Pub Date : 2023-07-13DOI: 10.1080/14754835.2023.2227204
Krystal Batelaan
Abstract COVID-19 has been unprecedented in many ways, including the drastic changes to the activities and behaviors that shape our everyday lives, particularly the practice of physical distancing and self-isolation. Moreover, the pandemic has highlighted the damaging effects of going “stir crazy,” loneliness, and the restrictions on people’s civil liberties, as demonstrated by the impact that self-isolation is having on people’s mental health and well-being. However, the science behind self-isolation and quarantine is designed to prevent the spread of disease and to save lives. Meanwhile, prisoners and prisoner’s rights advocates have long been arguing that the curtailment of civil liberties in prisons, especially the use of solitary confinement, is a human rights violation and is intentionally designed to be punitive and proven to have devastating effects on one’s mental (and physiological) health. Therefore, the COVID-19 pandemic has helped to highlight the need to revisit the practice of solitary confinement in prisons. In this article, by using Orlando Patterson’s theory on social death, I will examine the practice of solitary confinement, and the detrimental impact it has on one’s health amid this “new normal.”
{"title":"“It’s like living in a black hole”: Reevaluating the use of solitary confinement during COVID-19","authors":"Krystal Batelaan","doi":"10.1080/14754835.2023.2227204","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14754835.2023.2227204","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract COVID-19 has been unprecedented in many ways, including the drastic changes to the activities and behaviors that shape our everyday lives, particularly the practice of physical distancing and self-isolation. Moreover, the pandemic has highlighted the damaging effects of going “stir crazy,” loneliness, and the restrictions on people’s civil liberties, as demonstrated by the impact that self-isolation is having on people’s mental health and well-being. However, the science behind self-isolation and quarantine is designed to prevent the spread of disease and to save lives. Meanwhile, prisoners and prisoner’s rights advocates have long been arguing that the curtailment of civil liberties in prisons, especially the use of solitary confinement, is a human rights violation and is intentionally designed to be punitive and proven to have devastating effects on one’s mental (and physiological) health. Therefore, the COVID-19 pandemic has helped to highlight the need to revisit the practice of solitary confinement in prisons. In this article, by using Orlando Patterson’s theory on social death, I will examine the practice of solitary confinement, and the detrimental impact it has on one’s health amid this “new normal.”","PeriodicalId":51734,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Human Rights","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2023-07-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43613037","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-07-07DOI: 10.1080/14754835.2023.2227206
Rhoda E. Howard-hassmann
{"title":"Human rights, human goods, universality, and colonialism","authors":"Rhoda E. Howard-hassmann","doi":"10.1080/14754835.2023.2227206","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14754835.2023.2227206","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51734,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Human Rights","volume":"22 1","pages":"580 - 587"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2023-07-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48638538","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-05-12DOI: 10.1080/14754835.2023.2199025
Sharon Jayoung Song
Abstract This article seeks to analyze the aftereffects of the #MeToo movement to measure the efficacy of digital feminism. Perhaps the most recognizable outcome of the #MeToo movement is forcing a once-taboo subject of workplace sexual harassment into the limelight. The digital phenomenon prompted federal and state courts across the United States to navigate a seemingly new terrain of contributing to broader institutional change in reducing sexism. Yet, four years after the two-word hashtag ricocheted through social media, one pressing question remains: Did the benefits of the #MeToo movement produce changes for female workers in the United States most vulnerable to facing gender-based violence or harassment in the workplace? The study first identifies the factors that often put women at greater risk of sexual harassment in the workplace and determines women in authority and low-wage workers as victims who may be more frequent targets. The article explores the question of gender violence and a lack of access to economic rights as being two sides of the same coin. The research then surveys how governments—in the post-#MeToo era—have attempted to improve gender equality through legal obligations, and whether their attempts were effective in targeting the correct groups.
