Shaming by international organizations: Mapping condemnatory speech acts across 27 international organizations, 1980–2015
| Date | 01 September 2019 |
| Author | Thomas Sommerer,Theresa Squatrito,Magnus Lundgren |
| DOI | 10.1177/0010836719832339 |
| Published date | 01 September 2019 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/0010836719832339
Cooperation and Conflict
2019, Vol. 54(3) 356 –377
© The Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0010836719832339
journals.sagepub.com/home/cac
Shaming by international
organizations: Mapping
condemnatory speech acts
across 27 international
organizations, 1980–2015
Theresa Squatrito, Magnus Lundgren
and Thomas Sommerer
Abstract
In the face of escalating conflicts or atrocities, international organizations (IOs), alongside non-
governmental organizations (NGOs), often vocalize public condemnation. Researchers have
examined NGO shaming, but no extant literature has comparatively explored if, how and why IOs
shame. This article fills this gap. We conceptualize IO shaming as condemnatory speech acts and
distinguish between the agent, targets and actions of shaming. We theorize how compliance and
socialization are motives that lead IOs to shame. Empirically, we use new data on more than 3000
instances of IO shaming, covering 27 organizations between 1980 and 2015 to examine empirical
patterns across the three dimensions of agents, targets and actions. We find that the majority of
IOs do employ shaming but to varying degrees. Global, general-purpose IOs shame the most and
regional, task-specific IOs the least. IOs mainly shame states, but there is a rise in the targeting of
non-state and unnamed actors. While many condemned acts relate to human rights and security
issues, IOs shame actions across the policy spectrum. These findings indicate that IO shaming is
driven by compliance and socialization motives and that it is a wider phenomenon than previously
recognized, suggesting possible avenues for further inquiry.
Keywords
Condemnation, human rights, international organizations, security, shaming, speech acts
Introduction
When conflicts escalate or terrorist attacks and other atrocities come to the attention of a
global public, media headlines are soon flooded with reactions from various political
actors. Among the actors that vocalize public condemnation in the face of such events are
Corresponding author:
Theresa Squatrito, Department of Politics, University of Liverpool, 8-11 Abercromby Square, Liverpool
L697WZ, UK.
Email: t.squatrito@liverpool.ac.uk
832339CAC0010.1177/0010836719832339Cooperation and ConflictSquatrito et al.
research-article2019
Article
Squatrito et al. 357
international organizations (IOs). IOs, such as the United Nations (UN), the African
Union (AU), the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Caribbean Community
(CARICOM), have condemned nuclear tests in North Korea,1 electoral fraud in Gambia,2
the practice of virginity tests3 and the economic blockade of Cuba.4 IOs shame to varying
degrees and in various contexts. Some actions and actors are frequently condemned by
IOs but others are rarely publicly decried. Certain IOs are vocal and shame frequently,
while others are typically silent and scarcely criticize. This variation raises several ques-
tions: Which IOs tend to shame, who do they shame and what actions are shamed? What
can these patterns tell us about IOs’ motives for shaming?
No extant literature has comparatively explored if, how and why IOs shame. This article
fills this gap. We demonstrate that IOs engage in shaming in world politics. Empirically, we
provide the first systematic comparison of shaming by IOs. Specifically, we examine
shaming across 27 IOs from 1980 to 2015. We analyse acts of shaming adopted in the
policy output (for example, resolutions, decisions or communiqués) of the highest political
decision-making bodies. Our original data cover more than 3000 instances of public con-
demnation, allowing us to better understand the dynamics of IO shaming.
Theoretically, we conceptualize IO shaming as distinguishable from other forms of
condemnation available to IOs. While IOs have a variety of policy tools that can portray
criticism, such as economic sanctions, membership suspension or even military action,
shaming is primarily a communicative, rather than material, tool of public condemna-
tion. Focusing on political, non-technical shaming, we distinguish between its three main
dimensions: agents – who shame; targets – who are shamed; and actions – what is
shamed. Building on previous research, we identify two key motives – compliance and
socialization – that help to account for why IOs shame.
We arrive at four core findings about the dynamics of IO shaming. Firstly, we find that
several IOs employ shaming, albeit to different degrees. In our sample, the UN and
Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) are the most active agents of shaming, far
outstripping other IOs. Secondly, IOs shame all types of actors, but states are the most
common target and, more recently, we see an increase in shaming of non-state actors and
unnamed targets. Thirdly, IOs shame acts concerning a variety of issue areas. While
human rights and security are the most common issues, shaming occurs in other domains.
Fourthly, the empirical patterns suggest that IOs employ shaming in order to both induce
compliance and to socialize actors. Neither motive on its own fully accounts for the vari-
ation in shaming across agents, targets and actions that we observe. While we reveal
patterns of shaming that point to a complex set of motives, future research is necessary
to determine whether other motives contribute to condemnation and to discern the condi-
tions under which each motive is dominant and how they interact.
Our findings have two general implications. Firstly, our data suggest that shaming is
a broader phenomenon than conventionally assumed, extending to a variety of agents,
targets and actions. Extensive research considers non-governmental organizations
(NGOs) to be agents of shaming (e.g., Hafner-Burton, 2008; Murdie and Davis, 2012;
Murdie and Peksen, 2013; Ron et al., 2005). This article illustrates that IOs can also be
shaming agents. When shaming, IOs target not only states, but also non-state actors, and
even unnamed, non-specified actors. Human rights violations are not the only actions
condemned, but also shaming addresses a wide range of actions in various policy fields.
To continue reading
Request your trial