Abstract
Transnational advocacy networks (TANs) have promoted norms of universal human rights as well as individual criminal accountability as answers to atrocities. This paper explores in what ways principles of individualization and universalism have shaped global systems of human rights protection. The study contrasts the institutional evolution of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the legally-binding Genocide Convention (GC), and investigates how the transnational human rights movement and its principles have shaped international responses to genocides in Cambodia and Rwanda. The paper argues that individualism and universalism have pushed the UDHR into the center of framing human rights issues (including TAN missions), while limiting the role of the group-focused GC in shaping responses to atrocities. This explanation complements existing studies explaining variation in treaty commitments focusing primarily on domestic-level attributes or the substance of treaty obligations. Rather than regime type or costs of compliance, this paper highlights how the international community has come to understand bodily harm primarily within an individualistic and universal frame. While the language of individual rights generates powerful normative mobilization, it generates a particular lens of understanding bodily harm.
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call