We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please 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 account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@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 saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved 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.
Human rights advocates continue to use shaming as a central tool despite recognizing its declining effectiveness. Shame is indeed a potent motivator, but its effects are often counterproductive for this purpose. Especially when wielded by cultural outsiders in ways that appear to condemn local social practices, shaming is likely to produce anger, resistance, backlash, and deviance from outgroup norms, or denial and evasion. Shaming can easily be interpreted as a show of contempt, which risks triggering fears for the autonomy and security of the group. In these circumstances, established religious and elite networks can employ traditional normative counter-narratives to recruit a popular base for resistance. If this counter-mobilization becomes entrenched in mass social movements, popular ideology, and enduring institutions, the unintended consequences of shaming may leave human rights advocates farther from their goal.
Edited by
Stephen Hopgood, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London,Jack Snyder, Columbia University, New York,Leslie Vinjamuri, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London
Edited by
Stephen Hopgood, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London,Jack Snyder, Columbia University, New York,Leslie Vinjamuri, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London
Edited by
Stephen Hopgood, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London,Jack Snyder, Columbia University, New York,Leslie Vinjamuri, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London
Edited by
Stephen Hopgood, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London,Jack Snyder, Columbia University, New York,Leslie Vinjamuri, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London
Edited by
Stephen Hopgood, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London,Jack Snyder, Columbia University, New York,Leslie Vinjamuri, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London
Edited by
Stephen Hopgood, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London,Jack Snyder, Columbia University, New York,Leslie Vinjamuri, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London
Edited by
Stephen Hopgood, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London,Jack Snyder, Columbia University, New York,Leslie Vinjamuri, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London
Edited by
Stephen Hopgood, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London,Jack Snyder, Columbia University, New York,Leslie Vinjamuri, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London
Edited by
Stephen Hopgood, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London,Jack Snyder, Columbia University, New York,Leslie Vinjamuri, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London
For the first time in one collected volume, mainstream and critical human rights scholars together examine the empirical and normative debates around the future of human rights. They ask what makes human rights effective, what strategies will enhance the chances of compliance, what blocks progress, and whether the hope for human rights is entirely misplaced in a rapidly transforming world. Human Rights Futures sees the world as at a crucial juncture. The project for globalizing rights will either continue to be embedded or will fall backward into a maelstrom of nationalist backlash, religious resurgence and faltering Western power. Each chapter talks directly to the others in an interactive dialogue, providing a theoretical and methodological framework for a clear research agenda for the next decade. Scholars, graduate students and practitioners of political science, history, sociology, law and development will find much to both challenge and provoke them in this innovative book.
Amidst calls for containing an assertive Russia, politicians and pundits have been debating whether Ukraine should serve as a ‘buffer zone’ between the Russian and Western spheres of influence. These debates provide an opportunity to revisit the long and varied history of major powers’ efforts to manage buffer zones. We draw on this history to learn the conditions under which buffer zones succeed or fail to stabilise regions, how buffers are most successfully managed, and when alternative arrangements for borderlands work better.
Over the last decade, international rankings have emerged as a critical tool used by international actors engaged in global governance. State practices and performance are now judged by a number of high-profile indices, including assessments of their levels of corruption, quality of democracy, creditworthiness, media freedom, and business environment. However, these rankings always carry value judgments, methodological choices, and implicit political agendas. This volume expertly addresses the important analytical, normative, and policy issues associated with the contemporary practice of 'grading states'. The chapters explore how rankings affect our perceptions of state performance, how states react to being ranked, why some rankings exert more global influence than others, and how states have come to strategize and respond to these public judgments. The book also critically examines how treating state rankings like popular consumer choice indices may actually lead policymakers to internalize questionable normative assumptions and lead to poorer, not improved, public policy outcomes.