Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T01:03:40.817Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Protecting Democracy in Europe and the Americas

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 July 2008

Darren Hawkins
Darren Hawkins
Affiliation:
Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. E-mail: dhawkins@byu.edu
Get access

Abstract

Especially since the end of the Cold War, the Council of Europe (CE) and the Organization of American States (OAS) have acted to protect democracy in their member states from erosion or reversals, with CE policies more robust than those in the Americas. What explains this variation? I develop an argument focusing on institutional permeability, or the extent to which those organizations are accessible to nonstate actors. Permeability consists of three dimensions: range of third parties allowed access, level of decision making at which access is granted, and transparency of IO information to those third parties. Higher levels of permeability are likely to produce higher levels of constraint on state behavior through increasing levels of precision and obligation in international rules and practices. Alternative explanations, summarized as regional democracy norms, domestic democratic lock-in interests, and the power of stable democracies cannot explain the variation in multilateral democracy protection. More broadly, this article suggests that “democratizing” IOs by allowing ever-greater access to nonstate actors is likely to result in stronger, more constraining international rules, even in areas where states most jealously guard their sovereignty, such as the nature of their domestic political institutions.

Type
Research Article
Information
International Organization , Volume 62 , Issue 3 , July 2008 , pp. 373 - 403
Copyright
Copyright © The IO Foundation 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Abbott, Kenneth W., and Snidal, Duncan. 2000. Hard and Soft Law in International Governance. International Organization 54 (3):421–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnett, Michael, and Finnemore, Martha. 2004. Rules for the World: International Organizations in Global Politics. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Benedetti, Fanny, and Washburn, John L.. 1999. Drafting the International Criminal Court Treaty: Two Years to Rome and an Afterword on the Rome Diplomatic Conference. Global Governance 5 (1):1–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benoît-Rohmer, Florence, and Klebes, Heinrich. 2005. Council of Europe Law: Towards a Pan-European Legal Area. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.Google Scholar
Boniface, Dexter S. 2002. Is There a Democratic Norm in the Americas? An Analysis of the Organization of American States. Global Governance 8 (3):365–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carothers, Thomas. 1999. Aiding Democracy Abroad: The Learning Curve. Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.Google Scholar
Carr, Edward Hallett. 1964. Twenty Years Crisis, 1919–1939: An Introduction to the Study of International Relations. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Checkel, Jeffrey T. 2001. Why Comply? Social Learning and European Identity Change. International Organization 55 (3):553–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, Andrew F., and Legler, Thomas. 2005. A Tale of Two Mesas: The OAS Defense of Democracy in Peru and Venezuela. Global Governance 11 (4):425–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dimitrova, Antoaneta, and Pridham, Geoffrey. 2004. International Actors and Democracy Promotion in Central and Eastern Europe: The Integration Model and Its Limits. Democratization 11 (5):91–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckstein, Harry. 1975. Case Study and Theory in Political Science. In Handbook of Political Science. Vol. 7, Strategies of Inquiry, edited by Greenstein, Fred I. and Polsby, Nelson W., 79–138. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Finnemore, Martha, and Sikkink, Kathryn. 1998. International Norm Dynamics and Political Change. International Organization 52 (4):887–917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flynn, Gregory, and Farrell, Henry. 1999. Piecing Together the Democratic Peace: The CSCE, Norms, and the “Construction” of Security in Post–Cold War Europe. International Organization 53 (3):505–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garrett, Geoffrey. 1992. International Cooperation and Institutional Choice: The European Community's Internal Market. International Organization 46 (2):533–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
George, Alexander L., and Bennett, Andrew. 2005. Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hafner-Burton, Emilie, and Pollack, Mark A.. 2002. Mainstreaming Gender in Global Governance. European Journal of International Relations 8 (3):339–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, Darren G., Lake, David A., Nielson, Daniel L., and Tierney, Michael J.. 2006. Delegation Under Anarchy: States, International Organizations, and Principal-Agent Theory. In Delegation and Agency in International Organizations, edited by Hawkins, Darren G., Lake, David A., Nielson, Daniel L., and Tierney, Michael J., 3–38. Cambridge, Mass.: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Helfer, Laurence R. 2006. Understanding Change in International Organizations: Globalization and Innovation in the ILO. Vanderbilt Law Review 59 (3):647–726.Google Scholar
