Violence & Non-Violence in Human Rights Activism – Comprehensive Study Notes

Introduction – Repression & Strategic Choice

• Core questions guiding Week $8$ (“Human Rights and Wrongs”):

  • What violent or non-violent forms of repression do human-rights actors face?

  • Why and how do activists choose violence or non-violence?

  • Empirical puzzle: Are non-violent strategies more effective?

Course Outline (3 Thematic Blocks)

1. Violence/Non-Violence in Anti-Colonial Struggles.

2. State Repression and activist responses.

3. Actors, their social positions, and strategic repertoires.

Right to Self-Determination (Legal Foundation)

• Enshrined in Article $1$ of both the ICCPR and ICESCR:

  • $"All\ peoples\ have\ the\ right\ of\ self\text{-}determination\dots$$

  • Guarantees freedom to decide political status + pursue economic, social, cultural development.

• Politically sensitive—can threaten existing territorial integrity (e.g., Catalonia).

Historical Evolution of the Right

• Woodrow Wilson’s 14 Points (post-WWI) introduced the principle (not law).

• UN Charter 1 kept it aspirational—no concrete obligations.

• UNGA $1960$ Declaration on Granting Independence to Colonial Countries & Peoples:

  • Universalist language: right of all peoples to “complete independence.”

Expansion of Subject Holders

• Initially: aggregate colonial populations, not minorities.

• Extended to occupied peoples—example: Palestine.

  • UNGA Res. $3236\,(XXIX)$, $22$ Nov $1974$ affirms Palestinian self-determination.

Indigenous Self-Determination

• UN200igenous peoples also entitled.

• Introduces common ethnicity & culture as legal criteria, going beyond colonization.

Decolonization, Violence, and Non-Violence – Foundational Thinkers

• Frederick Douglass (1857): “Power concedes nothing without a demand…” ⇒ rights are taken, not bestowed.

Frantz Fanon

• Quote: “Decolonization is always a violent phenomenon.” (Wretched of the Earth, 1961$, p.$27$)</span></p></li><li><p><span style="font-family: Arial">Arguments:</span></p><ul><li><p><span style="font-family: Arial">Colonies maintained by violence ⇒ reciprocal violence necessary.</span></p></li><li><p><span style="font-family: Arial">Violence is cathartic: cleanses inferiority, restores self-respect.</span></p></li></ul></li></ul><h4 id="cb94792f-812a-444d-8957-611fe7ddd3b1" data-toc-id="cb94792f-812a-444d-8957-611fe7ddd3b1" collapsed="false" seolevelmigrated="true"><span style="font-family: Arial">Mahatma Gandhi</span></h4><ul><li><p><span style="font-family: Arial">Satyagraha = truth-force; Ahimsa = non-harm.</span></p></li><li><p><span style="font-family: Arial">Sees British imperialism as founded on Himsa (coercion).</span></p></li><li><p><span style="font-family: Arial">Claims: “Victory attained by violence is tantamount to a defeat.” ($1919$)</span></p><ul><li><p><span style="font-family: Arial">“Non-violence is the summit of bravery.” ($1927 )

Scholarly Comparison (Frazer & Hutchings 2015)

• Fanon ↔ Gandhi often cast as opposites; authors reveal fragility/blurriness of the binary.

• Liberation narratives embed a redeemed masculinity tied to martial virtue—even in “non-violent” frames.

Black Liberation: Divergent Tactics

• Malcolm X: “by any means necessary.”

  • Advocates self-defence vs. police brutality, sees non-violent civil disobedience as “farcical.”

• Martin Luther King Jr.: Gandhian pacifism; moral appeal to U.S. conscience.

• Take-away: same end-goal, divergent moral & strategic logics.

Break & Qualtrics Survey

• 5$-minute pause; link emailed to participants.</span></p></li></ul><h3 id="e82f3796-6539-4bd5-b0fe-8d484a771217" data-toc-id="e82f3796-6539-4bd5-b0fe-8d484a771217" collapsed="false" seolevelmigrated="true"><span style="font-family: Arial">Defining State Repression</span></h3><ul><li><p><span style="font-family: Arial">Classic definition (Goldstein$1978):

  • “Actual or threatened use of physical sanctions … to impose costs & deter challenges.”

• Manifestations span non-violent (censorship, travel bans) to violent (surveillance, torture, mass killings).

Law of Coercive Responsiveness (Davenport 2007)

• Dissent ⇒ incentives for authorities to repress; repression often cheaper than concession.

• Applies to democracies and autocracies alike.

Regime Type Variations

• Democracies: higher political cost for overt repression; alternative mechanisms (participation, courts).

• Autocracies: differentiated – single-party, military, personalist.

• “More Murder in the Middle” hypothesis: mid-range regimes (neither full democracy nor full autocracy) exhibit highest repression.

Paradox of Repression – Opportunity or Deterrent?

• Some literature: repression raises costs → dampens dissent (Fearon & Laitin 2003, etc.).

• Others: repression can mobilize opposition; timing, regime, and strategy conditions matter.

Effectiveness of Non-Violent Resistance (Chenoweth & Stephan 2011$)</span></h3><ul><li><p><span style="font-family: Arial">Data:$323$campaigns ($1900$–$2006 ).

• Non-violent movements twice as likely to succeed (regime change, self-determination excl. secession).

Mechanisms:

• Lower moral/physical barriers ⇒ broader participation.

• Enhanced legitimacy & potential for defections within regime.

Actors, Ideologies & Strategic Repertoires

• Seminar case-studies:

  • Joshi 2022$– Gendered contention in Cambodian land grabs.</span></p></li><li><p><span style="font-family: Arial">Hayes et al.$2024$$ – Extinction Rebellion (XR) and “disobedient environmental citizenism.”

Social Structures & Political Contention

• Strategy choice is disaggregated by actor characteristics (gender, class, race).

  • Women’s movements often adopt non-violence—reflects structural constraints & available opportunities.

  • XR’s predominantly middle-class base can “afford” civil disobedience.

• Macro opportunities: regime collapse, economic crisis, war, etc., shape feasible tactics.

Conclusion – Key Takeaways

1. Self-Determination: Emerged through intertwined violent & non-violent anti-colonial struggles.

2. State Repression: Present across regime types; includes both violent & non-violent methods and crucially shapes activist strategy.

3. Actors & Framing: Social identities and power structures condition access to— and legitimacy of—violent vs. non-violent strategies.