Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-cf9d5c678-dksz7 Total loading time: 0.209 Render date: 2021-07-27T16:11:01.981Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

The Politics of Scrutiny in Human Rights Monitoring: Evidence from Structural Topic Models of US State Department Human Rights Reports

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 October 2016

Abstract

Human rights monitoring reports play important roles both in the international human rights regime and in productions of human rights data. However, human rights reports are produced by organizations subject to formal and informal pressures that may influence the topics considered salient for attention and scrutiny. We study this potential using structural topic models (STMs), a method used for identifying the latent topical dimensions of texts and assessing the effects of covariates on these dimensions. We apply STMs to a corpus of 6298 State Department Country Reports on Human Rights Practices (1977–2012), identifying a plausible set of topics including killings and disappearances, freedoms of expression and movement, and labor rights, among others. We find that these topics vary markedly both over time and space. We also find that while US domestic politics play no systematic role in shaping topic prevalence, US allies tend to receive more attention to violations of physical integrity rights. These results challenge extant research, and illustrate the usefulness of STM methods for future study of foreign policy documents. Our findings also highlight the importance of topical attention shifts in documents that monitor and evaluate countries.

Type
Original Articles
Copyright
© The European Political Science Association 2016 

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.)

Footnotes

*

Benjamin E. Bagozzi is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science & International Relations, University of Delaware, Smith Hall, 18 Amstel Ave, Newark, DE 19716 (bagozzib@udel.edu). Daniel Berliner is an Assistant Professor in the School of Politics & Global Studies, Arizona State University, Coor Hall - Sixth Floor, 975 S. Myrtle Ave, Tempe, AZ 85287 (Daniel.Berliner@asu.edu). Earlier drafts of this paper were presented at the 2016 ISA Annual Convention and at the ASU Center on the Future of War conference “How Do We Know What We Know? Charting the Future for Human Rights Documentation and Analysis.” The authors would like to thank Ken Benoit, three anonymous PSRM reviewers, as well as Chad Clay, David Davis, Christopher Fariss, Jillienne Haglund, LaDawn Haglund, Milli Lake, Will Moore, Kathryn Sikkink, Ryan Welch, Reed Wood, and Thorin Wright for their helpful comments and suggestions. To view supplementary material for this article, please visit http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2016.44

