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

8 Appeasement via Localization in the Asia Pacific O f all the regions in the world, the Asia Pacific has had the lowest concentration of NHRIs since the 1990s. Following the lead of New Zealand, Australia , and the Philippines in the 1970s and 1980s, nine countries in the Asia Pacific created an NHRI in the 1990s: India, Indonesia, and Palestine in 1993; Iran in 1995; Sri Lanka in 1996; Fiji, Nepal, and Thailand in 1997; and Malaysia in 1999. The fact that, unlike other regions, the vast area of the Asia Pacific (defined here by UN categories) did not have a region-wide system of human rights protection or undergo widespread democratization may account for the slower rate of diffusion. Still, as early as 1993, the Bangkok Declaration called for the creation of NHRIs, even before the World Conference in Vienna. The establishment in 1996 of the Asia Pacific Forum, an organization composed of NHRIs and dedicated to promoting the spread and strengthening of NHRIs, changed this dynamic markedly, though its effects would not become fully evident until the new millennium. Indeed, after 2000, numerous other states in the region joined the global trend of human rights institution building. For a region that had put off the possibility of creating a regional enforcement mechanism and had leaders who rejected rhetorically the primacy of human rights (i.e., the Asian values debate), establishing NHRIs permitted regimes to do two things: appease transnational critics of local rights practices while retaining sovereign control over human rights issues. The creation of NHRIs in the Asia Pacific also reflected the influence of a regional NHRI network , led by the Asia Pacific Forum, and a more general logic of diffusion, as states followed the examples of social peers, often those in close subregional proximity. And in some cases, the idea of establishing an NHRI was placed on the political agenda by NGOs, to be adopted when egregious human rights abuses garnered intense transnational reaction. As the South Asia Human Rights Documentation Center noted in a March 1998 publication, “If in the 1950s, the status symbol of a developing country was a steel mill, in the 1990s, apparently, it was a human rights commission.”1 The Transnational Reach of NHRIs in the Early 1990s Influenced by the Paris Principles and the gradual spread of NHRIs, a core set of countries in the Asia Pacific opted for “human rights commissions” in the early 1990s. Between 1993 and 1995, four countries in the region established NHRIs: India, Indonesia, the Palestinian Authority, and Iran. All of them did so in the context of organized abuse and transnational pressure; only in the case of the Palestinian Authority was the institution created during a regulatory moment. And in all cases, except Iran, these NHRIs have been fully accredited internationally . Notwithstanding accreditation, all of the institutions have also been constrained by the broader political context, including ongoing violence and conflict . Likewise, the creation of these NHRIs was deeply implicated in the institution ’s global diffusion and the active efforts of NHRI-diffusing agents to promote the institution throughout the region. India’s Human Rights Commission When India created its National Human Rights Commission in 1993, it did so largely to appease transnational critics. The formally democratic country was not in the midst of a regulatory moment; rather, a combination of organized abuse and external obligations made an institutional solution to its human rights problems seem especially appealing. In this regard, the early 1990s reflected a strong convergence of rising international pressures and, internally, a renewed campaign of state violence that mobilized social opponents. Though the NHRI’s establishment was part of a process that had gained momentum (and even urgency) in the early 1990s, as transnational pressure intensified , it also had deeper roots in a domestic dynamic that had started after the emergency period of the mid-1970s: social activism met by state violence only mobilized more human rights activism. The first mention of a human rights commission appears to have been made by the Junata Party, which became active after appeasement via localization 193 the mid-1970s emergency period. In their election manifesto in 1977, they promoted the idea of creating a human rights commission, to be led by a person with the stature of a Supreme Court judge—an idea that would survive into the 1990s. The suggestion, interestingly, seemed linked to the perceived weaknesses of two existing bodies: the Commissioner of Scheduled Castes and Tribes and the Commissioner for Linguistic...

Share