Kathryn Sikkink, “Transnational Politics, International Relations Theory, and Human Rights”

Human Rights

What is the main argument?

Traditional IR theories (Realism, Neoliberal Institutionalism, etc) have failed to account for or have marginalized the rise and impact of human rights. The emergence of human rights as a critical international issue and its success in driving domestic change require a new theoretical framework that account for two key factors:

1. The political power of norms and ideas

2. The increasingly transnational way in which these ideas are carried and diffused across borders

The goal is to develop a more unified theory to generate general propositions about the origins and effectiveness of norms related to human rights.

What is the critique of traditional theories?

These theories either neglect the use of human rights norms or treat human rights issues as insignificant or as a theological cover for interests and place sovereignty above human rights which is not the case.

What challenge does human rights pose to state sovereignty?

The politics of human rights presents a profound, systematic challenge to the core structure and logic of the system of sovereign states. This challenge arises because human rights standards redefine the proper relationship between the state and its citizens, which historically has been considered a purely internal matter.

Subordination of Internal Jurisdiction: The treatment of a state’s own citizens becomes a subject of international concern and regulation.

Shift towards a Cosmopolitan Principle: the alternative organizing framework that challenges the state system by prioritizing international norms. Within this framework, the structure of international human rights norms is placed above the absolute authority of the sovereign state

The “Non-Mediaeval” System: This shift moves international relations toward a model similar to what Bull termed "non-mediævalism", where the state system begins to exhibit features of "overlapping authority and multiple loyalty". This structure indicates that non-state actors and international norms undermine exclusive state sovereignty, creating a more complex system where actors may hold multiple allegiances.

How do states adopt new norms?

Stage 1: Norm emergence (norm begins to gain recognition)

Stage 2: Norm cascade (broad acceptance; a “tipping point” where a bunch of states adopt the norm)

So what gives human rights norms so much power?

Relies heavily on understanding the political power of norms and the translational channels which they are diffused.

The moral quality of norms: Human rights norms possess an intrinsic moral quality that dictates appropriate state behavior. The power of these norms derives from the standard moral commitment they embody, often relating to universal concepts like human dignity and accepted behavioral standards.

Origins in Moral Proselytizing/Entrepreneurship: Origins of many human rights norms were driven by a desire to convert others to these norms.

Translational Advocacy Networks: The rise of translational advocacy networks (composed of NGOs and individuals) engage in “translational campaigning” to persuade states and the public of the norms importance. They are vital in monitoring state actions and mobilizing International support.

The use of emotional and bodily appeals: Norm entrepreneurs strategically use graphic images of bodily harm in their campaigns. This draws on ideas of dignity to evoke empathy.

The power to redefine state interests: While realism focuses on state interests, the proposed model suggests that the translational politics of human rights actually redefines states’ interests. This occurs because states are compelled to respond to normative and politcal pressures generated but these networks and ideas.