The ability of a state to protect its own citizens’ lives is a key part of democratic legitimacy. While the right to physical integrity is nearly universal, holding those who violate this right legally accountable has proved difficult. I argue that the dynamics between civil society groups and government officials can activate investigatory processes plagued by bureaucratic inertia. I develop two analytical categories of civil society actors: Activists impose a political cost to impunity and challenge victim-blaming narratives, whereas advocates facilitate the flow of investigative information between state officials and family members of victims. Drawing from original statistical, ethnographic, and interview evidence, I find that a synergistic political dynamic between activists and advocates can emerge in which political pressure is mounted by activists and channeled into investigatory advances by advocates. While local groups usually anchor these activist–advocate dynamics, international actors may play definitive roles in disrupting tenacious patterns of impunity.
AmengualM. (2016). Politicized enforcement in Argentina: Labor and environmental regulation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
2.
AnayaA. (2011). Explaining high levels of transnational pressure over Mexico: The case of the disappearances and killings of women in Ciudad Juárez. The International Journal of Human Rights, 15, 339-358.
3.
AnnerM. (2011). Labor’s radical Flank mechanism in Central America. In AnnerM. (Ed.), Solidarity transformed: Labor responses to globalization and crisis in Latin America (1st ed., pp. 86-110). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
4.
BaiocchiG.HellerP.SilvaM. (2011). Bootstrapping democracy: Transforming local governance and civil society in Brazil. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
5.
BrinksD. M. (2008). The judicial response to police killings in Latin America. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
6.
BurbankS. B.FriedmanB. (2002). Judicial independence at the crossroads: An interdisciplinary approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
7.
ChaseA. T. (2003). The state and human rights: Governance and sustainable development in Yemen. International Journal of Politics, 17, 213-236.
8.
CarpenterR. C. (2007). Studying issue (non)-adoption in transnational advocacy networks. International Organization, 61, 643-667.
9.
CousoJ.HuneeusA.SiederR. (2010). Cultures of legality: Judicialization and political activism in Latin America. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
10.
DancyG.MichelV. (2016). Human rights enforcement from below: Private actors and prosecutorial momentum in Latin America and Europe. International Studies Quarterly. International Studies Quarterly, 60, 173-188. doi:10.1111/isqu.12209
11.
DomingoP. (2004). Judicialization of politics or politicization of the judiciary: Recent trends in Latin America. Democratization, 11, 104-126.
12.
DomingoP.SiederP. (2001). Rule of law in Latin America: The international promotion of judicial reform. London, England: Institute of Latin American Studies.
13.
EcksteinH. (1975). Case study and theory in political science. In GreensteinF. J.PolsbyN. W. (Eds.), Handbook of political science (pp. 79-137). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
14.
EppC. R. (1998). The rights revolution: Lawyers, activists, and supreme courts in comparative perspective. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
15.
FinnemoreM. (1996). Norms, culture, and world politics: Insights from sociology’s institutionalism. International Organization, 50, 325-347.
16.
FoxJ.HaightL. (2011). Mexico’s transparency reforms: Theory and practice. Research in Social Problems and Public Policy, 19, 353-379.
17.
FranklinJ. C. (2008). Shame on you: The impact of human rights criticism on political repression in Latin America. International Studies Quarterly, 52, 187-211.
18.
GerringJ. (2007). Is there a (viable) crucial-case method?Comparative Political Studies, 40, 231-253.
19.
Gonzalez OcantosE. (2014). Persuade them or oust them: Crafting judicial change and transitional justice in Argentina. Comparative Politics, 46, 479-498.
20.
GuptaD. (2002, March). Radical flank effects: The effect of radical-moderate splits in regional nationalist movements. Paper presented for the Conference of Europeanists, Chicago, IL.
21.
HainesH. H. (1984). Black radicalization and the funding of civil rights: 1957-1970. Social Problems, 32, 31-43.
22.
HilbinkL. (2012). The origins of positive judicial independence. World Politics, 64, 587-621.
23.
HollarJ. (2013). Review article: Human rights instruments and impacts. Comparative Politics, 46, 103-120.
IngramM. (2016). Crafting courts in new democracies: The politics of subnational judicial reform in Brazil and Mexico. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
27.
KeckM. E.SikkinkK. (1998). Activists beyond borders: Advocacy networks in international politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Pres.
28.
