Realising Rights: How Regional Organisations Socialise Human Rights by Mathew Davies

Author:Mathew Davies [Davies, Mathew]
Language: eng
Format: epub
Tags: International Relations, Political Science, General, History & Theory
ISBN: 9781317631484
Google: BTKDBAAAQBAJ
Goodreads: 28024501
Publisher: Routledge
Published: 2014-09-15T00:00:00+00:00

Regional oversight and the failure of democratic protection, 1978–90

Which was more important in explaining the failure of socialisation between 1951 and 1978, the established social meaning of membership, or the lack of social influence strategies between the OAS and Panama? Could an activist and engaged OAS have overridden the established social meaning and forced Panama to live up to its commitments? An examination of the period 1978–90 reveals that it could not. For the first time, one can see a detailed OAS interest in Panama. It is illustrative that this interest did not take the form of a court case; rather, it can be found in the extension of the IACHR’s work in the form of investigation. Here, socialisation was for the first time clearly intended, and we can discern the two social influence politics – explicitly rhetorical action similar to that we encountered in the study of ASEAN and, new to our discussion, an attempt to ‘name and shame’ Panama through the public dissemination of information about its domestic standards. However, neither process was successful; the events under Manuel Noriega in the late 1980s were clear testimony to that. Indeed, the OAS was ineffective in responding to that crisis, and it was only with the US-led intervention of 1989 that democracy was restored.

OAS socialisation pressure, 1978–90: Social influence takes the lead

The nature of the OAS interest in Panama in this period rests on the publication, and content, of the reports of the IACHR. The 1978 and 1989 country reports on Panama promoted two, related socialisation processes. First, and echoing the process of rhetorical action seen previously in the ASEAN study, the reports presented discrete ‘recommendations’ that outlined the direction of change that should occur in order to bring Panama ‘up’ to regional standards. For example, the 1978 report concluded with recommendations calling for nine reforms, from judiciary independence to greater adherence to international norms (IACHR 1978: Conclusions).7 The 1989 report was more specific, and explicitly linked Panamanian future behaviour to Article 13 of the American Convention on Human Rights (IACHR 1989: Conclusions and Recommendations, Article 8). The OAS was not engaged in a process of free debate where actors sought to persuade each other. Instead, these recommendations were truth statements, put forward as correct and not negotiable, the provision of which were designed to censure Panama and provide it with a model of what ‘correct’ future behaviour resembles.

Second, we can discern a new socialisation process by the very fact that the reports were published. They represent an attempt to disseminate information regarding the shortcomings of Panamanian standards on freedom of expression. Here we meet what was framed as a naming and shaming approach in Chapter 2. At this time, the IACHR was not tasked with the direct enforcement of rights. Its mandate, to monitor and supply information, did not provide any ability to articulate, or enforce, sanctions, though, as noted, it was able to make recommendations. Rather, the IACHR was engaged with the indirect promotion of human rights observance.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.