Persuading Iran: Measuring Hawkins’ Norms
Human Rights in the Middle East Bachelor Thesis Vincent Coppola s1484931 01-07-2019 Word Count: 7992
Contents
1. Introduction 3
2. Theoretical Framework 4
Persuasion: a review 4
When does persuasion take place? 4
Converting international theories to domestic policy 6 Research question, gaps in the literature and puzzle 7
3. Methodology 8
Sub-questions 8
Definition and operationalization of persuasion 8
Data sources 10
Validity of the research 11
4. Results 13
5. Conclusion and Discussion 16
1. Introduction
“Why do states create international human rights norms that empower third parties to prevent and sanction domestic human rights abuses?” (Hawkins, 2004). The answer that Darren Hawkins formulated to this question fifteen years ago, regards the power of persuasion. He moved beyond the simple idea that “communication matters”, and argues that states tend to be persuaded into creating international institutions when persuasive attempts that are being used draw on three universal taken-for-granted norms. These norms consist of prohibitions on bodily harm, the importance of precedent in decision making, and the link between
cooperation and progress (Hawkins, 2004). However, Hawkins focuses mainly on the effects of these norms at the level of state interactions. The key puzzle of my research, on the other hand, will be on examining the effects of internationally performed persuasive attempts at a domestic level.
To solve this puzzle, I will look at an international human rights treaty, and the effects that related persuasive attempts have had on domestic policy-making. For my research, I have chosen to examine what effects internationally performed persuasive attempts regarding the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child article 37(a), may have had on the amendments to the Iranian Islamic Penal Code in 2012. These amendments could be seen as a response to international criticism on the Iranian policy of executing juvenile offenders. The revisions that have been made changed the criminal responsibility of children according to the Iranian Islamic Penal Code (Nayyeri, 2012). The purpose of this research is to find out which actors played a role in adapting the domestic law, and to what extent internationally
performed persuasion effectively took place during this process. Consequently, I formulated the subsequent key research question: “In which way did persuasion, related to article 37(a) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, influence the process leading to the amendments to the Iranian Islamic Penal Code in 2012?”.
The outcomes of this thesis provide an opportunity to advance the understanding of converting internationally performed persuasive attempts to a national level. The translation of international attempts to a domestic scale, is a gap in the most important theory for this essay. Furthermore, the results of my study could provide new insights in the approach and procedure of formulating assessments of human rights situations. This could benefit the ambition of effectively improving human situations in all countries and address human rights violations wherever they occur.
The outcomes of my research were, however, narrower than I expected. In short, the results of my study pointed out one very dominant norm in the internationally performed persuasive attempts. The results were contrary to my hopes of analyzing multiple taken-for-granted norms, but did not keep me from thoroughly evaluating the process regarding the amendments of the Iranian Islamic Penal Code.
This study is organized as follows. It begins with a review on Hawkins’ theory of persuasion and the diffusion of international norms. Then, I present the gap in current literature and the related research question. Subsequently, I formulate my sub-questions, operationalization of persuasion and data sources. After specifying the validity and methodological concerns, I present my results, conclusions and suggestions for further research.
2. Theoretical Framework
Persuasion: a review
According to constructivist theorist Jeffrey Checkel, persuasion may be defined as “a social process of interaction that involves changing attitudes about cause and effect in the absence of overt coercion. It is thus a mechanism through which preference change may occur. More formally, it is an activity or process in which a communicator attempts to induce a change in the belief, attitude, or behavior of another person ... through the transmission of a message in a context in which the persuadee has some degree of free choice.” (Checkel, 2001). Here, persuasion is not an act of manipulation, but a process of convincing actors while making use of arguments and principled debate (Checkel, 2001).
Checkels’ definition of persuasion is typical for the constructivist school within the discipline of international relations. Two generally accepted aspects of constructivism, formulated by Alexander Wendt (1999), relate to Checkels’ description. In the first place, Wendt mentions that the structures of human associations are determined above all by shared ideas instead of material forces. Furthermore, the identities and interests of the considered actors are constructed by these shared ideas, instead of their given nature (Wendt, 1999).
