The Transnational Politics of Warfare Accountability: Human Rights Watch versus the Israel Defense Forces
| Author | Nikolas M. Rajkovic,Pascal Vennesson |
| DOI | 10.1177/0047117812445450 |
| Published date | 01 December 2012 |
| Date | 01 December 2012 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
International Relations
26(4) 409 –429
© The Author(s) 2012
Reprints and permission: sagepub.
co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0047117812445450
ire.sagepub.com
The Transnational
Politics of Warfare
Accountability: Human
Rights Watch versus
the Israel Defense Forces
Pascal Vennesson
Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
Nikolas M. Rajkovic
Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies, Florence
Abstract
Transnational human rights networks span the globe, and have become more numerous and
influential since the 1970s. Yet we still know relatively little about the strategic interaction between
transnational advocates and their targeted state actors. Focusing on such a strategic interaction,
we argue that transnational advocacy is less a diffusion of authority away from state actors than
a change in the ways in which the politics of accountability is conducted between sophisticated
state and non-state actors. In particular, we show that targeted actors (e.g. impugned states)
can develop their own discursive capacities to challenge the facts and interpretations offered by
transnational advocates and ‘turn the tables’ on them, expanding the scope of accountability to
include the conduct of NGOs themselves. Empirically, we examine the efforts made by Human
Rights Watch (HRW) to make the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) accountable during the Second
Lebanon War of 2006 and the Gaza war of 2008−9.
Keywords
human rights, humanitarian intervention, international security, lawfare, Middle East, NGOs,
transnational advocacy
Corresponding author:
Nikolas M. Rajkovic, Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies, Via della Fontanelle 19, 50014 Florence, Italy
Email: nikolas.rajkovic@eui.eu
445450IRE26410.1177/0047117812445450Vennesson and RajkovicInternational Relations
2012
Article
410 International Relations 26(4)
Transnational advocacy and wars of words
Transnational human rights networks span the globe, and have become more numerous
and influential since the 1970s.1 In the name of humanitarian norms, these activists are
involved in public advocacy campaigns of naming and shaming in order to pressure their
targets into complying with human rights obligations. The efficacy of transnational activ-
ism is closely linked with the use of normative principles to transcend material power. As
Keck and Sikkink explain, activists bring forward information and normative concerns
which exert moral authority and consequently, it is hoped, influence decision-makers.2
The initiatives of these networks are extended through the global media with emphasis on
dramatic human events and human rights protection, which often coincide with the social
values and identities emphasized by activists.3 Whether through worldwide NGO cam-
paigns against transgressing corporations or calls for war crimes accountability, the influ-
ence of transnational advocacy groups has been taken to indicate a gene ral restructuri ng
of international politics leading to a complex co-existence of state and non-state actors.4
Yet we still know relatively little about the processes of strategic interaction between
transnational advocates and their targeted state actors.5 We argue that transnational
activism is less a diffusion of authority away from state actors than a change in the way
the politics of accountability is played between sophisticated state and non-state actors.
Specifically, we focus on interaction between non-state and state actors vis-à-vis the
legality of warfare, and claim political and legal stakes have the potential to steer the
politics of transnational advocacy beyond a linear process of naming, shaming and
compliance. Targeted actors (e.g. impugned states) can develop their own capacities
and techniques which challenge ‘the facts’ and interpretations offered by transnational
advocates. By so doing, they ‘turn the tables’ and expand the scope of accountability to
include the conduct of transnational advocates themselves. Therefore, scrutiny by trans-
national advocates does not necessarily lead to an ideal sequence of naming, shaming
and compliance. Rather, it can initiate a coercive language game where various non-
state and state actors employ competing tactics of framing, rhetoric and legal argumen-
tation to advance favourable characterizations of events on the ground.
The purpose of our paper, and our specific contribution to the literature on transna-
tional advocacy, is to draw attention to a scenario we refer to as a ‘discursive quagmire’.
By this we mean an evolution in the strategic interaction between state and non-state
actors such that impugned states come to appreciate the power of discourse in the char-
acterization of disputed happenings, such as wartime incidents. While the literature
rightly credits transnational activists for having demonstrated the power of discourse in
international politics, we should also appreciate that state actors can similarly employ
advocacy to discursively ‘push back’ at the claims made by activist groups. Thus, advo-
cacy and discursive influence are not means exclusive to non-state activists but are
available to all actors engaged in strategic interaction. What is more, when both non-
state and state actors prove adept at techniques of advocacy a kind of stalemate can
ensue where no actor is able to command an outright characterization of events. In this
way, by speaking of a ‘discursive quagmire’, we endeavour to take the analysis on NGO/
state interaction beyond notions of ‘cheap talk’, ‘public relations’ or the ‘boomerang
effect’, to focus upon the relational quality of discursive influence and the war of words
which transnational advocacy can ultimately invite.
To continue reading
Request your trial