This article analyzes the advocacy campaign and the policy process surrounding the International Violence Against Women Act (I-VAWA) in the United States and explains the mobilization of this campaign and its political outcomes to date. The main question the article explores is: How can we interpret the effort by advocacy groups in the United States to use the domestic political process to advance their international goals? The findings suggest that the literature on norm and policy diffusion as well as the structure of political opportunities and framing, both variables identified by social movement theorists, can help us understand the I-VAWA campaign and its strategies and achievements to date. The article interprets the policy process surrounding I-VAWA as an effort by rooted cosmopolitans to use favorable domestic political opportunities and strategic framing to diffuse international norms and standards.
BenfordRSnowD (2000) Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology26: 611–639.
2.
BlanchfieldLMargessonRRibando SeelkeC. (2008) International violence against women: US response and policy issues. CRS Report for Congress, 31 March.
3.
BoliJThomasGM (1999) INGOs and the organization of world culture. In: BoliJThomasGM (eds) Constructing World Culture: International Nongovernmental Organizations since 1875. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 13–49.
4.
Brown ThompsonK (2002) Women’s rights are human rights. In: KhagramSRikerJVSikkinkK (eds) Restructuring World Politics: Transnational Social Movements, Networks, and Norms. Minneapolis and London: University of Minnesota Press, 96–122.
5.
BuechlerS (2000) Social Movements in Advanced Capitalism: The Political Economy and Cultural Construction of Social Activism. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.
6.
Chan-TiberghienJ (2004) Gender and Human Rights Politics in Japan: Global Norms and Domestic Networks. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
7.
ChappellL (2006) Contesting women’s rights: Charting the emergence of a transnational conservative counter-network. Global Society20(4): 491–520.
8.
EllsbergMLiljestrandJWinkvistA (1997) The Nicaraguan network of women against violence: Using research and action for change. Reproductive Health Matters, 10May: 82–92.
9.
GettlemanJ (2009) Clinton presents plan to fight sexual violence in Congo. The New York Times, 12August.
10.
GiugniM (1998) Was it worth the effort? The outcomes and consequences of social movements. Annual Review of Sociology24: 371–393.
11.
GiugniM (2008) Welfare states, political opportunities, and the mobilization of the unemployed: A cross-national analysis. Mobilization13(3): 297–310.
12.
HallidayTCOsinskyP (2006) Globalization of law. Annual Review of Sociology32: 447–470.
13.
HawkinsDHumesM (2002) Human rights and domestic violence. Political Science Quarterly117(2): 231–257.
14.
JoachimJ (2007) Agenda Setting, the UN, and NGOs: Gender Violence and Reproductive Rights. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
15.
JohnsonJE (2007) Domestic violence politics in post-Soviet states. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State, and Society14(3): 1–26.
16.
KitscheltH (1986) Political opportunity structures and political protest: Anti-nuclear movements in four democracies. British Journal of Political Science16(1): 57–85.
17.
KolkerES (2004) Framing as a cultural resource in health social movements: Funding activism and the breast cancer movement in the US 1990–1993. Sociology of Health and Illness26(6): 820–844.
18.
KriesiH (2004) Political context and opportunity. In: SnowDSouleSKriesiH (eds) The Blackwell Companion to Social Movements. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 67–90.
19.
MazurAG (2002) Theorizing Feminist Policy. New York: Oxford University Press.
20.
McAdamD (1996) Conceptual origins, current problems, future directions. In: McAdamDMcCarthyJDZaldMN (eds) Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements: Political Opportunities, Mobilizing Structures, and Cultural Framings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 23–40.
21.
McCammonHJ (2009) Beyond frame resonance: The argumentative structure and persuasive capacity of twentieth-century US women’s jury-rights frames. Mobilization14(1): 45–64.
22.
McCammonHJHewittLSmithS (2004) ‘No weapons save argument’: Strategic frame amplification in the US woman suffrage movements. The Sociological Quarterly45(3): 529–556.
23.
McCammonHJNewmanHDMuseCSTerrellTM (2007) Movement framing and discursive opportunity structures: The political successes of the US women’s jury movements. American Sociological Review72(5): 725–749.
24.
MeyerD (2004) Protest and political opportunities. Annual Review of Sociology30: 125–145.
25.
MeyerDSMinkoffDC (2004) Conceptualizing political opportunity. Social Forces82(4): 1457–1492.
26.
MeyerDStaggenborgS (1996) Movements, countermovements, and the structure of political opportunity. The American Journal of Sociology101(6): 1628–1660.
27.
MeyerJWBoliJThomasGMRamirezF (1997) World society and the nation-state. The American Journal of Sociology103(1): 144–181.
MorganR (2004) Advancing indigenous rights at the United Nations: Strategic framing and its impact on the normative development of international law. Social and Legal Studies13(4): 481–500.
30.
RuchtD (2004) Movement allies, adversaries, and third parties. In: SnowDSouleSKriesiH (eds) The Blackwell Companion to Social Movements. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 197–216.
31.
SheridanMB (2009) Clinton puts spotlight on women’s issues. The Washington Post, 18August.
32.
SnowD (2004) Framing processes, ideology, and discursive fields. In: SnowDSouleSKriesiH (eds) The Blackwell Companion to Social Movements. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 380–412.
33.
SnowDARochfordEBJrWordenSKBenfordRD (1986) Frame alignment processes, micromobilization, and movement participation. American Sociological Review51(4): 464–481.
34.
TarrowS (1998) Power in Movement: Social Movements and Contentious Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
35.
TarrowS (2005) The New Transnational Activism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
36.
WeldonL (2002) Protest, Policy, and the Problem of Violence against Women: A Cross-National Comparison. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
37.
ZaldMN (1996) Culture, ideology and strategic framing. In: McAdamDMcCarthyJDZaldMN (eds) Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements: Political Opportunities, Mobilizing Structures, and Cultural Framings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 261–274.
