Sitemap

Previous research shows that leaders’ prior experiences influence their policy decisions. The existing human rights literature focuses mainly on country-level factors, such as economic development, regime type and the conflict situations to explain violations of rights. This research contributes to a flourishing literature on leaders’ role in upholding rights by theorizing why and how the prior experiences of leaders affect the propensity to violate physical integrity rights. It is argued in this article that leaders with a rebel experience, and who have experienced victory in rebellion are less likely to respect human rights, while those who have suffered defeat are more likely to do so. Both types of leaders have demonstrated a willingness to take risks, but in the former case, victory reinforces their belief in taking risks, leading them to keep risk-taking, whereas in the latter, defeat teaches leaders to become more risk averse. Infringing on human rights is indeed risky, potentially leading to negative consequences such as a damaged reputation, accountability, and social upheaval. The empirical analysis of the research demonstrates that having a rebel background alone does not inherently influence a leader behavior regarding human rights; what matters is the outcome of the rebellion. The probability of showing respect for rights decreases when a rebellion is won, while it increases when there has been a previous loss in rebellion. The article highlights the importance of using leaders, rather than just states, as a unit of analysis to explain why certain countries commit human rights violations.

Are the ‘‘naming and shaming’’ activities of Human Rights Organizations (HROs) robust to geopolitical factors? While Murdie and Peksen (2014) provide empirical evidence that such HRO activities increase the likelihood of humanitarian intervention, the existing literature on geopolitics indicates a variable effect, which can be associated with both positive and negative directions regarding intervention onset, although the geopolitical effect remains consistent and significant. Hence, I formulate a hypothesis proposing a correlation between geopolitics and the initiation of interventions. I further suggest that this link could influence the empirical evidence, indicating that HRO activities have a statistically significant impact on the probability of intervention onset, potentially introducing a confounding factor. Using the replication data from Murdie and Peksen (2014) covering the period from 1990 to 2005, however, I find that even when accounting for a geopolitical factor (i.e., being a United States ally), the substantial positive influence of HRO activities on the intervention onset remains empirically robust.

How does the rise of China challenge the existing international order? What are the possible outcomes of the interplay between China’s rise and the current trajectory of the Russian and Turkish regimes? Based on a qualitative analysis, I find twomajor dilemmas for the current power dynamics have resulted from China’s challenging behavior in the international system. First, while China promotes steady relationships based on mutual interests facilitated by the rule-based international order, it also carries out actions which feed its aspirations for exploiting the current international institutions. Second, while China underlines the importance of a Westphalian style of sovereignty and non-interference, it also takes interventionist actions in both cyberspace and territorial space. Based on identification of ChinaRussia and China-Turkey interactions through the variations in the most ‘central’ domestic issues of the current governments in Russia and Turkey, I predict four possible outcomes, shedding light on the future policy directions in Russia and Turkey: 1) a prolongation of Putin’s campaign in Ukraine, 2) an acceleration in the process of de-dollarization, 3) lasting Chinese influence on Turkey’s Kurdish issue, and 4) an increase in Turkey’s tendency toward a Chinese-style ‘growth’ model.

This reflection piece discusses the role of social movements in shaping political and social outcomes, drawing on personal impressions from the Gezi Park movement and connecting them to political science concepts such as power, resistance, and civic participation.

An actor-based approach to understanding the policymaking process, particularly applicable in the case of the European Union’s single-use plastics ban/policy, proves highly useful for comprehending the intricate dynamics at play. Throughout the process, from agenda-setting to policy formulation and adoption, various actors, both institutional and non-institutional, exerted influence, shaping the direction and content of the policy. On the one hand, non-institutional actors, such as environmental organizations, lobbies, scientists, and media, as well as the United Nations as an international actor, played crucial roles in setting the agenda, advocating for specific measures, and pushing for relevant policy formulas. On the other hand, institutional actors, including the European Commission, the European Parliament, and the Council, navigated through the complexities of policy formulation and adoption. The engagement of diverse actors underscores the multifaceted nature of policymaking, highlighting the importance of considering the perspectives and interests of all stakeholders involved. Ultimately, the actor-based approach offers valuable insights into the policymaking process, elucidating the interactions and power dynamics that shape policy outcomes in a complex regulatory landscape.