References

Apodaca, Clair. 2006. Understanding U.S. Human Rights Policy: A Paradoxical Legacy. New York City, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bagozzi, Benjamin E. 2015. ‘The Multifaceted Nature of Global Climate Change Negotiations’. Review of International Organizations 10(4):439464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carleton, David, and Stohl, Michael. 1987. ‘The Role of Human Rights in US Foreign Assistance Policy: A Critique and Reappraisal’. American Journal of Political Science 31(4):10021018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cingranelli, David, and Pasquarello, Thomas. 1985. ‘Human Rights Practices and the Distribution of US Foreign Aid to Latin American Countries’. American Journal of Political Science 29(3):539563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cingranelli, David L., and Richards, David L.. 2010. ‘The Cingranelli and Richards (CIRI) Human Rights Data Project’. Human Rights Quarterly 32(2):401424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, Ann Marie, and Sikkink, Kathryn. 2013. ‘Information Effects and Human Rights Data: Is the Good News About Increased Human Rights Information Bad News for Human Rights Measures?Human Rights Quarterly 35(3):539568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Dara Kay. 2013. ‘Explaining Rape During Civil War: Cross-National Evidence (1980–2009)’. American Political Science Review 107(3):461477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Neufville, Judith Innes. 1986. ‘Human Rights Reporting as a Policy Tool: An Examination of the State Department Country Reports’. Human Rights Quarterly 8(4):681699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fariss, Christopher J. 2014. ‘Respect for Human Rights has Improved Over Time: Modeling the Changing Standard of Accountability’. American Political Science Review 108(2):297318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fariss, Christopher J., Jones, Zachary M., Linder, Fridolin, Crabtree, Charles, Biek, Megan, Ross, Ana, Kaur, Taranamol, and Tsai, Michael. 2015. ‘Human Rights Texts: Converting Human Rights Primary Source Documents Into Data’. PLoS ONE 10(9):e0138935.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Finnemore, Martha, and Sikkink, Kathryn. 1998. ‘International Norm Dynamics and Political Change’. International Organization 54(2):887917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foot, Rosemary. 2001. Rights Beyond Borders: The Global Community and the Struggle Over Human Rights in China. New York City, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gibney, Mark, and Stohl, Michael. 1988. ‘Human Rights and US Refugee Policy’. In Mark Gibney (ed.), Open Borders? Closed Societies? The Ethical and Political Issues, Chapter 6 151183. Westport: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
Gibney, Mark, and Dalton, Matthew. 1996. ‘The Political Terror Scale’. In David L. Cingranelli (ed.), Human Rights and Developing Countries, vol. 4, Policy Studies and Developing Nations 7384. Greenwich: JAI Press.Google Scholar
Goodman, Ryan, and Jinks, Derek. 2003. ‘Measuring the Effects of Human Rights Treaties’. European Journal of International Law 14(1):171183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, Daniel W. Jr., Moore, Will H., and Mukherjee, Bumba. 2013. ‘Information Politics v Organizational Incentives: When are Amnesty International’s “Naming and Shaming” Reports Biased?International Studies Quarterly 52(2):219232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keck, Margaret, and Sikkink, Kathryn. 1998. Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Kelley, Judith G., and Simmons, Beth A.. 2015. ‘Politics by Number: Indicators as Social Pressure in International Relations’. American Journal of Political Science 59(1):5570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lorenz, Andrea W. 1993. ‘Human Rights Watch Urges Clinton Administration to Take a Bold Stand on Human Rights’. Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, February, p. 61. Available at http://www.wrmea.org/1993-february/human-rights.html, accessed 20 June 2015.Google Scholar
McCormick, James M., and Mitchell, Neil J.. 1997. ‘Human Rights Violations, Umbrella Concepts, and Empirical Analysis’. World Politics 49(4):510525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mertus, Julie A. 2004. Bait and Switch: Human Rights and US Foreign Policy. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mitchell, Neil J., and McCormick, James M.. 1988. ‘Economic and Political Explanations of Human Rights Violations’. World Politics 40(4):476498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mosley, Layna, and Uno, Saika. 2007. ‘Racing to the Bottom or Climbing to the Top? Economic Globalization and Collective Labor Rights’. Comparative Political Studies 40(8):923948.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parmly, Michael E. 2001. ‘Perspectives: Country Reports on Human Rights Practices’. The Defense Institute of Security Assistance Management Journal 23(3):5160.Google Scholar
Poe, Steven C. 1990. ‘Human Rights and US Foreign Aid: A Review of Quantitative Studies and Suggestions for Future Research’. Human Rights Quarterly 12(4):499512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poe, Steven C., and Tate, Neal. 1994. ‘Repression of Human Rights to Personal Integrity in the 1980s: A Global Analysis’. American Political Science Review 88(4):853872.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poe, Steven C., Carey, Sabine C., and Vazquez, Tanya C.. 2001. ‘How are These Pictures Different? A Quantitative Comparison of the US State Department and Amnesty International Human Rights Reports, 1976-1995’. Human Rights Quarterly 23(3):650677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quinn, Kevin M., Monroe, Burt L., Colaresi, Michael, Crespin, Michael H., and Radev, Dragomir R.. 2010. ‘How to Analyze Political Attention With Minimal Assumptions and Costs’. American Journal of Political Science 54(1):209228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richards, David L. 2016. ‘The Myth of Information Effects in Human Rights Data: Response to Ann Marie Clark and Kathryn Sikkink’. Human Rights Quarterly 38(2):477492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, L. Kathleen. 2003. ‘United States and the World: Changing Approaches to Human Rights Diplomacy Under the Bush Administration’. Berkeley Journal of International Law 21(3):631661.Google Scholar
Roberts, Margaret E., Stewart, Brandon M., and Tingley, Dustin. 2014. ‘stm-package {stm}’. R Documentation. Available at https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/stm/index.html, accessed 20 June 2015.Google Scholar
Roberts, Margaret E., Stewart, Brandon M., Tingley, Dustin, Lucas, Christopher, Leder-Luis, Jetson, Gadarian, Shana, Albertson, Bethany, and Rand, David G.. 2014. ‘Structural Topic Models for Open Ended Responses’. American Journal of Political Science 58(4):10641082.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ron, James, Ramos, Howard, and Rodgers, Kathleen. 2005. ‘Transnational Information Politics: Human Rights NGO Reporting, 1986–2000’. International Studies Quarterly 49(3):557587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schnakenberg, Keith E., and Fariss, Christopher J.. 2014. ‘Dynamic Patterns of Human Rights Practices’. Political Science Research and Methods 2(1):131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sikkink, Kathryn. 2007. Mixed Signals: US Human Rights Policy and Latin America. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Sikkink, Kathryn, and Walling, Carrie Booth. 2007. ‘The Impact of Human Rights Trials in Latin America’. Journal of Peace Research 44(4):427445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weitzer, Ronald. 2007. ‘The Social Construction of Sex Trafficking: Ideology and Institutionalization of a Moral Crusade’. Politics & Society 35(3):447475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, Reed, and Gibney, Mark. 2010. ‘The Political Terror Scale (PTS): A Re-Introduction and a Comparison to CIRI’. Human Rights Quarterly 32(2):367400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Bagozzi and Berliner supplementary material

Appendix

Download Bagozzi and Berliner supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 2 MB
Supplementary material: Link

Bagozzi and Berliner Dataset

Link
17
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

The Politics of Scrutiny in Human Rights Monitoring: Evidence from Structural Topic Models of US State Department Human Rights Reports
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

The Politics of Scrutiny in Human Rights Monitoring: Evidence from Structural Topic Models of US State Department Human Rights Reports
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

The Politics of Scrutiny in Human Rights Monitoring: Evidence from Structural Topic Models of US State Department Human Rights Reports
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *