Geography, Politics and Culture in the United Nations Human Rights Committee

Shikhelman, Vera

doi:10.2139/ssrn.2616026

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This brings treaty body members closer to the ‘agent’ ideal type of international judicial appointments (Alter, 2008), and casts doubt over their independence (Komanovics, 2014; Mechlem, 2009; Pedone & Kloster, 2012; Voeten, 2013). While this may not always influence decisions it influences discussions and voting patterns (Shikhelman, 2017), as well as the contents of reports (Krommendijk, 2015). To be clear, the argument here is not that the committee members are thinking of the US’ interests nor that they are thinking of a specific sector within the US’ interests.…”

Section: Donors’ Interests In Human Rights Advocacy and Icescr Shamingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contextualizing Donors’ Interests: The United Nations’ Shaming of the United States’ Trade Partners

Kahn-Nisser

2021

Global Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Human rights advocates, particularly intergovernmental organizations (IGO), consider donors' interests when conducting human rights shaming. Allies of donors receive preferential treatment from IGOs. Do IGOs automatically treat allies of donors more leniently or do they consider the donors' interests in the specific area being reviewed? This article argues that donor interest considerations are policy-area-specific. I substantiate this argument by analysing the association between shaming and partnership with the US, using a new dataset which measures shaming under the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). I use several analysis methods and data matching.The results indicate that having a trade agreement with the US is associated with receiving more criticism under the ICESCR. Rather than giving automatic preferential treatment to allies and partners of the UN's main donor, the ICESCR committee adjusts its shaming to the US's interest vis-à-vis its partners in the policy-areas affected by the treaty.

show abstract

Section: Donors’ Interests In Human Rights Advocacy and Icescr Shamingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contextualizing Donors’ Interests: The United Nations’ Shaming of the United States’ Trade Partners

Kahn-Nisser

2021

Global Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Geography, Politics and Culture in the United Nations Human Rights Committee

Cited by 1 publication

References 12 publications

Contextualizing Donors’ Interests: The United Nations’ Shaming of the United States’ Trade Partners

Contextualizing Donors’ Interests: The United Nations’ Shaming of the United States’ Trade Partners

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About