2018
DOI: 10.1080/03050629.2019.1522308
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The psychological effects of state socialization: IGO membership loss and respect for human rights

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

1
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 109 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…To the extent that institutions can constrain state repression, scholars often argue that they do so by increasing the costs of violence for the government and its agents. Both international institutions—NGOs (INGOs) and transnational advocacy networks (TANs) (e.g., Allendoerfer, Murdie and Welch 2020; Hafner-Burton 2008; Hill, Moore, and Mukherjee 2013; Murdie and Davis 2012); international organizations (IOs) (e.g., DeMeritt 2012; Lebovic and Voeten 2006, 2009; Miller, Welch, and Vonasch 2019); treaties (e.g., Conrad and Ritter 2019; Simmons 2009); and other states (e.g., Franklin 2008)—and domestic institutions—civil society (e.g., Davenport 2007a; Simmons 2009); courts (e.g., Powell and Staton 2009); and legislatures (e.g., Conrad and Moore 2010; Davenport 2007b)—serve this function. 3…”
Section: What We Know About Nhrismentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…To the extent that institutions can constrain state repression, scholars often argue that they do so by increasing the costs of violence for the government and its agents. Both international institutions—NGOs (INGOs) and transnational advocacy networks (TANs) (e.g., Allendoerfer, Murdie and Welch 2020; Hafner-Burton 2008; Hill, Moore, and Mukherjee 2013; Murdie and Davis 2012); international organizations (IOs) (e.g., DeMeritt 2012; Lebovic and Voeten 2006, 2009; Miller, Welch, and Vonasch 2019); treaties (e.g., Conrad and Ritter 2019; Simmons 2009); and other states (e.g., Franklin 2008)—and domestic institutions—civil society (e.g., Davenport 2007a; Simmons 2009); courts (e.g., Powell and Staton 2009); and legislatures (e.g., Conrad and Moore 2010; Davenport 2007b)—serve this function. 3…”
Section: What We Know About Nhrismentioning
confidence: 99%
“… 1 For illustrative examples, see Chilton and Versteeg (2016); Keith (2002); Keith, Tate, and Poe (2009) on constitutions; Cingranelli and Filippov (2010) on electoral rules; Lupu (2013); Powell and Staton (2009); Simmons (2009) on domestic courts; DeMeritt (2012); Esarey and DeMeritt (2017); Lebovic and Voeten (2009); Miller, Welch, and Vonasch (2019) on international institutions; and Conrad and Ritter (2019); Fariss (2018); Hafner-Burton and Tsutsui (2005); Hathaway (2002); Hill (2010); Simmons (2009); Von Stein (2018) on international human rights treaties. …”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Taking these arguments into account, two currents of thought seem to be emerging in recent years. On the one hand, authors such as Freyburg (2019) and Miller, Welch, and Vonasch (2019) argue that while cooperation with authoritarian regimes may provide them access to economic and geopolitical assets that would help stabilize the regime in the short and medium terms, it also establishes channels for democratic socialization at the level of state administration, which are ultimately required to the democratic reforms take root. Furthermore, the suspension in IOs due to democratic setbacks would sever bonds of socialization between states, reducing social incentives to comply and leading to a "long-run drop" in democracy levels and human rights.…”
Section: The Recent Debate (2010-2019)mentioning
confidence: 99%