{"title":"Digital feminism: In the aftermath of #MeToo, what’s next for workplace equity for women?","authors":"Sharon Jayoung Song","doi":"10.1080/14754835.2023.2199025","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14754835.2023.2199025","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article seeks to analyze the aftereffects of the #MeToo movement to measure the efficacy of digital feminism. Perhaps the most recognizable outcome of the #MeToo movement is forcing a once-taboo subject of workplace sexual harassment into the limelight. The digital phenomenon prompted federal and state courts across the United States to navigate a seemingly new terrain of contributing to broader institutional change in reducing sexism. Yet, four years after the two-word hashtag ricocheted through social media, one pressing question remains: Did the benefits of the #MeToo movement produce changes for female workers in the United States most vulnerable to facing gender-based violence or harassment in the workplace? The study first identifies the factors that often put women at greater risk of sexual harassment in the workplace and determines women in authority and low-wage workers as victims who may be more frequent targets. The article explores the question of gender violence and a lack of access to economic rights as being two sides of the same coin. The research then surveys how governments—in the post-#MeToo era—have attempted to improve gender equality through legal obligations, and whether their attempts were effective in targeting the correct groups.","PeriodicalId":51734,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Human Rights","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2023-05-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48376913","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-05-01DOI: 10.1080/14754835.2023.2190747
J. Alemán
Abstract What makes some authoritarian regimes more willing to employ extrajudicial violence (torture and killings), as opposed to more conventional forms of repression (restrictions on speech and association)? A voluminous literature addresses the causes and dynamics of state repression. Whereas large-N studies explain repressive activities as proportional responses to the challenges governments face, historical work reveals instances of disproportionate repression. This literature, moreover, is inconclusive regarding the effects of communist and military regimes on violations of physical integrity rights. Another shortcoming of current work is that different types of repression are modeled separately. I distinguish between oppression (restrictions on speech), repression (the use of beatings, arrests, and trials to restrain the rights of assembly and association), and state terrorism (when governments intimidate political opponents using extrajudicial violence). I examine the relationships among them in a multivariate regression framework from 1952 to 2010. My analysis reveals that communist dictatorships repress the freedoms of expression, travel, and association, whereas military dictatorships engage in extrajudicial violence. My study contributes to the literature by providing an institutional account of why tactics of repression differ between these two political systems, and by considering the effects of temporal lags, endogeneity, and diffusion processes on state repression.
{"title":"The dictator’s dilemma: Why communist regimes oppress their citizens while military regimes torture and kill","authors":"J. Alemán","doi":"10.1080/14754835.2023.2190747","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14754835.2023.2190747","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract What makes some authoritarian regimes more willing to employ extrajudicial violence (torture and killings), as opposed to more conventional forms of repression (restrictions on speech and association)? A voluminous literature addresses the causes and dynamics of state repression. Whereas large-N studies explain repressive activities as proportional responses to the challenges governments face, historical work reveals instances of disproportionate repression. This literature, moreover, is inconclusive regarding the effects of communist and military regimes on violations of physical integrity rights. Another shortcoming of current work is that different types of repression are modeled separately. I distinguish between oppression (restrictions on speech), repression (the use of beatings, arrests, and trials to restrain the rights of assembly and association), and state terrorism (when governments intimidate political opponents using extrajudicial violence). I examine the relationships among them in a multivariate regression framework from 1952 to 2010. My analysis reveals that communist dictatorships repress the freedoms of expression, travel, and association, whereas military dictatorships engage in extrajudicial violence. My study contributes to the literature by providing an institutional account of why tactics of repression differ between these two political systems, and by considering the effects of temporal lags, endogeneity, and diffusion processes on state repression.","PeriodicalId":51734,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Human Rights","volume":"22 1","pages":"284 - 306"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49061583","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-04-24DOI: 10.1080/14754835.2023.2193971
Alexander Dukalskis
Abstract Decades of social science research on human rights has mapped the conditions under which states sign and ratify treaties, abide by their conditions, and promote or criticize human rights in other states. Some norms contained in the core human rights treaties, particularly civil and political rights, are seen by authoritarian states as politically threatening. Autocracies can reshape human rights through international institutions and seek to change their content over time. This article investigates China’s engagement in the UN Human Rights Council, focusing on both the content and practices of the People’s Republic of China’s approach. In terms of content, it examines China’s voting record to determine the issues it prioritizes. In terms of practices, it identifies four modes of pursuing normative change: mobilizing like-mindedness, implied coercion, tactical deception, and repression of critical voices. These modes capture a range of activity in and around multilateral institutions, some of which usually does not draw scholarly attention in studies of normative change. The findings provide insights into the future of human rights norms in the United Nations and beyond.
