Ratification as accommodation? Domestic dissent and human rights treaties

Persistent Link:
http://hdl.handle.net/10150/620925
Title:
Ratification as accommodation? Domestic dissent and human rights treaties
Author:
Ryckman, Kirssa Cline
Affiliation:
University of Arizona
Issue Date:
2016-07
Publisher:
SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
Citation:
"Ratification as accommodation? Domestic dissent and human rights treaties." Journal of Peace Research. July 2016 vol. 53 no. 4 582-596
Journal:
Journal of Peace Research
Rights:
© The Author(s) 2016 Reprints and permission: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
Collection Information:
This item from the UA Faculty Publications collection is made available by the University of Arizona with support from the University of Arizona Libraries. If you have questions, please contact us at repository@u.library.arizona.edu.
Abstract:
Repression is the expected response to anti-government protest; however, leaders can also accommodate demonstrators. Committing to human rights treaties is considered in this environment, where treaty commitments are conceptualized as a policy concession that leaders can grant dissenters. Past research has shown that top-down domestic pressures, such as new democratic regimes, can influence treaty commitments. This article extends this line of research by considering the influence of bottom-up domestic pressure, arguing that nonviolent, pro-democracy movements can pressure leaders into concessions, as these movements are risky to repress but threatening to ignore. Leaders are expected to seek ‘cheap’ accommodations, and commitments to human rights treaties provide a relatively low-cost concession that also addresses demonstrators’ pro-democracy demands. Using commitments to the nine core UN human rights treaties, results are generally supportive. Governments experiencing a nonviolent, pro-democracy movement are consistently likely to sign human rights treaties. Ratification is also likely but in more limited contexts, and is more closely related to movement success. This suggests that bottom-up pressures can influence commitment to human rights treaties, but there may be little substance behind those concessions. The status quo and cost-averse preferences of leaders lead them to grant accommodations that result in minimal change and cost.
Note:
Sage Green Route: Once the article has been accepted for publication, you may post the accepted version (version 2) of the article on your own personal website, your department’s website or the repository of your institution without any restrictions.
DOI:
10.1177/0022343316630038
Keywords:
accommodation; human rights treaties; nonviolence; protest; repression
Version:
Final accepted manuscript
Additional Links:
http://jpr.sagepub.com/content/53/4/582.full.pdf+html

Full metadata record

DC FieldValue Language
dc.contributor.authorRyckman, Kirssa Clineen
dc.date.accessioned2016-10-11T22:38:14Z-
dc.date.available2016-10-11T22:38:14Z-
dc.date.issued2016-07-
dc.identifier.citation"Ratification as accommodation? Domestic dissent and human rights treaties." Journal of Peace Research. July 2016 vol. 53 no. 4 582-596en
dc.identifier.doi10.1177/0022343316630038-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10150/620925-
dc.description.abstractRepression is the expected response to anti-government protest; however, leaders can also accommodate demonstrators. Committing to human rights treaties is considered in this environment, where treaty commitments are conceptualized as a policy concession that leaders can grant dissenters. Past research has shown that top-down domestic pressures, such as new democratic regimes, can influence treaty commitments. This article extends this line of research by considering the influence of bottom-up domestic pressure, arguing that nonviolent, pro-democracy movements can pressure leaders into concessions, as these movements are risky to repress but threatening to ignore. Leaders are expected to seek ‘cheap’ accommodations, and commitments to human rights treaties provide a relatively low-cost concession that also addresses demonstrators’ pro-democracy demands. Using commitments to the nine core UN human rights treaties, results are generally supportive. Governments experiencing a nonviolent, pro-democracy movement are consistently likely to sign human rights treaties. Ratification is also likely but in more limited contexts, and is more closely related to movement success. This suggests that bottom-up pressures can influence commitment to human rights treaties, but there may be little substance behind those concessions. The status quo and cost-averse preferences of leaders lead them to grant accommodations that result in minimal change and cost.en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherSAGE PUBLICATIONS LTDen
dc.relation.urlhttp://jpr.sagepub.com/content/53/4/582.full.pdf+htmlen
dc.rights© The Author(s) 2016 Reprints and permission: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.naven
dc.subjectaccommodationen
dc.subjecthuman rights treatiesen
dc.subjectnonviolenceen
dc.subjectprotesten
dc.subjectrepressionen
dc.titleRatification as accommodation? Domestic dissent and human rights treatiesen
dc.typeArticleen
dc.contributor.departmentUniversity of Arizonaen
dc.identifier.journalJournal of Peace Researchen
dc.description.noteSage Green Route: Once the article has been accepted for publication, you may post the accepted version (version 2) of the article on your own personal website, your department’s website or the repository of your institution without any restrictions.en
dc.description.collectioninformationThis item from the UA Faculty Publications collection is made available by the University of Arizona with support from the University of Arizona Libraries. If you have questions, please contact us at repository@u.library.arizona.edu.en
dc.eprint.versionFinal accepted manuscripten
All Items in UA Campus Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.