that UNCHR actions were based on politics interests: partisan ties, power politics, and membership privileges.
Aqueelah Torrance

2. Agenda Background: composition and study Practice School of Thought
Findings

3. Background Ambiguous Guidelines No Defined Function Council of the
Committed
Name and Shame
-The agency was established in 1946 under the UN Economic and Social Council. UNCHR was the only commission that set human rights standards, monitored how countries adhered to such standards, and publicly reported on a country’s human right’s record. The commission consisted of 53 members states which were appointed for a 3 year term by the UN Economic and Social Council.
-The commission was often criticized for ambiguous human rights policies towards its member states. Between , countries such as Lybia, Syria, Cuba, and China, held seats despite their reputation for poor human rights. In 2004, Sudan was elected to the commission even though they were currently engaged in a genocide against their own people. At this point, Secretary General Kofi Anan announced the need for a new council.
-Anan announced that the Human Rights Council would reflect a “society of the committed” and consist of members with a solid human rights record.
-Function beyond reporting and monitoring and would shame countries with poor human rights. -

4. Study
Time Period: 1977 to 2001
Analyze the 92 countries investigated and 61 condemned.
Focus on Cold War vs. Post Cold War
3 aspects of UNCHR behavior:
How countries are targeted.
How countries are punished.
Who votes for or against them?

5. Agenda Practice Background: composition and study School of Thought
Findings

6. UNCHR Timeline Launch Expand 1946 1960s 1978 Investigate 1987 Advise
2006
Name and Shame
UNCHR Timeline
-In 1946, the council was formed with states showing limited interests in its mission
-By 1960s, the council expanded as new independent states emerged. However, power politics still played a role. Western democracies were quick to focus on lack of human rights in countries of interest while ignoring others. The US was also less inclined to condemn countries for fear of investigation into its domestic issues.
-The council evolved to first investigate countries of human rights violations – focus on South Africa and Israel, Perform Advisory Services, and finally the commission publicly listed the name of the countries that were considered violators.
-Actions against a violator takes four forms: i) choose not act, ii) continue investigating in confidence, iii) initiate a mild sanction or critical statement, or iv) issue a resolution condemning the country’s actions.

7. Trends ° After the Cold War, Resolutions increased.
, resolutions were passed denouncing 24 countries, 19 of which were condemned year-after-year
Top 5 countries accounted for 38% of resolutions passed.
Top 10 countries accounted for 72%
On 50 occasions, UNCHR members were targeted.
The commission’s performance improved from 1977 where only 5 countries were condemned through resolutions. After the Cold War, the number of resolutions passed increased and peaked to 40 by During the Cold War, states were concerned with maintaining alliances and less likely to condemn their allies.
-Results are show that targeting was less likely to biased or demonstrate political favoritism, on 50 occasions the UNCHR adopted a public resolution against one of its own members, most each occurred after 1990.
Top 5 countries: Israel, Chile, South Africa, Equatorial Guinea, and Cambodia
Top 10 countries: El Salvador, Iran, Guatemala, Afghanistan, and Morocco.

8. Agenda Schools of Thought Background: composition and study Practice
Findings

9. Why Target? Why Care?

10. IR Theory Realists Institutionalists Political Interests
Attack an Adversary
Protect an ally
Maintain the balance of power
Comply to Societal Norms
Maintain State Reputation
Accept rules and standards
Compliance leads to rewards
-Why do governments target other government? Why do government work to resist being targeted?
-studies weighs the realist and institutionalist theories. To answer these questions, realists would say that power politics were involved, governments are targeting other government because they want to attack their adversaries.
-However, institutionalists (liberalists and constructivists) argue that 1) the name and shame approach reflects a sincere interests in human rights (example: UNCHR members are not excluded from being targeted) Second, norms have influence because they affect a state’s reputation and can lead to either social rewards or punishment. Countries with poor human rights records can experiences less trade opportunities, investments, etc.
-To institutionalists, public shaming creates pressures for governments to confirm with societal norms within the international community. Thus, asserting the position that because governments are willing to comply with norms, institutions do indeed matter.

11. Agenda Findings Background: composition and study Practice
Schools of Thought
Findings
-The Data are used to test three models: i) What countries are targeted by the commission, ii) How severely are they punished?, iii) How do members vote once a country is targeted and publicly condemned?
- A states’ human rights record is measured on a scale of 1 to 5 (values derived from State Department reports)

12. Politics of Shame State participation earns leniency
Treaty signatories are shamed
Powerful states are likely targets
Good States shame Bad States
Pre-Cold War, political favoritism
Left vs. Right
States that participation in international peacekeeping and frequently vote in the UN general assembly are treated more leniently than states with poor records.
States that ratified ICCPE treaties were more than twice as likely to be shamed by public resolution than were other states
Powerful states were more likely to be targets, however they were also better able to avoid public shaming
To answer who was targeted: In the Cold War period, strong countries avoided scrutiny and harsh punishment. Post-Cold War, strong countries attracted scrutiny but still avoid condemnation.
Governments with better records were significantly more likely to cast shaming votes
During the Cold War, severe human rights violators protected their own and voted YES against less severe targets
Also, leftist regimes spared other left regimes, while rightist regimes behaved the same way..
Post Cold War, sever violators received more public shaming than moderately poor violators

13. Who is Right?

14. Conclusion Institutionalists Realist Powerful states are targeted.
Reputation Matters
The worst offenders are severely punished.
Treaty Ratification demands Accountability.
Power states avoid condemnation
Member participation
-Realist are correct to contend that member voting in terms of punishment reflects political favoritism. During the Cold War- political alignment determined how a country would vote. Post-Cold war, voting is less partisan however repressive governments such as the Middle East, China, and Saudi Arabia are rarely discussed.
-However, we also see that powerful states are targeted more so than weak states and that the worst offenders are severely punished.
-We also see that member participation (treaties, UN peacekeeping, UNGA voting) allows more leniency. Yet, an institutionalist would say this shows that REPUTATION matters and states’ care about how they are viewed in the international community.
-Countries that ratified the ICCPR were held to higher standards