{"title":"A fox in the henhouse: China, normative change, and the UN Human Rights Council","authors":"Alexander Dukalskis","doi":"10.1080/14754835.2023.2193971","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14754835.2023.2193971","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Decades of social science research on human rights has mapped the conditions under which states sign and ratify treaties, abide by their conditions, and promote or criticize human rights in other states. Some norms contained in the core human rights treaties, particularly civil and political rights, are seen by authoritarian states as politically threatening. Autocracies can reshape human rights through international institutions and seek to change their content over time. This article investigates China’s engagement in the UN Human Rights Council, focusing on both the content and practices of the People’s Republic of China’s approach. In terms of content, it examines China’s voting record to determine the issues it prioritizes. In terms of practices, it identifies four modes of pursuing normative change: mobilizing like-mindedness, implied coercion, tactical deception, and repression of critical voices. These modes capture a range of activity in and around multilateral institutions, some of which usually does not draw scholarly attention in studies of normative change. The findings provide insights into the future of human rights norms in the United Nations and beyond.","PeriodicalId":51734,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Human Rights","volume":"22 1","pages":"334 - 350"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2023-04-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45065958","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-02-23DOI: 10.1080/14754835.2023.2173003
Priyamvada Yarnell
Abstract Despite being found guilty of atrocity crimes, 54 of the 90 perpetrators sentenced by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) were granted unconditional early release (UER) between 1998 and 2018. As such, they were free to return, often to be greeted as heroes by welcoming crowds. Some high-profile figures rejected the ICTY’s verdict, such as Biljana Plavšić, asserting that she had done “nothing wrong.” This article sets out how the Tribunal thwarted an expressive value it had purported to achieve through trying and sentencing some of the most egregious crimes known to humankind when they granted UER. This expressive value was an authoritative stigmatization of the perpetrators and their crimes. This perceived destigmatization had, in turn, the capacity to be manipulated by political elites, in an ethnically divided, postconflict society, to challenge the historical record of the atrocities in the former Yugoslavia between 1991 and 2001. This article analyzes the societal ramifications of UER, as it examines local reactions to UER that emerged from 51 interviews conducted in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH). In January 2019, this practice changed and conditions were attached to early release. Nevertheless, the negative repercussions caused by UER over 18 years provide an important lesson for other ICTs.
