How does the discussion of human rights issues change over time? Without advocates adopting a human rights issue in the first place, international ‘shaming’ cannot occur. In this article, we examine how human rights discussions converge and diverge around new frames and new issues over time. Human rights norms do not evolve alone; their prevalence, framing, and focus are all dependent on how they relate to other norms in the advocacy community. Drawing on over 30,000 documents from dozens of human rights organizations from 1990 to 2011, we provide a temporal overview and visualization of the ebb and flow of human rights issues. Using our new dataset and state-of-the-art methods from computer science, our approach allows us to quantitatively examine (a) how new issues emerge in the advocacy network, (b) the relationship of these new issues to extant human rights advocacy and information, and (c) how the framing and specificity of these issues change over time. By focusing on the process by which a new issue gets incorporated into the work of advocates, we provide an empirical assessment of the first step in the causal process connecting shaming to improvement in human rights practices.
BagozziBBerlinerD (2018) The politics of scrutiny in human rights monitoring: Evidence from structural topic models of U.S. State Department Human Rights Reports. Political Science Research and Methods6(4): 661–667.
4.
BleiDM (2012) Probabilistic topic models. Communications of the ACM55(4): 77–84.
5.
BleiDMLaffertyJD (2006) Dynamic topic models. In: Proceedings of the 23rd international conference on machine learning, Pittsburgh, PA25–29 June 2006, pp. 113–120. New York: ACM. Pittsburgh, PA. June 25-29, 2006.
6.
BobC (2005) The Marketing of Rebellion: Insurgents, Media, and International Activism. New York: Cambridge University Press.
7.
BurlesonE (2009) International human rights law, co-parent adoption, and the recognition of gay and lesbian families. Loyola Law Review55: 791–803.
8.
CarpenterC (2014) ‘Lost’ Causes: Agenda Vetting in Global Issue Networks and the Shaping of Human Security. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
9.
CarpenterRC (2007) Setting the advocacy agenda: Theorizing issue emergence and nonemergence in transnational advocacy networks. International Studies Quarterly51(1): 99–120.
10.
ClarkAMSikkinkK (2013) Information effects and human rights data: Is the good news about increased human rights information bad news for human rights measures?Human Rights Quarterly35(3): 539–568.
11.
ColaresiMGreeneKParkB (2016) Human rights, lefts, ups and downs: A machine learning approach to tracking the evolution of human rights measures using text. Working paper.
12.
DeMerittJHR (2012) International organizations and government killing: Does naming and shaming save lives?International Interactions38(5): 597–621.
13.
FarissCJ (2014) Respect for human rights has improved over time: Modeling the changing standard of accountability. American Political Science Review108(2): 297–318.
14.
FarissCJLinderFJJonesZMet al. (2015) Human rights texts: Converting human rights primary source documents into data. PloS One10(9): e0138935.
15.
FinnemoreMSikkinkK (1998) International norm dynamics and political change. International Organization52(4): 887–917.
16.
GadSJavedWGhaniSet al. (2015) ThemeDelta: dynamic segmentations over temporal topic models. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics21(5): 672–685.
17.
GlasiusM (2009) What is global justice and who decides?: Civil society and victim responses to the International Criminal Court’s first investigations. Human Rights Quarterly31(2): 496–520.
18.
HaddadHN (2013) After the norm cascade: NGO mission expansion and the coalition for the international criminal court. Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and International Organizations19(2): 187–206.
19.
Hafner-BurtonE (2008) Sticks and stones: Naming and shaming the human rights enforcement problem. International Organization62(4): 689–716.
20.
HendrixCSWongWH (2013) When is the pen truly mighty? Regime type and the efficacy of naming and shaming in curbing human rights abuses. British Journal of Political Science43(3): 651–672.
21.
HendrixCSWongWH (2014) Knowing your audience: How the structure of international relations and organizational choices affect amnesty international’s advocacy. The Review of International Organizations9(1): 29–58.
22.
HillDWJonesZM (2014) An empirical evaluation of explanations for state repression. American Political Science Review108(3): 661–687.
KeckMESikkinkK (1998) Activists beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
29.
KolievFTallbergJ (2017) Naming and Shaming in World Politics: Introduction and Overview.
30.
KrainM (2012) Jaccuse! Does naming and shaming perpetrators reduce the severity of genocides or politicides?International Studies Quarterly56(3): 574–589.
31.
LakeDAWongWH (2006) The politics of networks: Interests, power, and human rights norms. In: KahlerM (ed.) Networked Politics: Agency, Power, and Governance. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, pp. 127–150.
32.
LandmanT (2005) Protecting Human Rights: A Comparative Study. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
33.
LaurenPG (2011) The Evolution of International Human Rights: Visions Seen. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
34.
MertusJ (2007) The rejection of human rights framings: The case of LGBT advocacy in the US. Human Rights Quarterly29(4): 1036–1064.
35.
MurdieA (2014) The ties that bind: A network analysis of human rights international nongovernmental organizations. British Journal of Political Science44(1): 1–27.
36.
MurdieADavisDR (2012) Shaming and blaming: Using events data to assess the impact of human rights INGOs. International Studies Quarterly56(1): 1–16.
37.
MurdieAPeksenD (2014) The impact of human rights INGO shaming on humanitarian interventions. The Journal of Politics76(1): 215–228.
38.
PoeSCTateCN (1994) Repression of human rights to personal integrity in the 1980s: A global analysis. American Political Science Review88(4): 853–872.
39.
PowersM (2017) Beyond boon or bane: Using normative theories to evaluate the newsmaking efforts of NGOs. Journalism Studies18(9): 1070–1086.
RichardsD (2016) The myth of information effects in human rights data. Human Rights38(2): 477–492.
42.
RichmanKD (2005) Judging knowledge: The court as arbiter of social scientific knowledge and expertise in LGBT custody and adoption cases. Studies in Law, Politics and Society35: 3–28.
43.
RisseTSikkinkK (1999) The socialization of international human rights norms into domestic practices: Introduction. In: RoppSRisseTSikkinkK (eds) The Power of Human Rights. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–38.
44.
RonJRamosHRodgersK (2005) Transnational information politics: Human rights NGO reporting, 1986–2000. International Studies Quarterly49(3): 557–587.
45.
SalipantePFGolden-BiddleK (1995) Managing traditionality and strategic change in nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit Management and Leadership6(1): 3–20.
46.
SimmonsBA (2009) Mobilizing for Human Rights: International Law in Domestic Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
47.
SimmonsBADannerA (2010) Credible commitments and the international criminal court. International Organization64: 225–256.
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.
