Media-driven Humanitarianism? News Media Coverage of Human Rights Abuses and the Use of Economic Sanctions

2014 ◽  
Vol 58 (4) ◽  
pp. 855-866 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dursun Peksen ◽  
Timothy M. Peterson ◽  
A. Cooper Drury
2018 ◽  
Vol 30 (3) ◽  
pp. 199-213 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eric H Thomas

In May 2016, residents of Chiloé in southern Chile blockaded their island to protest the contamination of their fishery by aquaculture operators as well as the state’s failure to adequately regulate this new industry. Media coverage of events on the island, particularly the scarcity of food resulting from the blockade, constituted a discourse of images that invoked the mobilization of “respectable” women during other moments of political crisis—specifically the bread shortages during the Popular Unity government (1970–1973) and the widespread human rights abuses of the Pinochet Dictatorship (1973–1990). These images helped protestors transform an environmental crisis into a humanitarian catastrophe, mobilizing collective memory of suffering and gaining widespread support for their cause. This article argues that media coverage of the protest and subsequent support for the protestors in other parts of Chile strengthened the hand of those whose livelihoods had been affected by the crisis and led to greater compensation for fishing families.


Subject The impact of repression in Xinjiang on China's relations with Muslim-majority countries. Significance The silence of Muslim-majority countries in the face of human rights abuses in Xinjiang contrasts with their international activism on behalf of Palestine, Kashmir and the Rohingya minority in Myanmar. Impacts Governments in the more repressive Muslim-majority countries, especially in the Middle East, will censor discussion of the Xinjiang issue. Where public pressure forces the governments of Muslim-majority countries to act, responses are unlikely to go beyond rhetoric. Beijing would not hesitate to use limited economic sanctions to punish Muslim-majority countries that criticise its internal policies.


2020 ◽  
pp. 106591292094159
Author(s):  
Ryan Yu-Lin Liou ◽  
Amanda Murdie ◽  
Dursun Peksen

There is some consensus in the literature that economic sanctions might prompt more human rights abuses in target countries. Yet, the causal mechanisms underlining the sanctions–repression nexus remain little understood. Using causal mediation analysis, we examine the processes through which sanctions might deteriorate human rights conditions. We specifically propose two indirect mechanisms driving human rights violations: increased domestic dissent and reduced government capacity. Sanctions are likely to trigger domestic dissent, and this instability would further induce the government to employ repression. Reduced government capacity caused by sanctions will harm the government’s ability to screen and oversee its security agents, which would subsequently lead to increased human rights abuses. Results from a time-series, cross-national data analysis indicate that sanctions-induced dissent, particularly violent dissent, plays a significant mediating role in the sanctions–repression link. Likewise, we find strong evidence that diminished fiscal capacity triggered by sanctions is likely to result in more repression. There is also some modest evidence that corruption as a proxy for poor governance mediates the sanctions–repression relationship.


2021 ◽  
pp. 1-35
Author(s):  
Rachel Myrick ◽  
Jeremy M. Weinstein

Abstract Scholarship on human rights diplomacy (HRD)—efforts by government officials to engage publicly and privately with their foreign counterparts—often focuses on actions taken to “name and shame” target countries because private diplomatic activities are unobservable. To understand how HRD works in practice, we explore a campaign coordinated by the US government to free twenty female political prisoners. We compare release rates of the featured women to two comparable groups: a longer list of women considered by the State Department for the campaign; and other women imprisoned simultaneously in countries targeted by the campaign. Both approaches suggest that the campaign was highly effective. We consider two possible mechanisms through which expressive public HRD works: by imposing reputational costs and by mobilizing foreign actors. However, in-depth interviews with US officials and an analysis of media coverage find little evidence of these mechanisms. Instead, we argue that public pressure resolved deadlock within the foreign policy bureaucracy, enabling private diplomacy and specific inducements to secure the release of political prisoners. Entrepreneurial bureaucrats leveraged the spotlight on human rights abuses to overcome competing equities that prevent government-led coercive diplomacy on these issues. Our research highlights the importance of understanding the intersection of public and private diplomacy before drawing inferences about the effectiveness of HRD.


2020 ◽  
Vol 75 (2) ◽  
pp. 163-178
Author(s):  
Meredith Lilly ◽  
Delaram Arabi

Both the volume of economic sanctions and the reasons for their imposition have increased tremendously around the globe. In this context, several countries, including the United States and Canada, have introduced Magnitsky acts to enable their governments to act unilaterally to impose sanctions against foreign actors for gross violations of human rights and significant acts of corruption. This paper evaluates the legislative changes made to Canada’s sanction regime in 2016–2017 and explores how the new authorities have been applied following implementation (2017–2019). We find that, despite granting the Canadian government new authorities to undertake autonomous sanctions, the country has continued to cooperate with other states as it had done prior to the changes. We conclude that lawmakers never intended for Canada to use the new autonomous capabilities to “go it alone.” Instead, the symbolism represented by Canada taking a strong stance against human rights abuses globally was the driving force behind the Magnitsky Law’s passage.


2017 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 295-325
Author(s):  
Benedict Abrahamson Chigara

Racialised land ownership in former apartheid-governed states of the SADC remains the most divisive subject particularly between Western states and SADC states themselves. Western states have reacted to the SADC land reform programme (LRP) by imposing severe economic sanctions on target states while SADC states have, in the aftermath of the Campbell decision, suspended the very SADC Tribunal for handing down that decision, pending review of its jurisdiction. Further, SADC states have limited the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to inter-state matters only, shutting the door on individual petitions for any alleged human rights abuses. At the heart of this matter is the issue of contested title to lands that the SADC Tribunal had dealt with in the Campbell case. This article applies Nozick's entitlement theory to determine the question of entitlement as a means of illuminating the incommensurabilities around the SADC land issue. Formalist arguments that are premised on strict and purist positions on either side of these incommensurabilities are weighed under the light of entitlement theory. The article shows that because of its historically multi-layered dimensions, the SADC land issue appears ill-suited to legal formalist arguments that ignore both the historical context of colonialism and forcible expropriation of native titles without compensation.


2017 ◽  
Vol 47 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-7

This section comprises JPS summaries and links to international, Arab, Israeli, and U.S. documents and source materials from the quarter spanning 16 May-15 November 2017. Fifty years of Israeli occupation was the focus of reports by the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) and Oxfam that documented the ongoing human rights abuses in the occupied Palestinian territories. Other notable documents include Israeli NGO Gisha and UNSCO reports on the ten-year Gaza siege, Al Jazeera's interactive timeline of the Nakba, and an exchange of letters between the ACLU and U.S. senators on anti-BDS legislation.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document