Five forum responses with works cited, 300 words. Two classes International Relations (International Organization) and Anthropology.
Class 1 International Organizations:
Post 1
- How do we determine whether human rights IOs are effective?
Benjamin (2009, pp.33), writes that, “Legislative advocacy has been especially successful in liberal democracies where lawmakers have been persuaded about the immense value to initiating or signing onto Bills intended to protect the dispossessed. Pressure brought to bear on legislators has been effective in forging an alliance of sorts that has seen the allocation of financial and material resources to assist the dispossessed.” What the author is alluding to here is that beyond all the rhetoric and lofty ideals IO’s (like other functions of government or business) effectiveness is ultimately measured by their ability to generate legislation with corresponding funding. Anyone who has worked in government can tell you that until a requirement receives funding it is just a wish list item. While this may seem like a simple task I can assure you that it is not. Funding usually only occurs after lengthy debate and a sufficient amount of public pressure is brought to bear that forces legislators to spend the public’s money. IO’s compete for a finite amount of fiscal resources that are also requested elsewhere.
Because of this funding process my contention is that of the six listed areas where IO’s operate, as provided by Benjamin (2009, pp. 32), areas b) legislative advocacy & f) media relations, are really the keys to an IO’s effectiveness, but in reverse order. Media relations drives the legislative agenda and as such it is of paramount importance that IO’s use the media to place events onto the political radar. When enough constituents clamor, politicians listen. In the era of the internet the ability of IO’s to generate a critical mass of public opinion has increased exponentially.
That old maxim “show me the money” applies here. IO’s that can deliver funding to address critical needs are the most effective.
- Which types are most effective: human rights treaties, NGOs, or transnational advocacy networks?
Hathaway (2007, pp. 1), writes that, “…..states with less democratic institutions will be no less likely to commit to human rights treaties if they have poor human rights records, because there is little prospect that the treaties will be enforced. Conversely, states with more democratic institutions will be less likely to commit to human rights treaties if they have poor human rights records precisely because treaties are likely to lead to changes in behavior.
At first blush I was of the opinion that treaties would be most effective because they have the force of law. However, Hathaway makes the point that many treaties are unlikely to be enforced. Much like the 55 MPH speed limit, that few follow because it is not enforced, states can tend to ignore treaties rendering them useless.
Because treaties may, or may not, be enforced I tend to agree with Meernik, Aloisi, Sowell and Nichols (2012, pp.1), who contend that, “The principal weapon of choice among many international organizations and governments to improve states’ human rights is the naming and shaming campaign”.
As I mentioned above media relations can drive domestic opinion and lead to a groundswell of public interest. When this interest reaches a critical mass legislative change can happen. To be sure this process is more difficult in authoritarian societies, but, with the advent of modern communications such as Twitter and Instragram the ability of regimes to suppress opinion is diminished.
Generally speaking the world has been socialized to abhor human rights abuses. Therefore naming and shaming campaigns can led to international outrage and possibly sanctions that pressure a regime in ways that it’s domestic constituency cannot.
Economic sanctions can have a coercive effect on a regime and force them to change policies and amend behavior. IO’s can initiate this process by naming and shaming abusers in a way that forces the international community to respond.
Post 2:
1. How do we determine whether human rights IOs are effective?
The effectiveness of human rights IOs is a difficult metric to determine. But, it is possible to measure the second and third order effects of these IOs in terms of what they can produce rather than what they can prevent. As we’ve studied in previous weeks, states are going to do whatever they want so using compliance as a measuring stick is unreasonable and may not provide legitimate data. If an IO can prove to be actionable in the six areas identified by Benjamin (2009, pg. 32), the public support they are able to generate would, in my opinion, make the IO effective. Informational campaigns, fundraising, bills and legislation, influencing state behavior, volunteer work, and media coverage are the ideal means by which human rights crusades are met with success.
2.Which types are most effective: human rights treaties, NGOs, or transnational advocacy networks?
The foundation to my answer for this part of the forum is based on my opinion after finishing this week’s readings. My response is listed in the order of most to least effective.
NGOs
I feel NGOs are most effective of the three entities because of their bilateral relationships and cooperative efforts with governmental agencies, IGOs and other NGOs. A part of what makes human rights treaties and transnational advocacy networks (TANs) less effective than NGOs is their inability to hold states accountable when they do not fulfill the terms of the treaty or commit some degree of human rights violation. Because of their associations with other organizations, they have the ability to leverage accountability on non-compliant states in the form of transnational pressure from more powerful nations to force compliance (Meernick et al, 2012). What makes this concept even more effective is the resource NGOs have available to them in the form of the media which allows them to reap support and opinion from the public for their agenda in addition to the ability to expose those nations who commit human rights violations (Hathaway, 2007). Even though NGOs can be accused of pushing a largely Western agenda, their freedom from obligation to the agenda of states, ability to focus their efforts on a singular cause, and ease of mobilization makes them incredibly effective (Benjamin, 2009).
