What is it about?
This article examines when and how inter governmental organizations publicly criticize states for human rights violations, focusing on cases where the targets are the organizations’ own member states or financial donors. It shows that shaming is shaped not only by the severity of violations but also by institutional relationships and resource dependence. The analysis demonstrates that organizations face constraints when criticizing powerful insiders, leading to selective and strategic patterns of public condemnation.
Featured Image
Photo by Shane on Unsplash
Why is it important?
International organizations are often assumed to act as neutral monitors of human rights. This study challenges that assumption by showing how institutional ties and funding relationships affect who gets criticized and how. The findings help explain variation in shaming practices across cases and raise important questions about credibility, accountability, and inequality in international human rights enforcement.
Perspectives
This article reflects my interest in the political limits of international moral authority. By focusing on situations where organizations must choose whether to criticize those on whom they depend, I examine the tensions between normative mandates and organizational survival. The study is motivated by a broader concern with how power and dependency shape the practice of human rights monitoring, especially in settings where formal equality among states masks substantial asymmetries in influence.
Professor Sara Beth Kahn-Nisser
Open University of Israel
Read the Original
This page is a summary of: When the targets are members and donors: Analyzing inter-governmental organizations’ human rights shaming, The Review of International Organizations, June 2018, Springer Science + Business Media,
DOI: 10.1007/s11558-018-9317-4.
You can read the full text:
Resources
Contributors
The following have contributed to this page
