The article discusses two primary methods of enforcing human rights norms: economic sanctions or military intervention, and moral pressure through forceful condemnation. While powerful nations may use the former, the latter is accessible to non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and smaller nations. Despite the challenge posed by state sovereignty, moral pressure can sometimes compel governments to adhere to human rights standards.

The Role of Moral Pressure

Moral pressure, particularly through "naming and shaming," can be a potent tool for enforcing human rights norms. However, authoritarian regimes, such as those in Russia, China, and North Korea, often ignore such condemnations. Moreover, some nations that advocate for human rights may do so with ulterior political or economic motives, which can undermine the credibility of their stance.

Impact of Naming and Shaming

The article highlights the work of Rochelle Terman, a scholar on human rights, who has explored the effectiveness of naming and shaming in her study, “The Geopolitics of Shaming: When Human Rights Pressure Works — and When It Backfires” (Princeton 2024). Terman''s research suggests that naming and shaming can be effective in certain contexts, leading to tangible improvements in human rights. The article provides examples of how such campaigns have led to policy changes, the release of political prisoners, and the prosecution of dictators.

The Limitations of Naming and Shaming

Despite its successes, naming and shaming is not always effective. Some governments may resist or deny the allegations, or make only superficial changes. The article cites Israel as an example where global condemnation has had little impact on its leadership. However, the persistence of such campaigns can lead to increased international scrutiny and pressure for reform.

The Conundrum in International Law

The article raises a critical question: Is naming and shaming an effective strategy? While it can put violators in the spotlight, the efficacy of moral sanctions is debatable, especially when more forceful measures like economic sanctions or military intervention fail. The article argues that human rights must emerge from within a nation’s social and democratic institutions, rather than being imposed externally.

The Role of the State in Upholding Human Rights

The state has a crucial role in upholding human rights. The article emphasizes the need for states to view the protection of human rights as a binding and sacred duty. It also suggests that when the state fails to protect human rights, resistance movements gain legitimacy. A repression-free state that respects human rights is essential for ensuring equal treatment and justice.

Achieving Human Rights in Liberal Modernity

The article concludes by discussing the challenges and successes of implementing human rights in the context of liberal modernity. It argues that human rights can only be truly upheld when they are central to the political ideology of the ruling parties. This requires the establishment of strong institutions that align with democratic norms and the protection of basic human rights.

Conclusion

The article underscores the importance of establishing the centrality of human rights in an increasingly volatile world. This is particularly crucial in liberal systems, where human rights are essential for stability and public welfare. The success of such efforts depends on the mobilization of political coalitions, institutional arrangements, and political ideologies that prioritize human rights. However, in authoritarian regimes, the focus remains on maintaining power, often at the expense of human rights.