Transnational Advocacy Networks (TANs)
Despite being a relatively new concept, TANs have a deep cache of information exchange resources (Keck and Sikkink, 1998) which I feel make them the second most effective organization. Much like NGOs, TANs also engage in cooperative efforts with other organizations who share similar ideas, values, and principle (Keck and Sikkink, 1998). Transnational advocacy networks are increasing in popularity among human rights activists based on their interactions with all the diverse players that make up geopolitics and international relations while making resources available to both transnational and domestic actors (Keck and Sikkink, 1998). Their effectiveness is derived from the depth of their resources and reach back as well as their working relationships with non-traditional actors.
Treaties
Of all three mechanisms, I thought treaties would be the least effective. Throughout all the readings, there was a common theme of the potential for treaties to compromise or threaten individual state sovereignty. The overwhelming observation is that human rights treaties systemically challenge the independence of states by interceding with the domestic functions of each state (Woptika and Tsutsui, 2008). For some states, this threat is enough for them to turn their back on treaty ratification – despite being perceived as not being invested in the human rights movement. Hathaway (2007) argued that states with a newer government is more likely to enter into a treaty in order to establish a reputation and distance themselves from human rights violations while an older government is more cognizant of the potential “collateral consequences” and may be less likely to ratify such treaties (Hathaway, 2007). Probably the most compelling factor in my decision was the lack of international accountability for states who agree to human rights treaties, but have experience little to no ramifications for not complying.
Post 3:
What is an example of an effective human rights NGO? How do we know that they are effective?
Class 2 Anthropology:
Post 1
I was happy to see this question come up given the passionate feelings that are circulating around America. Personally, and scientifically, we (races) are not that different. In fact, we have more in common then traits that we don’t. The quiz brought up some common misconceptions that more people should be enlightened to. I would have to admit until a few months ago, when I attended a conference on genetic disease, that I had no idea why sickle cell effected mainly the African American population in America. The fact that the disease was a protection from malaria was interesting in the sense it protected from that issue but caused medical issues of its own. The only question in the quiz that I missed was the mutations in the DNA sequence. While geography and “natural selection” do play a part, it is more the random “copying changes” that occur that cause mutations the most. I believe most misconceptions regarding race come from the need to identify and label people or things that are “different” from what is known to you. Combine the natural tendency for the brain to assume and look for patterns and the lack of education and you will find the issues we face. Take skin tone for example, early Europeans, when they first contacted Africans, deduced that since they looked differently then they must be different in some way because of their skin tone. Lack of knowledge was the culprit in this case. Someone who thinks critically could make a better theory. Take a Caucasian or lighter skinned individual and place them in an environment where they are in “close” direct sunlight and they will become “tanned” the body’s protective response to such exposure. So, it only makes sense that a culture that is consistently in that sort of environment eventually develops a permanent adaptation which of course is passed along. Another factor of misconceptions is learned ones, they type that is taught and passed around in a culture or society. Between education and cultural notions most misconceptions can be explained in my view.
Post 2:
Ladyboy is a term most of us in the western world use as a joke or in a derogatory context, but what we don’t know is that in Thailand, the Ladyboys or Kathoeys have more to their story than what the world sees.
Thailand is known to be one of the more open minded country in Asia when it comes to members of the third gender. Some attribute this to the modern interpretation of Buddhism where there are three genders, male, female and a male in a female body or an intersex. In their religion Kathoey are considered sinners in their past life that were reincarnated to redeem their soul from their past transgression, that is why a lot of people treat them with pity and compassion. This is a very different perception as compared to other religions that exist in their neighboring countries.
From an outsider’s vantage point is seems like the members of the transgender community in Thailand have an easier life compared to other societies. It is true that a transgender in Thailand may experience an ease of transition from a male to a more feminine body. Hormones are readily available without prescription in this country and there are affordable cosmetic surgery procedures. And when they are done with their transformation, there are a lot of beauty pageants that they can participate in and jobs in the beauty industry that they can take advantage off. However, all this good thing still doesn’t erase the fact that the members of the transgender community is still struggling in the Thai society.
The Kathoeys are very visible in the entertainment and beauty industry all across Thailand this might also have been one of the reason why the world knows about them in the first place. Unfortunately, the reason behind this is that it is all that is available to them at the moment. Thailand still has a forced military service for males, and when they get drafted the Kathoeys will opt to be declared mentally ill instead of serving the military. This would then make them ineligible to work other regular jobs or enter schools. This leaves them with very limited option that includes working in beauty salon, working an entry level job where they get paid less than other men or women and never get promoted or become an entertainer in nightclubs. One can therefore say that a Kathoey may have it easy in certain aspect but it doesn’t change the fact that they exist in a society where they are merely tolerated but not entirely accepted.