Why do states give institutions the ability to legally punish them? While past research focuses on international pressure to delegate authority to third parties, I argue that domestic politics plays a key role. By viewing domestic politics through a principal–agent framework, I argue that the more accountable individual legislators remain to the public, the more likely it is that the legislature will delegate legal punishment authority. I focus on National Human Rights Institutions—domestic institutions tasked with protection and promotion of human rights—to build the argument. Electoral institutions that decrease monitoring of legislator agents, or institutional makeup that allows the executive to displace the public as the principal lead to National Human Rights Institutions without punishment power. Using Bayesian logistic analyses I test four hypotheses, all of which are in agreement with the argument.
AbbottKWSnidalD (2000) Hard and soft law in international governance. International Organization54(3): 421–456.
2.
BakerTL (1994) Doing Social Research. New York: McGraw–Hill.
3.
BeckTClarkeGGroffAKeeferPWalshP (2001) New tools in comparative political economy: The Database of Political Institutions. The World Bank Economic Review15(1): 165–176.
4.
BoixCSvolikMW (2013) The foundations of limited authoritarian government: Institutions, commitment, and power-sharing in dictatorships. The Journal of Politics75(2): 300–316.
5.
CardenasS (2012) National human rights institutions and state compliance. In: GoodmanRPegramT (eds), Human Rights, State Compliance, and Social Change. New York: Cambridge University Press.
6.
CardenasS (2014) Chains of Justice: The Global Rise of State Institutions for Human Rights. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
7.
CareyJM (2008) Legislative Voting and Accountability. New York: Cambridge Univeristy Press.
8.
CarverR (2012) National human rights institutions in Central and Eastern Europe: The ombudsman as agent of international law. In: GoodmanRPegramT (eds), Human Rights, State Compliance, and Social Change. New York: Cambridge University Press.
9.
CingranelliDLFilippovM (2010) Electoral rules and incentives to protect human rights. Journal of Politics72(1): 243–257.
10.
ColeWMRamirezFO (2013) Conditional decoupling: Assessing the impact of national human rights institutions, 1981–2004. American Sociological Review78(4): 702–725.
11.
ConradCRMooreWH (2010) What stops the torture?American Journal of Political Science54(2): 459–476.
DavenportC (2007a) State repression and political order. Annual Review of Political Science10: 1–27.
14.
DavenportC (2007b) State Repression and the Domestic Democratic Peace. New York: Cambridge University Press.
15.
de BecoGMurrayR (2014) A Commentary on the Paris Principles on National Human Rights Institutuions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
16.
DownsGWRockeDMBarsoomPN (1996) Is the good news about compliance good news about cooperation?International Organization50(3): 379–406.
17.
FarissCJ (2014) Respect for human rights has improved over time: Modeling the changing standard of accountability. American Political Science Review108(2): 297–318.
18.
FerejohnJ (1986) Incumbent performance and electoral control. Public Choice50(1): 5–25.
19.
FinkelJ (2012) Explaining the failure of Mexico’s National Commission of Human Rights (Ombudsman’s Office) after democratization: Elections, incentives, and unaccountability in the Mexican Senate. Human Rights Review13: 473–495.
20.
FryeT (1997) Politics of institutional choice: Post-Communist presidencies. Comparative Political Studies30: 523–552.
21.
FukuyamaF (2004) The imperative of state-building. Journal of Democracy15(2): 17–31.
22.
GandhiJ (2008) Political Institutions under Dictatorships. New York: Cambridge University Press.
23.
GandhiJPrzeworskiA (2007) Authoritarian institutions and the survival of autocrats. Comparative Political Studies40(11): 1279–1301.
24.
GehlbachSKeeferP (2012) Private investment and the institutionalization of collective action in autocracies: Ruling parties and legislatures. The Journal of Politics74(2): 621–635.
25.
GelmanAJakulinAPittauMGSuYS (2008) A weakly informative default prior distribution for logistic and other regression models. The Annals of Applied Statistics2(4): 1360–1383.
26.
GhoshJLiYMitraR (2015) On the use of Cauchy distributions for Bayesian logistic regression. arXiv:1507.07170v1.
27.
GolderM (2005) Democratic electoral systems around the world, 1946–2000. Electoral Studies24: 103–121.
28.
GoodmanRPegramT (2012) Human Rights, State Compliance, and Social Change: Assessing National Human Rights Institutions. New York: Cambridge University Press.
29.
GronkePRejaliDDrenguisDHicksJMillerPNakayamaB (2010) U.S. public opinion on torture, 2001–2009. Political Science and Politics43(3): 437–444.
30.
GrovesS (2013) U.S. National Human Rights Institution: A bad idea. Backgrounder2855: 1–7.
31.
Hafner-BurtonEM (2008) Sticks and stones: Naming and shaming and the human rights enforcement problem. International Organization62(4): 689–716.
32.
HeniszWJ (2000) The institutional environment for economic growth. Economics and Politics12(1): 1–31.
33.
HorowitzDL (2003) Electoral systems: A primer for decision makers. Journal of Democracy14(4): 115–127.
34.
KeeferPE (2012) Database of Political Institutions 2012. Research at the World Bank. Available at: http://econ.worldbank.org/
35.
KimD (2013) International nongovernmental organizations and the global diffusion of national human rights institutions. International Organization67: 505–539.
36.
KingGKeohaneRVerbaS (1994) Designing Social Inquiry. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
37.