Darren Hawkins associates his own theory on persuasion to the constructivist school. In his model, he elaborates on the role of communication and persuasion. A central part of his study is the content of the arguments that are being used in persuasive attempts, rather than state power or exogenous state interests (Hawkins, 2004). By formulating his theory, Hawkins challenges the realist- and liberal traditions of international relations. These approaches highlight, respectively, the power of states, and the domestic political circumstances (Krasner, 1993, Hawkins, 2004).
Hawkins’ theory relates to the constructivist assumption that the interests of states can sometimes be uncertain, and that they can be developed over time through processes of communication and persuasion. By developing a causal mechanism on persuasion based on the content of the arguments used in internationally persuasive attempts, Hawkins provides us with an applicable means of forecasting the effects of persuasive attempts. He illustrates how persuasion provides a “superior explanation for the incorporation of an enforcement
mechanism in a key global human rights treaty” (Hawkins, 2004). When does persuasion take place?
Since decades, research agendas in political science, sociology and legal studies continue to be concerned with the question why states would sign treaties and obey international law (Koh, 1997). Although early studies demonstrated that human rights treaties, by themselves, were ineffective or even counterproductive, many countries signed and ratified international treaties (Cole, 2015). Darren Hawkins (2004) tried to solve this puzzle by pointing out that states tend to be persuaded by three taken-for-granted norms. These norms would help answer the question why states create enforceable human rights institutions that empower third
parties to prevent and sanction domestic human rights abuses (Hawkins, 2004). The norms Hawkins names concern prohibitions on bodily harm, the importance of precedent in decision making, and the link between cooperation and progress. Hawkins points out that, if at least one of these three taken-for-granted norms are being used in persuasive attempts, states tend to be persuaded.
Persuasion could in this way be seen as a form of power as a means by which one actor makes another actor do something it otherwise would not do, but does not rely on promises of material rewards or threats of punishment (Walsh, 1996). Persuasion is often associated with constructivist theories that suggest that state interests are sometimes uncertain and can be formed over time through processes of communication and persuasion (Hawkins,
2004). These ideas are contrary to rationalist approaches, which emphasize coercion, cost-benefit calculations and material incentives (Checkel, 2001).
According to Hawkins, persuasion occurs mostly when three taken-for-granted norms are used for persuasion in international discourse. These dominant understandings concern the value of protection from bodily harm, the role of precedent in decision making, and the
importance of international cooperation to resolve widespread social problems. Countries are likely to be persuaded into signing a treaty and creating international institutions when one of these subjects is used in a persuasive attempt. According to Hawkins, “no government would wish to give the impression of preventing or obstructing the successful termination of the work on a stronger protection of fundamental human rights”, when one of his taken-for-granted norms is used in persuasive attempts. (Hawkins, 2004).
Hawkins’ theory concerns the behavior of states in an international playing field. The central argument draws on actions of states, as a reaction to other states in the international community. Drafting an international treaty, he argues, is a process that provides a setting in which persuasion can take place. State delegates present and deliberate the pros and cons of variations in wording through a fundamentally communicative process. In these situations, two preconditions must exist for an argumentative reality to prevail: a common lifeworld, and relative equality among the participants (Risse, 2000). These preconditions are often shared by the experts who represent their states at international negotiating forums (Hawkins, 2004). Despite their different cultural traditions, international experts share similarities regarding their educational and professional backgrounds, shared commitments to the ideal of
international cooperation, and acceptance of the procedural rules. The second precondition, relative equality, results from the condition that the organizational rules of institutions are independent to state power. An example is the principle of one state, one vote. Thus, international organizations are quite nonhierarchical and lack sharp differences in levels of authority among the participants (Hawkins, 2004). This creates a favorable climate for persuasion to thrive.
