Great powers have been considered to be comparatively resistant against international human rights pressures; given their little vulnerability, they seem to brush aside international criticism easily. It is thus even more remarkable, that they sometimes react – contrary to expectations - on international criticism not only by trying to stop it, but also by giving in to international pressure. But what are the success conditions of international human rights criticism? Could naming and shaming coerce powerful states towards the compliance of relevant human rights norms?
PRIF Study No. 31 “Internationale Menschenrechtskritik an Großmächten. Die Macht der Worte am Beispiel Russlands und der USA” by Konstanze Jüngling contributes to the phenomenon of social vulnerability of great powers by examining two interview-based case studies – the Russian human rights violation in Chechnya and U.S. norm violations on the “war on terror”. The study confirms that great powers are – under certain circumstances – socially vulnerable for international human rights criticism as this critique poses an assault on the great powers’ power and identity. For criticism to be successful, the characteristics of criticism, the senders and addressees of criticism as well as its interplay with domestic pressures turn out to be crucial. The study gives an insight into promising strategies of dealing with powerful states.
This PRIF Study is available at Nomos publishing house. It is the slightly revised and shortened version of the author’s PhD thesis.