In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Chapter 1 Introduction: Fighting for New Rights Clifford Bob Why does the international human rights movement recognize certain issues, but not others, as rights violations? How do some aggrieved groups transform their troubles into internationally acknowledged human rights concerns, whereas other groups fail when they attempt to do so? Asking these questions has practical implications for victims of abuse, raises thorny policy questions for the rights movement, and opens new avenues of theoretical inquiry for scholars. In today’s world, “human rights” are a pervasive political ideal and a compelling call to action. Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) monitor violations around the globe. International organizations hold countless meetings on rights issues. Democratic governments proclaim human rights to be at the center of their foreign policies. And the media frequently highlight rights abuses. For beleaguered citizens in neglectful or despotic states, these developments represent opportunities for overseas support. If aggrieved groups can portray their causes as human rights issues, they may be able to tap organizations, personnel, funding, and other strategic resources now available at the international level. If a transnational network then grows, it may succeed in pressuring national governments to change policies and ease repression. Of course, foreign assistance does not guarantee resolution of difficult national problems. Indeed, internationalizing a domestic conflict may backfire, hurting a group’s chances of achieving its goals at home. Nonetheless, in recent years, many who claim they are repressed, abused, neglected, or excluded have described their situations as human rights issues. Some have succeeded in rousing the rights movement while others have failed. In other cases, where those affected may not have the capacity to depict their plight as a violation of international norms, outside champions have taken up the cause. Children are one example, with their rights developed primarily by adults. Yet here too the success with which champions have trans- formed underlying problems into major rights issues varies. Can aggrieved groups take steps to improve their chances? For the rights movement, it is important to explain why significant problems have had difficulty gaining its attention. South Asia’s Dalits (Untouchables), whose plight was long slighted by the rights movement, comprise 160 million Indians and another 90 million people worldwide. Physically and mentally disabled people, another huge population suffering abuse and neglect in many countries, have only recently attracted serious responses from transnational NGOs and international organizations . Even among rights that have won formal endorsement in international conventions, activism varies greatly—despite the movement’s affirmation of all rights as “universal, indivisible[,] . . . interdependent, and interrelated.”1 What explains this variation? Does selection follow a rational pattern? These issues go beyond existing theory in comparative politics and international relations. Most research has analyzed how activists use wellestablished human rights norms to change state policy. Risse, Ropp, and Sikkink, for instance, provide case studies in which populations suffering torture, extrajudicial executions, and other gross abuses tap transnational networks.2 In these instances, the persecuted face difficult but well-defined tasks: alerting the world to violations of recognized norms; and convincing NGOs, international organizations, and states to act. Successful cases have common features. The perpetrators (and targets of activism) are brutal governments. The violations are civil and political , often involving widespread killings or legally sanctioned discrimination . And the evidence linking abuser to victim is relatively clear.3 In contrast to existing scholarship, this volume highlights more fundamental and logically prior issues. How do groups enduring problems alien to the rights movement establish new norms or energize existing but moribund ones? Why do some activists succeed and others fail? What explains the timing of success? Definitions and Caveat This book proposes a framework explaining the human rights movement ’s adoption of new rights. By “movement,” we refer to the NGOs, international organizations, state bureaucracies, foundations, journalists , individuals, and others who work, sometimes together in networks, sometimes in competition with one another, to promote ideals and values denominated in international law as “human rights.” Given this definition , the movement extends back centuries. We focus, however, on the post-World War II era when governments, often under pressure from citizens, ratified many international human rights declarations, 2 Clifford Bob conventions, and laws. Some of these entailed the foundation of international organizations or bureaucracies devoted to rights issues. More important, in the 1960s, activists organized NGOs to act as watchdogs over state implementation and violation of human rights standards. The new rights of interest in this book are ones long omitted from international human rights law or codified but allotted few...

Share