According to Hawkins’ theory, a result of successful persuasion is the creation of costly international norms and institutions that empower third parties to prevent and sanction human rights abuses. Contrary to rationalist beliefs, that focus on cost-benefit analyses, many countries still prefer the creation of international institutions. From these institutions,
international enforcement may take place. In my research, international enforcement will be defined as “a formal agreement among states that delegate authority to third parties to take adversarial, compulsory power against states or state agents that are violating international rules, or are suspected of such violations” (Abbott, 2000). Actors performing enforcement could be other states, intergovernmental organizations (IGO’s) or nonstate organizations either at the international or domestic levels (Hawkins, 2004).
So, as we have seen, Hawkins’ constructivist theory on the importance of persuasion plays a great role in explaining the logic of creating costly international institutions. This framework of persuasion is built upon three taken-for-granted international norms that enable states to persuade others during the process of creating international institutions. These norms concern prohibitions on bodily harm, the importance of precedent in decision making, and the link between cooperation and progress. Such international institutions, that may be created through a process of persuasion, often perform international enforcement in case of non-compliance to the rules. Enforcement could be carried out by actors such as states, intergovernmental organizations, or non-governmental organizations. Hawkins’ theory is mainly focused on states in an international playing field. However, in this study, I will try to apply Hawkins’ persuasion theory to a domestic level. By assessing the possible effects of internationally performed persuasive attempts to national policy-making, I hope to fill a gap in current literature.
Converting international theories to domestic policy
Scholars of international relations often demonstrate the effect of international rules and norms on state behavior by pointing out a causal significance at a level of state interactions. In this study, I concentrate on the effects of international norms on domestic policy-making. Constructivist scholars argue that international norms carry social content and are often independent of power distributions; they provide states and their agents with understandings of interests, and do not merely constrain behavior (Checkel, 1999). Cortell (1996) identified two important factors that condition the extent to which an actor’s appeal to international rules and norms will influence state behavior: the domestic structural context within which the domestic policy debate takes place, and the domestic salience of the international rule or norm (Cortell, 1996). In the presence of these factors, domestic actors – state or societal – can allocate international norms and rules to further their interests in the domestic political arena.
A related theory from a constructivist angle is provided by Jeffrey Checkel (1999). Checkel studies the process of the diffusion of norms. A central part of his studies are explorations of the transmission mechanisms and diffusion pathways through which international norms reach the domestic level. “Trickling down” international norms to particular domestic agents such as states, individuals, or groups, is Checkel’s main focal point. With his theory, Checkel tries to illustrate how norms in the international system get “down here” to the national arena and have constitutive impact. He argues that the effects of international norms – which are defined as “shared expectations about appropriate behavior held by a collectivity of actors” - are conditioned by domestic structures and the norms’ congruence with the domestic political structure (Checkel, 1999).
Checkel’s two-step argument offers an explanation for cross-national variation in the spread and constitutive impact of international norms. The diversity of the spread and impact of international norms among different nations is related to domestic structure, and domestic norms. The present structures predict the mechanisms transmitting international norms and rules to the national level, while the domestic norms that shape the preferences of the key policy-making agents predict to what extent they have constitutive effect in the particular states (Checkel, 1999). In his study, Checkel conceptualizes the repercussion of international norms in terms of cultural matches. “Null”, “positive”, and “negative” outcomes of his variables represent the degree of constitutive impact that international norms have.
Summarizing, Checkel argues that both domestic structures and domestic norms are variables that define the translation of international norms to national outcomes. Domestic structures “explain the decision process by which various initial conditions [systemic norms, in this case] are translated into outcomes” (George and McKeown, 1985). Domestic norms, on the other hand, clarify the extent to where there is a cultural match. In other words, they predict whether norm-takers in particular countries will be open to systemic perceptions.
Research question, gaps in the literature and puzzle
As a result of my evaluation of the theories mentioned before, the main question I will be trying to answer in my research is:
“In which way did persuasion, related to article 37(a) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, influence the process leading to the amendments to the Iranian Islamic Penal Code in
2012?”.
