Human Rights Rogues in Interstate Disputes, 1980–2001

Abstract

Rogue states have typically been characterized as those states that consistently violate accepted international norms of behavior. While US foreign policymakers and policy analysts have identified rogue states as those violating a narrow set of international norms of external conduct, specifically terrorism sponsorship and illicit pursuit of banned weapons, this article proposes an alternative understanding of rogue state status that harks back to earlier notions of international pariah states, isolated from the rest of international society, owing to their egregious treatment of their own citizens. Building on Galtung's concept of structural violence and feminist insights concerning the interconnectedness of violence at all levels of human society, the authors develop a rogue state index to identify human rights rogues, based on ethnic and gender discrimination and the violation of personal integrity rights. An important part of the rogue state formula developed by policymakers over the recent decades is the expectation that such states represent dangers to international peace and stability. Focusing on the recognized international human rights norms of non-discrimination and security of person, and informed by the causal mechanisms inherent in the normative explanation for the democratic peace, this article tests whether human rights rogues are more likely to become involved in militarized interstate conflicts and violent interstate conflicts. The results of the analysis show that human rights rogues are more likely to become involved in militarized interstate disputes in general, and violent interstate disputes specifically, than other states during the period 1980–2001, suggesting that policymakers must keep a close watch on serial human rights abusers, while seeking to identify future threats to international security.

War and Revenge: Explaining Conflict Initiation by Democracies

“…This is the core claim of the normative strand of the democratic peace literature (Maoz and Russett 1993), and it has also been advanced by several studies that examine the relationship between domestic repression or inequality and international conflict (Caprioli and Trumbore 2006;Hudson et al 2009). However, both these literatures have largely failed to articulate a clear mechanism through which domestic values are externalized, and neither has addressed differences among democracies specifically.…”

Territorial revision and state repression

“…The major cross-national quantitative studies (Poe & Tate, 1994;Poe, Tate & Keith, 1999;Poe, Rost & Carey, 2006;Davenport, 1995Davenport, , 2007 suggest mixed findings, however. Two other recent studies (Caprioli & Trumbore, 2006;Sobek, Abouharb & Ingram, 2006) examine international conflict and domestic repression, but their focus is reversed from my study. Both of these studies find that more repressive regimes are more likely to be involved in or launch international conflicts.…”

Cascades of Violence: War, Crime and Peacebuilding Across South Asia

“…One interpretation of this is that boys and young men who learn in families that they can get their way through violence experience reinforcement of violence that generalises to how they conduct themselves as men in the community and in international affairs (Patterson 2008). Societies where gender inequality is higher are more likely to deploy military power in conflicts (Caprioli 2000(Caprioli , 2003Caprioli and Boyer 2001;Caprioli and Trumbore 2006;Hudson et al 2009Hudson et al , 2012Melander 2005;Sobek et al 2006). In a variety of ways, Hudson et al (2009;2012: Ch.…”