KingGTomzMWittenbergJ (2000) Making the most of statistial analyses: Improving interpretation and presentation. American Journal of Political Science44(2): 347–361.
38.
KooJ-WRamirezFO (2009) National incorporation of global human rights: Worldwide expansion of national human rights institutions, 1966–2004. Social Forces87(3): 1321–1354.
39.
KoremenosBLipsonCSnidalD (2001) The rational design of international institutions. International Organization55(4): 761–99.
40.
LijphartA (1994) Democracies: Forms, performance, and constitutional engineering. European Journal of Political Research25(1): 1–17.
41.
LinosKPegramT (2014) What happens when soft law hardens? National human rights institutions and the international human rights system. In: GoodmanRSimmonsB (eds), Implementing Commitments. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
42.
LinzerDAStatonJK (2011) A measurement model for synthesizing multiple comparative indicators: The case of judicial independence. Unpublished manuscript.
43.
LowryRCAltJEFereeKE (1998) Fiscal policy outcomes and electoral accountability in American states. The American Political Science Review92(4): 759–774.
44.
MacFarlandSMathewsM (2005) Do Americans care about human rights?Journal of Human Rights4: 305–319.
45.
MaleskyESchulerP (2010) Nodding or needling: Analyzing delegate responsiveness in an authoritarian parliament. American Political Science Review104(3): 482–502.
46.
MertusJA (2012) Evaluating NHRIs: Considering structure, mandate, and impact. In: GoodmanRPegramT (eds), Human Rights, State Compliance, and Social Change. New York: Cambridge University Press.
47.
MillerGJ (2005) The political evolution of principal–agent models. Annual Review of Political Science8: 203–225.
48.
MitchellP (2000) Voters and their representatives: Electoral institutions and delegation in parliamentary democracies. European Journal of Political Research37: 335–351.
49.
MoeTM (1987) Congressional controls of the bureaucracy: An assessment of the positive theory of “congressional dominance”. Legislative Studies Quarterly12: 475–520.
50.
MoravcsikA (2000) The origins of human rights regimes: Democratic delegation in postwar Europe. International Organization54(2): 217–252.
51.
NeustadtR (1960) Presidential Power. New York: Wiley.
52.
NorthDC (1990) Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
53.
NorthDCWeingastB (1989) Constitutions and commitment: The evolution of institutions governing public choice in 17th century England. Journal of Economic History49(4): 803–832.
54.
OrdeshookPCShvetsovaOV (1994) Ethnic heterogeneity, district magnitude, and the number of parties. American Journal of Political Science38(1): 100–123.
55.
PegramT (2010) Diffusion across political systems: The global spread of national human rights institutions. Human Rights Quarterly32(3): 729–760.
56.
PemsteinDMeserveSAMeltonJ (2010) Democratic compromise: A latent variable analysis of ten measures of regime type. Political Analysis18: 426–449.
57.
PerssonTTabelliniG (2003) The Economic Effects of Constitutions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
58.
PerssonTTabelliniGTrebbiF (2003) Electoral rules and corruption. Journal of the European Economic Association1(4): 958–989.
59.
PoeSC (2004) The decision to repress: An integrative theoretical approach to the research on human rights and repression. In: CareySCPoeSC (eds), Understanding Human Rights Violations: New Systematic Studies. Burlington, VT: Ashgate.
60.
PowellEJStatonJK (2009) Domestic judicial institutions and human rights treaty violation. International Studies Quarterly53(1): 149–174.
61.
PowellGB (2000) Elections as Instruments of Democracy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
62.
RaineyC (2016) Dealing with separation in logistic regression models. Political Analysis24: 339–355.
63.
RonJRamosHRodgersK (2005) Transnational information politics: NGO human rights reporting, 1986–2000. International Studies Quarterly49(3): 557–588.
64.
ShugartMS (2006) Comparative executive–legislative relations. In: RhodesRAWBinderSARockmanBA (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Political Institutions. New York: Oxford University Press.
65.
ShugartMSCareyJM (1992) Presidents and Assemblies: Constituional Design and Electoral Dynamics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
66.
ShugartMSMainwaringS (1997) Presidentialism and democracy in Latin America: Rethinking the terms of the debate. In: MainwaringSShugartMS (eds), Presidentialism and Democracy in Latin America. New York: Cambridge University Press.
67.
SimmonsBA (2009) Mobilizing for Human Rights: International Law in Domestic Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
68.
SmithA (2006) The unique position of national human rights institutions: A mixed blessing?Human Rights Quarterly28(4): 904–946.
69.
TallbergJ (2002) Paths to compliance: Enforcement, management, and the European Union. International Organization56(3): 609–643.
Uganda Human Rights Commmission (2016) The 18th Annual Report of the Uganda Human Rights Commission to the Parliament of the Republic of Uganda. Kampala, Uganda: Uganda Human Rights Commission.
72.
United States Department of State (2010) Nigeria. Country Reports on Human Rights Practices. Washington, DC.
73.
WallaceGPR (2013) International law and public attitudes toward torture: An experimental study. International Organization67(1): 105–140.
74.
WelchRM (2017) National human rights institutions: Domestic implementation of international human rights law. Journal of Human Rights16(1): 96–116.
75.
WrightJ (2008) Do authoritarian institutions constrain? How legislatures affect economic growth and investment. American Journal of Political Science52(2): 322–343.
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.