I will present my research as a case study. In my opinion, a study on the Iranian case of amending the Islamic Penal Code, could provide a first insight in the translation of Hawkins’ theory to a national arena. In his article, Hawkins explores the effects of persuasion on the actions of states in an international playing field. He examines the causal effect of persuasion on the level of commitment of countries to international institutions. Hawkins distinguishes three argumentative norms through which persuasion may take place. In the first place, states agree on the idea of protecting vulnerable individuals from bodily harm (Keck, Sikkink, 1998). During the process of communication, states take it for granted that the physical suffering of individuals is condemnable and should be avoided (Hawkins, 2004). The second norm Darren Hawkins distinguishes is about states agreeing on the importance of precedents. This means that states may be persuaded into adopting norms and practices simply because a precedent exists and seems appropriate, even when there is no essential need to do so
(Finnemore, 1996). Finally, Hawkins explains that states generally agree that international action constitutes an important and appropriate method of resolving social action problems. This presumption wouldn’t mean that all states embrace all kinds of international institutions but rather implies that for most social problems, the perception exists that international cooperation in one way or another would help resolve them (Hawkins, 2004).
However, Hawkins focuses mainly on the effects of these norms at the level of state interactions. This research, on the other hand, will examine whether or not persuasion took place in processes of Iranian domestic policy amendments. My goal is to find out if there has been a connection between international persuasive attempts and domestic policy-making in Iran. The answer to the main research question and correspondent puzzle will hopefully fill this gap in existing literature and provide clarity on this matter.
To do so, we’ll first take look at an international human rights treaty. In this study, this will be the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child that was signed in 1989. This treaty sets out the civil, political, economic, social, health and cultural rights of children. Iran signed and ratified the treaty but was often criticized for violating the rules and norms of the agreement. International human rights organizations and foreign governments repeatedly condemned Iran’s executions of child offenders as violations of the treaty. As a reaction to international criticism, Iran’s parliament changed the controversial law regarding the execution of juvenile offenders in 2012. This amendment of Iranian domestic law is the second part of the connection between international- and domestic policy in this study.
Without getting into too much detail on the Islamic Penal Code amendments in this part of my research; the changes affected the responsibilities of children in some categories of crimes that are punishable according the laws of the Code. The two relevant policy documents in this study, the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the amendments to the Iranian Islamic Penal Code in 2012, form a connection through which I hope to successfully explore the effects of Hawkins’ persuasion model to the domestic level of Iran. Relevant sub-questions, that will be stated in the next part, mostly regard the actors, methods, and processes involved in the potential persuasion that took place in the process leading to the Iranian domestic law amendments.
3. Methodology
“In which way did persuasion, related to article 37(a) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, influence the process leading to the amendments to the Iranian Islamic Penal Code in
2012?” Sub-questions
In order to formulate a complete answer to the main research question, I will make use of sub-questions. These sub-questions will be the fundamental building blocks of the eventual study. The central concept in the research question is persuasion (related to article 37(a) of the Convention of the Rights of the Child). By doing research and trying to answer the sub-questions on the concept of persuasion, I hope to formulate a complete answer to the main research question. In total, I formulated three sub-questions. The first two sub-questions should provide me with information about the context of my case, the third is based on necessity.
Context questions:
- How do articles of the Iranian Islamic Penal Code relate to the Convention on the Rights of the Child article 37(a)?
- How could international actors perform persuasion on Iran to amend the domestic policy documents?
Necessity question:
- In which ways did international actors try to perform persuasion affecting Iranian political decision-making?
