Amanda Murdie

How protest affects opinions of peaceful demonstration and expression rights

ABSTRACT Why do some people support peaceful demonstration and expression rights and others do not? This article focuses on individual-level opinions concerning the rights to peaceful demonstration and expression in 18 countries. Drawing on theories from social psychology and contentious politics, we argue that opinions about these rights are associated with a countrys past experiences with nonviolent and violent dissent. A countrys experiences with nonviolent protests are associated with more support for peaceful demonstration and expression rights. Conversely, past experiences with violent dissent are associated with less individual-level support of these rights. These past experiences can demonstrate the efficacy of collective action. Using multilevel modeling techniques, we find support for our argument when it comes to public opinion regarding the right to peaceful demonstration. Our argument serves as another pathway through which a countrys past experiences with protest could influence the nature of current dissent and human rights within a state.

R2P, Human Rights, and the Perils of a Bad Human Rights Intervention

This article evaluates the effects certain interventions, namely various types of third party peacekeeping missions, have had on the future human rights practices of countries experiencing civil conflict. I argue that peacekeeping with (a) an UN mandate or (b) a strong civilian or humanitarian focus are the only types of missions that should cause gains in human rights performance; these missions are aligned with R2P goals. Using a cross-national sample of countries experiencing civil conflict from 1960 to 2013, I find much evidence that R2P-aligned peacekeeping missions can be a positive force for future human rights performance within countries that have experienced civil conflict, even after we account for the factors that led to the mission in the first place. Advocacy efforts in support of R2P must be careful to call for only interventions with UN support and/or clear humanitarian objectives.

International Development NGOs and Bureaucratic Capacity: Facilitator or Destroyer?:

Do development international nongovernmental organizations (INGOs) facilitate or destroy the bureaucratic capacity of the states in which they operate? The literature is split on this question. Some scholars argue that development INGOs weaken state capacity by delivering social services that the government is supposed to provide. Others argue that by increasing a country’s domestic demand for improved human rights, development INGOs improve a government’s capacity to fulfill them. In this paper, we show that the effect of development INGOs on state capacity depends on whether a state is democratic or nondemocratic. In our cross-sectional time-series analysis, we find that development INGO presence has a significant positive relationship with state capacity in democracies but no relationship with state capacity in nondemocratic states. These findings help explain the inconsistent claims in the existing INGO literature and are also relevant for development INGOs and the policymakers that support them.

Female chief executives and state human rights practices: Self-fulfilling the political double bind

ABSTRACT What role does gender of a countrys chief executive play in human rights practices of that country? Do female leaders treat the citizens of their country better or worse than their male counterparts? We explore whether gender makes a difference in human rights practices in an effort to examine whether leader characteristics can affect human rights. Previous research has found that countries with higher levels of gender equality, measured by the percentage of women in parliament, have fewer physical integrity rights violations. However, previous research has not found an association between female chief executives and better human rights practices overall, despite clear theoretical arguments for a relationship (Melander 2005). Using updated data on female chief executives for the years 1984 to 2011, together with a robust treatment effects estimator, we find that female chief executives do improve human rights when compared to their male counterparts.

Join the Chorus, Avoid the Spotlight

Which countries are likely to be ignored for their human rights abuses? This article focuses on one particular way that cases of human rights abuse might be overlooked by human rights organizations (HROs): the relative visibility of the state’s abusiveness vis-à-vis its geographic and social peers. HROs are more likely to target abusive states that are located in regions with more HRO resources and/or are surrounded by states that demonstrate higher respect for human rights, as these abuses will stand out much more clearly. Further, human rights treaties can be used by abusive states as a form of strategic “social camouflage,” with states trying to minimize the risk of HRO attention by ratifying human rights treaties to look more like their rights-respecting peers. Using a cross-national time-series research design, this article finds much support for the argument: abusive states that “join the chorus” avoid HRO attention.