Jacoby, Wade. 2006. Inspiration, Coalition, and Substitution: External Influences on Postcommunist Transformations. World Politics 58 (4):623–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joachim, Jutta. 2003. Framing Issues and Seizing Opportunities: The UN, NGOs, and Women's Rights. International Studies Quarterly 47 (2):247–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keck, Margaret E., and Sikkink, Kathryn. 1998. Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Kelley, Judith. 2004. International Actors on the Domestic Scene: Membership Conditionality and Socialization by International Institutions. International Organization 58 (3):425–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keohane, Robert O., Moravcsik, Andrew, and Slaughter, Anne-Marie. 2000. Legalized Dispute Resolution: Interstate and Transnational. International Organization 54 (3):457–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitschelt, Herbert P. 1986. Political Opportunity Structures and Political Protest: Anti-Nuclear Movements in Four Democracies. British Journal of Political Science 16 (1):57–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klebes, Heinrich. 1999. The Quest for Democratic Security: The Role of the Council of Europe and U.S. Foreign Policy. Washington, D.C.: United States Institute of Peace.Google Scholar
Klepak, Hal. 2003. Power Multiplied or Power Restrained? The United States and Multilateral Institutions in the Americas. In U.S. Hegemony and International Organizations, edited by Foot, Rosemary, MacFarlane, S. Neil, and Mastanduno, Michael, 239–63. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koremenos, Barbara, Lipson, Charles, and Snidal, Duncan. 2001. The Rational Design of International Institutions. International Organization 55 (4):761–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levitt, Barry S. 2006. A Desultory Defense of Democracy: OAS Resolution 1080 and the Inter-American Democratic Charter. Latin American Politics and Society 48 (3):93–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levitt, Barry S. 2007. Ecuador, 2004–2005: Democratic Crisis Redux. In Promoting Democracy in the Americas, edited by Legler, Thomas, Lean, Sharon F., and Boniface, Dexter S., 225–45. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Martin, Lisa L., and Simmons, Beth. 1998. Theories and Empirical Studies of International Institutions. International Organization 52 (4):729–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCoy, Jennifer. 2006. International Response to Democratic Threats in the Americas, 1990–2005. Paper presented at Latin American Studies Association Congress, March, San Juan, Puerto Rico.Google Scholar
Mearsheimer, John J. 1994–95. The False Promise of International Institutions. International Security 19 (3):5–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, David S., and Minkoff, Debra C.. 2004. Conceptualizing Political Opportunity. Social Forces 82 (4):1457–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moravcsik, Andrew. 2000. The Origins of Human Rights Regimes: Democratic Delegation in Postwar Europe. International Organization 54 (2):217–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muñoz, Heraldo. 1998. The Right to Democracy in the Americas. Translated by Mary D'Leon. Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs 40 (1):1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nielson, Daniel L., and Tierney, Michael J.. 2003. Delegation to International Organizations: Agency Theory and World Bank Environmental Reform. International Organization 57 (2):241–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pedaliu, Effie G. H. 2007. Human Rights and Foreign Policy: Wilson and the Greek Dictators, 1967–1970. Diplomacy and Statecraft 18 (1):185–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pevehouse, Jon C. 2005. Democracy from Above: Regional Organizations and Democratization. Cambridge, Mass.: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raustiala, Kal. 1997. States, NGOs, and International Environmental Institutions. International Studies Quarterly 41 (4):719–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reimann, Kim D. 2006. A View from the Top: International Politics, Norms and the Worldwide Growth of NGOs. International Studies Quarterly 50 (1):45–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Risse, Thomas. 2000. “Let's Argue!”: Communicative Action in World Politics. International Organization 54 (1):1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robertson, A. H., and Merrills, J. G.. 1993. Human Rights in Europe: A Study of the European Convention on Human Rights. Manchester, England: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
Santa-Cruz, Arturo. 2005. Constitutional Structures, Sovereignty, and the Emergence of Norms: The Case of International Election Monitoring. International Organization 59 (3):663–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schimmelfennig, Frank. 2001. The Community Trap: Liberal Norms, Rhetorical Action, and the Eastern Enlargement of the European Union. International Organization 55 (1):47–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schimmelfennig, Frank. 2005. Strategic Calculation and International Socialization: Membership Incentives, Party Constellations, and Sustained Compliance in Central and Eastern Europe. International Organization 59 (4):827–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shifter, Michael. 2002. The United States, the Organization of American States, and the Origins of the Inter-American System. In The Globalization of U.S.-Latin American Relations, edited by Bouvier, Virginia M., 85–104. Westport, Conn.: Praeger.Google Scholar
Smith, Karen E. 2001. Western Actors and the Promotion of Democracy. In Democratic Consolidation in Eastern Europe, edited by Zielonka, Jan and Pravda, Alex, 31–57. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tarrow, Sidney. 1994. Power in Movement: Social Movements, Collective Action and Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Vachudová, Milada Anna. 2005. Europe Undivided: Democracy, Leverage and Integration after Communism. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valenzuela, Arturo. 1997. Paraguay: The Coup That Didn't Happen. Journal of Democracy 8 (1):43–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winkler, Hans. 1995. Democracy and Human Rights in Europe: A Survey of the Admission Practice of the Council of Europe. Austrian Journal of Public and International Law 47 (2–3):147–72.Google Scholar