{"title":"“Adding fuel to the fire”: Unconditional early release of perpetrators convicted by the ICTY, views from Bosnia and Herzegovina","authors":"Priyamvada Yarnell","doi":"10.1080/14754835.2023.2173003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14754835.2023.2173003","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Despite being found guilty of atrocity crimes, 54 of the 90 perpetrators sentenced by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) were granted unconditional early release (UER) between 1998 and 2018. As such, they were free to return, often to be greeted as heroes by welcoming crowds. Some high-profile figures rejected the ICTY’s verdict, such as Biljana Plavšić, asserting that she had done “nothing wrong.” This article sets out how the Tribunal thwarted an expressive value it had purported to achieve through trying and sentencing some of the most egregious crimes known to humankind when they granted UER. This expressive value was an authoritative stigmatization of the perpetrators and their crimes. This perceived destigmatization had, in turn, the capacity to be manipulated by political elites, in an ethnically divided, postconflict society, to challenge the historical record of the atrocities in the former Yugoslavia between 1991 and 2001. This article analyzes the societal ramifications of UER, as it examines local reactions to UER that emerged from 51 interviews conducted in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH). In January 2019, this practice changed and conditions were attached to early release. Nevertheless, the negative repercussions caused by UER over 18 years provide an important lesson for other ICTs.","PeriodicalId":51734,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Human Rights","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2023-02-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43823560","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-02-15DOI: 10.1080/14754835.2023.2170709
M. Van Hout, J. Wessels
Abstract In 2021, an estimated 3.95 million foreign nationals resided in South Africa, with no data available on numbers of displaced persons or undocumented migrants residing without legal or valid immigration status. Surveillance data on immigration detention are scant. We present a socio-legal account of the historical evolution of South African immigration detention regulation in post-apartheid timeframes, with a view to providing a legal realist assessment of the socio- and politico-legal dimensions pertinent to human rights assurances of immigration detainees in South Africa. The realist focus is on scrutinizing South Africa’s progress in upholding the rights of immigration detainees and illustrating the contemporary complexities in ensuring due process in the (co)application of the Immigration Act (and Refugees Act) explicitly regarding immigration detention processes and practices. We present the applicable international and regional African human rights treaties, domestic regulations, and relevant jurisprudence to the rights of immigration detainees in South Africa. The generated realist narrative is cognizant of the contextual forces of migration into South Africa, securitization agendas, and violations of basic human rights and due process, and illustrates various gaps in the application of domestic laws, policies, and standards of care regarding immigration detention when evaluated against the rule of law.
{"title":"#ForeignersMustGo versus “in favorem libertatis”: Human rights violations and procedural irregularities in South African immigration detention law","authors":"M. Van Hout, J. Wessels","doi":"10.1080/14754835.2023.2170709","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14754835.2023.2170709","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In 2021, an estimated 3.95 million foreign nationals resided in South Africa, with no data available on numbers of displaced persons or undocumented migrants residing without legal or valid immigration status. Surveillance data on immigration detention are scant. We present a socio-legal account of the historical evolution of South African immigration detention regulation in post-apartheid timeframes, with a view to providing a legal realist assessment of the socio- and politico-legal dimensions pertinent to human rights assurances of immigration detainees in South Africa. The realist focus is on scrutinizing South Africa’s progress in upholding the rights of immigration detainees and illustrating the contemporary complexities in ensuring due process in the (co)application of the Immigration Act (and Refugees Act) explicitly regarding immigration detention processes and practices. We present the applicable international and regional African human rights treaties, domestic regulations, and relevant jurisprudence to the rights of immigration detainees in South Africa. The generated realist narrative is cognizant of the contextual forces of migration into South Africa, securitization agendas, and violations of basic human rights and due process, and illustrates various gaps in the application of domestic laws, policies, and standards of care regarding immigration detention when evaluated against the rule of law.","PeriodicalId":51734,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Human Rights","volume":"22 1","pages":"541 - 562"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2023-02-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46610636","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-02-13DOI: 10.1080/14754835.2023.2170708
Douaa Sheet
Abstract This article argues that conceptions of time are undertheorized in human rights studies and that such conceptions have a significant impact on how people participate in systems of justice. Within the context of the transitional justice process launched in Tunisia in the aftermath of the 2011 Arab Spring—a context deeply shaped by an Islamist/secular divide—I examine how competing notions of time led to opposing modes of participation in reparative justice. Specifically, I analyze the Islamic principle thawāb (reward in the afterlife for suffering experienced on earth) as a theological notion of time and show how it structured Islamist victims’ participation in reparations measures. Observing that critiques of reparative justice have developed through a strictly secular notion of time, this article foregrounds Islamic concepts that are still underrepresented in such studies, particularly Islamic notions of time and the afterlife. I argue that thawāb contests the universalism of the secular, linear notion of past-present-future dominant in human rights and transitional justice studies.
