Diffusing Human Rights
Reilly, August 2003
9
States, Association of South East Asian Nations, COMECON, and
the Arab League.
A measure of general openness (such as the measure in
Kopstein and Reilly, 2000, which included indicators of media
exposure, tourism, and international interaction) would have
been preferable to include in the analysis, however missing data
precluded this option.
Cultural Factors
Risse, Ropp, and Sikkink’s research advances our knowledge
of how the international arena can influence domestic-level
human rights behavior. In particular, they present extensive
evidence that supports and clarifies the dynamics of their
spiral model, which is a significant advancement for our
understanding of how norms and ideas may diffuse. However, they
assume that human rights norms transfer from international non-
governmental actors to states. Their model disregards the
importance of regional dynamics, interstate interactions, and
neighbor-level effects. Although it is possible to imagine how
the cohesiveness of a region (and the conformity of regional
practices)
would
affect
a
state’s
vulnerability
to
the
suggestion that it is violating international norms of human
rights behavior, this issue is ignored. There is no recognition
of the fact that a government’s legitimacy will be determined in
part by its behavior within the context of its surroundings.
They
also
ignore
the
changes
that
may
be
occurring
in
neighboring
states
as
an
explanation
for
when
there
is
sufficient support for a social movement to succeed in forcing
concessions from the repressive regime. The importance of
demonstration effects is well detailed in the literature of
revolutions and social movements (see Colburn 1994 for a
detailed discussion of this point), and are relevant to human
rights and repression as well.
Support for the notion of a conflict-free post-Cold War
world is not unequivocal. While globalization is argued by some
to lead inevitably to a consensus on social and political order
that will signify the “End of History” (Fukuyama 1992), others
contend
that
increased
interaction
between
cultures
and
nationalist groups will result in conflict and a “Clash of
Civilizations” (Huntington 1996). Cingranelli and Richards
(1999) suggest that the nature of globalization’s transformation
may depend upon whether the Cold War inhibited democratization
and the open exchange of ideas, or dampened domestic and
interstate conflict within and between states.
Others
have
suggested
that
the
implications
of
globalization will depend in part on regional dynamics. Because
historical and cultural heritage are important for understanding
Convention