KleinfeldR. (2012). Advancing the rule of law abroad: Next generation reform. Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
29.
LandmanT. (2008). Issues and methods in comparative politics: An introduction (3rd ed.). London: Routledge.
30.
LiebermanE. S. (2005). Nested analysis as a mixed-method strategy for comparative research. American Political Science Review, 99, 435-452.
31.
López HernándezC. N.Ávila MartínezA. F. (2010). Y refundaron la patria–: de cómo mafiosos y políticos reconfiguraron el estado colombiano [And they refounded the nation . . .: How Mafiosi and politicians reconfigured the Colombian state]. Debate.
32.
McCannM. W. (1994). Rights at work: Pay equity reform and the politics of legal mobilization. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
33.
MichelV.SikkinkK. (2013). Human rights prosecutions and the participation rights of victims in Latin America. Law & Society Review, 47, 873-907.
34.
MuñozA. (2009). Transnational and domestic processes in the definition of human rights policies in Mexico. Human Rights Quarterly, 1, 35-58.
35.
MurdieA. M.DavisD. R. (2012). Shaming and blaming: Using events data to assess the impact of human rights INGOs1. International Studies Quarterly, 56, 1-16.
36.
O’DonnellG. (1993). On the state, democratization and some conceptual problems: A Latin American view with glances at some postcommunist countries. World Development, 21, 355-369.
37.
PanstersW. (Ed.). (2012). Violence, coercion, and state-making in twentieth-century Mexico: The other half of the centaur. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
38.
PeruzzottiE.SmulovitzC. (2006). Enforcing the rule of law: Social accountability in the new Latin American democracies. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
39.
Ríos-FigueroaJ.StatonJ. K. (2014). An evaluation of cross-national measures of judicial independence. Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization, 30, 104-137.
40.
RisseT.RoppS. C.SikkinkK. (1999). The power of human rights: International norms and domestic change (Vol. 66). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
41.
RonJ.RamosH.RodgersK. (2005). Transnational information politics: Human rights NGO reporting, 1986–2000. International Studies Quarterly, 49, 557-587.
42.
Salazar VolkmannC. (2012). Evaluating the impact of human rights work: The office of the United Nations high commissioner for human rights and the reduction of extrajudicial executions in Colombia. Journal of Human Rights Practice, 4, 396-460.
43.
SchmitzH. P. (2002, March24-27). From lobbying to shaming: The evolution of human rights activism since the 1940s. Paper presented at the International Studies Association Meeting, New Orleans, LA.
44.
ShirkD. A. (2010). Criminal justice reform in Mexico: An overview. Mexican Law Review, 3, 189-228.
45.
ShorE. (2008). Conflict, terrorism, and the socialization of human rights norms: The spiral model revisited. Social Problems, 55, 117-138.
46.
SiederR.SchjoldenL.AngellA. (Eds.). (2005). The judicialization of politics in Latin America. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
47.
SikkinkK. (2005). Patterns of dynamic multilevel governance and the insider-outsider coalition. In Della PortaD.TarrowS. (Eds.), Transnational protest and global activism (pp. 151-173). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
48.
SimmonsB. A. (2009). Mobilizing for human rights: International law in domestic politics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
49.
SkaarE. (2011). Judicial independence and human rights in Latin America: Violations, politics, and prosecution. New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan.
50.
TarrowS. (2011). Power in movement. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
51.
TateW. (2007). Counting the dead: The culture and politics of human rights activism in Colombia. Berkeley: University of California Press.
52.
TsaiL. L. (2007). Accountability without democracy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
53.
UngarM. (2002). Elusive reform: Democracy and the rule of law in Latin America. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
54.
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime: Research and Trend Analysis Branch, Division of Policy Analysis and Public Affairs (2013). Global study on homicide 2013: trends, contexts, data. Vienna, Austria: Author.
55.
VillarrealA. (2015). Fear and spectacular drug violence in Monterrey. In AuyeroJ.BourgoisP.Scheper-HughesN. (Eds.), Violence at the urban margins (pp. 135-161). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
56.
Zepeda LucuonaG. (2008). La investigación de los delitos y la subversión de los principios del sistema penal en México [The investigation of crimes and the subversion of the principles of the penal system in Mexico]. In MendozaA. A. (Ed.), La reforma de la justicia en México. El Colegio de Mexico AC.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
