For better or worse: Shaming, faming, and human rights abuse
| Published date | 01 May 2021 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0022343320905346 |
| Author | Sara Kahn-Nisser |
| Date | 01 May 2021 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
For better or worse: Shaming, faming,
and human rights abuse
Sara Kahn-Nisser
The Open University of Israel
Abstract
Does it matter whether human rights (HR) shaming is accompanied by acknowledgments of reforms and progress?
Do such acknowledgments weaken or strengthen the impact of shaming? Rulers decide whether to oppress or to
comply with HR treaty obligations by considering what compliance entails and by weighing the internal and external
costs and benefits of oppression. Research shows that HR shaming alters such considerations and is associated with
changes in HR protection levels. Can the same be said of faming? This article examines three forms of HR reporting:
faming, which focuses on positive developments; shaming, which focuses on problematic HR practices; and scrutiny,
which combines shaming and faming. The article analyzes the association between shaming, faming, and scrutiny by
UN treaty bodies, on the one hand, and oppression on the other. The potential associations are conceptualized as
mitigation, backsliding, and specification. The analysis finds that shaming with no faming and faming with no
shaming are each negatively associated with HR protection. Scrutiny, the combination of shaming and faming, is
positively associated with subsequent HR protection levels, and the higher the level of scrutiny the higher the
subsequent level of HR protection. The article argues that the reason for this association is that the combination
of shaming and faming helps policymakers understand how to properly implement their treaty obligations and how
to improve HR protection. The article draws policy and theoretical implications including the need for balanced and
detailed HR reporting, and the importance of learning in HR advocacy.
Keywords
Convention against Torture, human rights, international organizations, regression analysis, shaming, web scraping
Introduction
When human rights advocates publicize reviews of pos-
itive and negative developments in a country, does this
support human rights (HR) reforms in that country? Or
does it send confusing messages to the country’s govern-
ment? Recently, scholars started looking at this question,
conceptualizing the impact of conciliatory versus antag-
onistic approaches in reviewing HR (Goodman & Jinks,
2013; Milewicz & Goodin, 2016; Stroup & Murdie,
2012). But the study of the link between HR reporting
and HR reforms has focused on the dissemination of
negative information. The practice of publicizing detailed
acknowledgments of positive developments, deployed by
prominent HR advocates such as the United Nations
and the European Union, is understudied. Therefore,
the link between dissemination of positive information
and reform is unknown. Studying this link is important
empirically but also theoretically as it helps adjudicate
between a cost–benefit-based theory which predicts a
backsliding effect of faming and a learning-based theory
which predicts a norm-specification effect of shaming.
This article addresses these questions by analyzing the
association between oppression and three kinds of HR
reporting: shaming – defined as negative evaluations;
faming – defined as positive evaluations; and scrutiny
– defined as the combination of shaming and faming.
The article analyzes the UN’s Convention against Tor-
ture (CAT) committee’s ‘concluding observations’
reports. These reports review the implementation of the
CAT in ratifying countries. Using newly constructed
data, the article shows that the higher the combined level
Corresponding author:
sarabethkn@gmail.com
Journal of Peace Research
2021, Vol. 58(3) 479–493
ªThe Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0022343320905346
journals.sagepub.com/home/jpr
To continue reading
Request your trial