Some recent research conclusions regarding "naming and shaming", governments and human rights

According to recent research, the effectiveness of the "naming and shaming" approach in international human rights advocacy has diminished, particularly in influencing American and European governments to pressure other nations to curb rights abuses. This decline is evident in the U.S., especially under President Trump, who often praised leaders known for human rights violations rather than criticizing them. 

Although previous administrations were more vocal about human rights, their influence was already waning, partly due to compromised credibility over the U.S.'s own human rights controversies. Despite its reduced impact on foreign policy, the practice of documenting and publicizing human rights abuses remains crucial for several reasons:
 

• It validates the experiences of victims, who desire their stories to be known and the perpetrators identified. This acknowledgment is vital, regardless of whether immediate accountability is possible.

• It supports change within abusive regimes by providing detailed, reliable information that bolsters the efforts of local and international human rights groups. The credibility of this data is often enhanced by its adherence to international standards and perceived neutrality.

• It restrains world leaders from being aware of international scrutiny. Even influential leaders like Russia's Putin and China's Xi Jinping consider global public opinion, limiting the extent of their human rights violations. This restraint is mainly due to the meticulous documentation and exposure by human rights organizations, even in remote situations like the abuses against Uighurs in Xinjiang, China.

• Shaming is effective with strong domestic advocacy, indicating the need for a robust network of local human rights organizations within targeted states. The impact of shaming is further amplified when third-party actors, such as other states or intergovernmental organizations, join the criticism. This multi-tiered approach pressures repressive governments both domestically and internationally. The presence of numerous domestic HROs, coupled with international pressure, creates the most conducive environment for positive change in human rights practices.

• The interaction between these groups facilitates a more comprehensive approach, leveraging local and global pressures to achieve a more significant impact. Moreover, the findings suggest that international pressure "from above" may be more critical than domestic pressure "from below," especially in states that restrict or ban HRO activities. This insight encourages human rights efforts directed at regimes that limit civil society operations within their borders.

• It has facilitated the accountability of high-ranking officials in various global contexts. Numerous officials, including heads of state and military commanders, have been imprisoned for severe human rights abuses. This growing trend of criminal accountability is a deterrent, highlighting the importance of gathering, documenting, and publicizing detailed information on human rights violations.

While "naming and shaming" may no longer significantly sway government-led human rights initiatives, it remains an essential tool for the international human rights movement. By ensuring visibility, accountability, and some level of deterrence, this strategy continues to uphold and advance the cause of human rights globally.
Thanks for reading. You can support and reward my writing via:

Pay Pal — lauvlad89@gmail.com
Algo — NCG6LBALQHENQUSR77KOR6SS42FGK54BZ5L2HFDSBGQVLGYIOVWYDXFDI4
ADA — addr1q9vfs6nqz4xmtnpljwhv4tukyskd2g7enxd87rpugkwwvfun5pnla5d5tes2mvurrc77e7837yd0scrfk063qlha8wgs8d4ynz
Bitcoin 3HbxyDXE9MhNQ8RqsirqgYvFupQzh5Xby2
ETH — 0x8982cdb97bd23f092f78a16a4fc93c5c4607a285
Seeds — vladlausevic
Skycoin — ZxjhWMJRbTNCRQzy5MekZzH4fhdWFCqBP8
Tezos — tz1QrRzkTAKuPKF8dmGW6c1ScEHBUGvoiJBM