{"title":"On conceptions of time in human rights studies: The afterlife, Islam, and reparative justice in post-uprising Tunisia","authors":"Douaa Sheet","doi":"10.1080/14754835.2023.2170708","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14754835.2023.2170708","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article argues that conceptions of time are undertheorized in human rights studies and that such conceptions have a significant impact on how people participate in systems of justice. Within the context of the transitional justice process launched in Tunisia in the aftermath of the 2011 Arab Spring—a context deeply shaped by an Islamist/secular divide—I examine how competing notions of time led to opposing modes of participation in reparative justice. Specifically, I analyze the Islamic principle thawāb (reward in the afterlife for suffering experienced on earth) as a theological notion of time and show how it structured Islamist victims’ participation in reparations measures. Observing that critiques of reparative justice have developed through a strictly secular notion of time, this article foregrounds Islamic concepts that are still underrepresented in such studies, particularly Islamic notions of time and the afterlife. I argue that thawāb contests the universalism of the secular, linear notion of past-present-future dominant in human rights and transitional justice studies.","PeriodicalId":51734,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Human Rights","volume":"22 1","pages":"524 - 540"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2023-02-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46589681","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-02-10DOI: 10.1080/14754835.2023.2173002
Timothy Longman
Abstract Rwanda has been a focus of substantial scholarly attention, but recent regulations there have made conducting research increasingly challenging. Four books from diverse disciplines show that, despite the ways in which the authoritarian context places constraints on what research can be undertaken and how it can be done, solid scholarship on Rwanda can continue to be produced. They also show that the 1994 genocide against the Tutsi remains the focal point of nearly every book on the country, even those focused on society since 1994.
{"title":"Researching under constraints: Recent books on post-genocide Rwanda","authors":"Timothy Longman","doi":"10.1080/14754835.2023.2173002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14754835.2023.2173002","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Rwanda has been a focus of substantial scholarly attention, but recent regulations there have made conducting research increasingly challenging. Four books from diverse disciplines show that, despite the ways in which the authoritarian context places constraints on what research can be undertaken and how it can be done, solid scholarship on Rwanda can continue to be produced. They also show that the 1994 genocide against the Tutsi remains the focal point of nearly every book on the country, even those focused on society since 1994.","PeriodicalId":51734,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Human Rights","volume":"22 1","pages":"425 - 430"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2023-02-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45542268","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-27DOI: 10.1080/14754835.2022.2151834
Jonathan A. Solis, Kelebogile Zvobgo
Abstract A free and independent press monitors government actions, broadcasts public grievances, and facilitates debate and dissent among citizens. Because of this, some executives run interference—censoring newspapers, harassing journalists, and shutting down media outlets—whereas other executives do not. What explains this variation? We argue that executives decide to repress or to respect the press based on the sanctions they anticipate from two important constituencies: courts and citizens. We expect that attacks are less likely when courts can make adverse rulings and when citizens can vote leaders out of office. In addition, we suggest that these constraints can function as substitutes; we anticipate the reductive effect of judicial independence wanes as the level of electoral democracy rises, making courts vital to protecting journalists in less democratic systems. We evaluate these expectations using panel data on executive branch attacks on the press in 175 countries, from 1949 to 2016, and find strong support.
{"title":"Defending the watchdogs: How citizens and courts protect the press","authors":"Jonathan A. Solis, Kelebogile Zvobgo","doi":"10.1080/14754835.2022.2151834","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14754835.2022.2151834","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract A free and independent press monitors government actions, broadcasts public grievances, and facilitates debate and dissent among citizens. Because of this, some executives run interference—censoring newspapers, harassing journalists, and shutting down media outlets—whereas other executives do not. What explains this variation? We argue that executives decide to repress or to respect the press based on the sanctions they anticipate from two important constituencies: courts and citizens. We expect that attacks are less likely when courts can make adverse rulings and when citizens can vote leaders out of office. In addition, we suggest that these constraints can function as substitutes; we anticipate the reductive effect of judicial independence wanes as the level of electoral democracy rises, making courts vital to protecting journalists in less democratic systems. We evaluate these expectations using panel data on executive branch attacks on the press in 175 countries, from 1949 to 2016, and find strong support.","PeriodicalId":51734,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Human Rights","volume":"22 1","pages":"367 - 385"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2023-01-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44419972","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：