USA Refugee Policy: A Human Rights Analysis Update

Gibney, Mark; Dalton, Vanessa K.; Vockell, Marc

doi:10.1093/jrs/6.2.153

Cited by 10 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As in our earlier study (Poe and Tate, 1994), we choose to measure violations of personal integrity rights with two "standards-based" measures that have been frequently used by researchers who have studied personal integrity rights. These measures have come to be known as the "Political Terror Scales" or PTS (e.g., Stohl and Carleton, 1985;Carleton and Stohl, 1987;Duvall and Stohl, 1988;Gibney and Stohl, 1988;Henderson, 1991Henderson, , 1993Gibney, Dalton, and Vockell, 1992;Poe, 1992;Poe and Sirirangsi, 1994;Gibney and Dalton, 1997). To generate these particular indices, coders apply a set of standards developed by Gastil (1980) to the information contained in the yearly reports published by Amnesty International and the U.S. State Department (e.g., Amnesty International, 1988; U.S. State Department, 1988).…”

Section: Measuring Repression Of the Right To Personal Integritymentioning

confidence: 99%

Repression of the Human Right to Personal Integrity Revisited: A Global Cross-National Study Covering the Years 1976-1993

1999

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Here we seek to build on our earlier research (Poe and Tate, 1994) by re-testing similar models on a data set covering a much longer time span; the period from 1976 to 1993. Several of our findings differ from those of our earlier work. Here we find statistical evidence that military regimes lead to somewhat greater human rights abuse, defined in terms of violations of personal integrity, once democracy and a host of other factors are controlled. Further, we find that countries that have experienced British colonial influence tend to have relatively fewer abuses of personal integrity rights than others. Finally, our results suggest that leftist countries are actually less repressive of these basic human rights than non-leftist countries. Consistent with the Poe and Tate (1994) study, however, we find that past levels of repression, democracy, population size, economic development, and international and civil wars exercise statistically significant and substantively important impacts on personal integrity abuse.The past two decades have seen a growth in popular concern with and academic interest in human rights issues. Concurrent with these trends, empirical research on several human rights-related questions has proliferated. One line of research has investigated the impact of human rights considerations on foreign policy outputs such as foreign aid in the United States and around the world (e.g.,

show abstract

Section: Measuring Repression Of the Right To Personal Integritymentioning

confidence: 99%

Repression of the Human Right to Personal Integrity Revisited: A Global Cross-National Study Covering the Years 1976-1993

1999

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Finally, the score of ''6'' denotes a situation where there are few rights and a score of ''7'' denotes a situation where there is ''virtually no freedom'' (Karatnycky, 1999: 552). Respectively, examples include: Haiti 1976-1985and Congo (Kinshasa) 1982 Concerning violence, I use the 5-point measure of personal integrity violation conceived by numerous scholars (e.g., Stohl and Carleton, 1985;Gibney, Dalton, Vockell, 1992), and later extended by Poe and Tate (1994) as well as Poe et al (1999) for the years 1976 to 1996. 17 Known as the ''Political Terror Scale,'' this indicator emerges from a systematic coding of Amnesty International and State Department country reports.…”

Section: Measuring Repressionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Unlimited detention, with or without trial, for political views is accepted (Examples include: Cuba 1976, Cameroon 1979, and Poland 1976-1977; 4F(Within this category) (t)he practices of (Level 3) are expanded to larger numbers. Murders, disappearances are a common part of lifeyIn spite of its generality, on this level terror affects primarily those who interest themselves in politics or ideas (Examples include: El Salvador 1978-1992and Rwanda 1990-1991; (and) 5F(Within this category) (t)he terrors of (Level 4) have been expanded to the whole populationyThe leaders of these societies place no limits on the means or thoroughness with which they pursue personal or ideological goals (Examples include: Haiti 1991, Sudan 1988, Rwanda 1994and China 1989.…”

Section: Measuring Repressionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Promise of Democratic Pacification: An Empirical Assessment

Davenport

2004

Int Studies Q

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Democracy and democratization have long been heralded as resolutions to coercive governance, but there are at least two ways in which they can influence state repressive activity. In one, both killing and restriction are reduced (i.e., behavior is “pacified”); in another, killing is diminished while political restrictions are continued (i.e., behavior is “tamed”). Much research has explored the first possibility, but none has addressed the second. Examining 137 countries from 1976 to 1996, I find that democracy generally pacifies state repression and that democratization tends to increase both forms of repressive behavior—especially political restrictions, which provides support for the taming argument. However, the impact of both variables is occasionally minimal, when compared against domestic and international conflict. Therefore, while one may look to democracy as a resolution to repression, it is clear that individuals must also consider the overarching political context when assessing relationships.

show abstract

“…There is a small, systematic literature on the determinants of asylum application success in the US (Gibney, Dalton, and Vockell, 1992; Gibney and Stohl, 1988; Rosenblum and Salehyan, 2004; Salehyan and Rosenblum, 2008) and two recent studies of the asylum decisions made by European countries (Neumayer, 2005a, 2005b). However, no published study has examined US asylum decisions in the post‐September 11 decision‐making environment or the second stage of the asylum process in which cases denied or not ruled on by asylum officers are decided by immigration judges.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Path to Asylum in the US and the Determinants for who Gets in and Why

Rottman

Fariss

Poe

2009

International Migration Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The migration of political asylum seekers into the United States has long been a salient political topic; however, social scientists have yet to examine this process in its entirety and in the context of political changes since September 11, 2001. Previous research shows that humanitarian and strategic interests are important for decisions made by asylum officers but that research overlooks the decisions made by immigration judges. Here we examine decisions made by both asylum officers and immigration judges using data from a global set of countries, from 1999 to 2004. We find that the waning importance of human rights is more pronounced for asylum officers than for immigration judges after the attack on the World Trade Center. We also find that language heritage, specifically for asylum seekers from English-, Spanish-, and Arabic-speaking countries, substantially affects acceptance rates made by both decision-makers between the two time periods of our study.

show abstract

USA Refugee Policy: A Human Rights Analysis Update

Cited by 10 publications

References 0 publications

Repression of the Human Right to Personal Integrity Revisited: A Global Cross-National Study Covering the Years 1976-1993

Repression of the Human Right to Personal Integrity Revisited: A Global Cross-National Study Covering the Years 1976-1993

The Promise of Democratic Pacification: An Empirical Assessment

The Path to Asylum in the US and the Determinants for who Gets in and Why

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About