This blog post analyzes how the Yellow Vests (Gilets Jaunes) movement successfully pressured the French government to scrap a planned fuel tax hike, highlighting the crucial role of public opinion and grassroots mobilization in driving policy change.

Building on the extant literature, this study contends that higher political polarization, wherein opposing individuals or groups engage in hostile interactions over political differences, promotes vilification and a dehumanizing discourse. This in turn leads to an antagonistic and perilous political environment, putting human rights at risk. In such an environment, governments become better capable of prioritizing their political agenda over the rights of particular opposition groups, as these governments are also often supported by their polarized (i.e., entrenched) constituent base. To provide practical insights, this study illustrates Türkiye and Brazil as case examples, as both countries have experienced recent increases in political polarization with potential implications for the erosion of human rights due to a climate of hostility. The study tests the potential relationship between political polarization and human rights violations by employing time-series and cross-national data from the Varieties of Democracy Project (V-Dem) and the CIRI Human Rights Data Project, encompassing over 4,250 observations across more than 165 countries from 1981-2011. Additionally, the study utilizes the recent Human Rights Measurement Initiative (HRMI)’s Physical Integrity Rights Index, which provides data from 2017-2023. Both analyses reveal statistically significant correlations between increased political polarization and reduced respect for human rights. An upward change in political polarization results in lower levels of physical integrity rights. These findings imply that political polarization should be recognized as a serious factor contributing to the potential risks of human rights violations.

How do illiberal protest movements diffuse, and what factors influence their spread? Drawing on diffusion literature, I identify learning and emulation as key mechanisms, whereby actors exchange information and adopt strategies from other movements. I argue that perceived grievances and legitimacy link these mechanisms: learning provides ideas and tactics, but the validation of grievances and illiberal beliefs enables confident emulation. I identify immigration flows and economic hardship as sources of grievances, which create triggering conditions and make countries more susceptible to diffusion. Using original data from 41 European countries (1995–2020), I show that illiberal protest activity in one country becomes more likely when similar mobilizations occur elsewhere, regardless of geographic proximity. Economic hardship amplifies this effect, whereas refugee inflows, contrary to expectations, have no noticeable impact.

How do illiberal movements affect human rights? While existing research emphasizes regime type, state capacity, and domestic and international constraints, the role of civil society remains underexamined. Drawing on social movement and civil society approaches, this study links illiberal movements to human rights outcomes through democratic backsliding. I argue that these movements indirectly undermine rights by weakening democratic safeguards. Using a two-stage least squares (2SLS) design and original data on 41 European democracies (1995–2020), I show that illiberal movements increase democratic backsliding, which in turn erodes human rights protections. This effect is particularly pronounced under sympathetic right-wing governments.

This study examines how social movements get suppressed, with a particular focus on the role that liberal democracies play in enabling repression beyond their own borders. It identifies two ways this happens. Liberal democracies can lend legitimacy to repressive governments through symbolic or performative diplomacy, and they can provide material support that makes repression possible. This contributes to social movement theory by showing that repression extends beyond direct government action to involve the indirect complicity of liberal democracies. To explore these dynamics, the study focuses on the Gezi Park Movement, a major wave of activism in contemporary Türkiye, a hybrid regime that is characterized by features of both democracy and authoritarianism. Drawing on documentary evidence, survey data, and a protest event analysis, it traces how repression operated through both the hybrid regime environment and the involvement of liberal democracies. The study also draws lessons from the Gezi experience for other movements. These include anticipating repression that comes from unexpected or indirect sources and managing international attention carefully, as well as building strong internal coordination, setting realistic and incremental goals, and communicating with a clear and consistent message.