Moving the Needle: Recommendation Precision and Compliance with Women’s Rights Recommendations

IF 2.4 1区 社会学 Q1 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS International Studies Quarterly Pub Date : 2024-12-28 DOI:10.1093/isq/sqae155
Jillienne Haglund, Courtney Hillebrecht
{"title":"Moving the Needle: Recommendation Precision and Compliance with Women’s Rights Recommendations","authors":"Jillienne Haglund, Courtney Hillebrecht","doi":"10.1093/isq/sqae155","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"s International human rights institutions impose obligations on their member states that extend long past the ratification stage. Each year, states receive tens, or even hundreds, of recommendations from international human rights bodies. These recommendations demand that states change their human rights policies and practices. While recent scholarship has emphasized the important role of domestic institutions and civil society actors in facilitating compliance with these recommendations, comparatively little research examines how the quality of the recommendations themselves affects compliance outcomes. Using two novel datasets, this paper sets out to understand the nexus between recommendation quality and compliance. Our research suggests that highly precise recommendations move the needle away from inaction on international human rights institutions’ rulings and recommendations but make full compliance more difficult. This paper advances the existing literature on the dynamics of compliance and places some of the responsibility for compliance on the international human rights institutions themselves.","PeriodicalId":48313,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Quarterly","volume":"164 9 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Studies Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqae155","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

s International human rights institutions impose obligations on their member states that extend long past the ratification stage. Each year, states receive tens, or even hundreds, of recommendations from international human rights bodies. These recommendations demand that states change their human rights policies and practices. While recent scholarship has emphasized the important role of domestic institutions and civil society actors in facilitating compliance with these recommendations, comparatively little research examines how the quality of the recommendations themselves affects compliance outcomes. Using two novel datasets, this paper sets out to understand the nexus between recommendation quality and compliance. Our research suggests that highly precise recommendations move the needle away from inaction on international human rights institutions’ rulings and recommendations but make full compliance more difficult. This paper advances the existing literature on the dynamics of compliance and places some of the responsibility for compliance on the international human rights institutions themselves.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
移动指针:建议的精确性和对妇女权利建议的遵守
国际人权机构对其成员国施加的义务远远超过了批准阶段。每年,各国都会收到国际人权机构提出的数十项甚至数百项建议。这些建议要求各国改变其人权政策和做法。虽然最近的学术研究强调了国内机构和民间社会行为者在促进遵守这些建议方面的重要作用,但相对较少的研究审查了建议本身的质量如何影响遵守结果。使用两个新的数据集,本文开始理解推荐质量和依从性之间的关系。我们的研究表明,高度精确的建议使人们不再对国际人权机构的裁决和建议不作为,但却使完全遵守更加困难。本文推进了关于遵守动态的现有文献,并将遵守的一些责任推给了国际人权机构本身。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
7.70%
发文量
71
期刊介绍: International Studies Quarterly, the official journal of the International Studies Association, seeks to acquaint a broad audience of readers with the best work being done in the variety of intellectual traditions included under the rubric of international studies. Therefore, the editors welcome all submissions addressing this community"s theoretical, empirical, and normative concerns. First preference will continue to be given to articles that address and contribute to important disciplinary and interdisciplinary questions and controversies.
期刊最新文献
Entangled Narratives: Insights from Social and Computer Sciences on National Artificial Intelligence Infrastructures “Peacekeeping Proneness”: Which Type of International System Is Most Likely to Enhance the Supply of Peacekeepers? Who Reviews Whom, Where, and Why? Evidence from the Peer Review Process of the OECD Development Assistance Committee Can States Be Interviewed? Moving the Needle: Recommendation Precision and Compliance with Women’s Rights Recommendations
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1