Definition and operationalization of the concept of persuasion
Analyzing the main research question that is used in this study, I’d like to highlight a concept that should be defined and operationalized more precisely. In this case, this is the concept of persuasion. The definition of persuasion that will be used in this study is given by Jeffrey Checkel. According to him, persuasion is characterized as follows:
“a social process of interaction that involves changing attitudes about cause and effect in the absence of overt coercion. It is thus a mechanism through which preference change may occur. More formally, it is an activity or process in which a communicator attempts to induce a change in the belief, attitude, or behavior of another person ... through the transmission of a message in a context in which the persuadee has some degree of free choice. Here, persuasion is not manipulation but a process of convincing someone through argument and principled debate” (Checkel, 2001).
Evaluating Checkel’s definition, it becomes clear that in order for persuasion to occur, a social process is necessary. Within the social process of the present actors, there is a certain aim of convincing someone to change their attitude and beliefs. However, persuasion is a very difficult concept to measure. In the first place, because persuasion isn’t a ‘natural
phenomenon’ of which we can easily determine its impact on policy-making. By speaking of a ‘natural phenomenon’, I allude to the fact that there is no standardized means to measure a
certain amount of persuasion and its effect on political decision making. Contrary to, for example, the present amount of oil in a certain state, there is no standardized instrument to measure the amount of persuasion in a communicative process. It is very hard to determine a degree of persuasion, hence it’s difficult to tell when to speak of ‘strong’- or ‘weak’
persuasion.
Besides measuring the amount of persuasion, there is another question raised by the operationalization of persuasion. This question is related to the issue of agency. It is a complex process to determine how free speakers are to index themselves linguistically, and whether that linguistic freedom is dependent on and constrained by the range of available meanings. When actors are present in a communicative ambience that allows for persuasion to occur1, it is beneficial if there are no constraints to the way in which actors express
themselves. Lauren Hall-Lew, Elizabeth Coppock and Rebecca Starr performed research on this matter, by introducing the concept of political persuasion into a larger model of the social correlates of linguistic variation. This allowed them to explore these questions from a new angle, bringing them closer to understanding the range and scope of influence on variation in language (Hall-Lew, Coppock, Starr, 2010).
For my personal operationalization of persuasion, I will make use of Hawkins’ three taken-for-granted norms to determine the presence of an internationally performed persuasive attempt. The concept of actors persuading others into creating enforceable human rights norms may be operationalized if at least one of the relevant actors used arguments based on Hawkins’ three widespread norms. I operationalize this variable by examining the degree to which social groups publicly articulate those norms. To speak of a persuasive attempt
regarding article 37(a) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, I will have to determine whether a relevant argumentation is based on Hawkins’ widespread norms. Analyzing the data that will be used for this study, I will classify the content and divide the given arguments into five categories.
Three of these categories are directly related to one of Hawkins’ norms. These norms consist of the prohibition on bodily harm, the importance of precedents, and the link between cooperation and progress. Moreover, it is possible that the given content is based on more than one widespread norm. These arguments will be placed in a fourth category. Finally, I will create a fifth category for arguments relating to article 37(a) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child that are not based on Hawkins’ taken-for-granted norms. An overview:
Category Content of the given argument
1. Based on the prohibition on bodily harm 2. Based on the importance of precedents
3. Based on the link between cooperation and progress 4. Based on multiple norms
5. Not based on Hawkins’ norms
By classifying relevant arguments to one of the five categories that I described earlier, I hope to form a clear view on the performance of international persuasive attempts on Iran.
However, in my opinion, there is a considerable side note to this operationalization of
persuasion. This is because I expect it to be very difficult to prove that actors ‘admit’ that they are, in the first place, persuaded at all, and in the second place, persuaded as a result of the given arguments. In my opinion, we may find a discrepancy in the probability of proving the presence of persuasion. The conductors of persuasive attempts may base their arguments on, for example, one of the taken-for-granted norms distinguished by Darren Hawkins. However,
it will be of more difficulty to prove that the actors at the receiving end of the persuasive attempt are really affected by the content of those arguments. For this reason, I wish to point out that my operationalization is better described as an operationalization of persuasive attempts instead of effective persuasion. Nevertheless, I will use the operationalization formulated before to indicate whether or not an international persuasive attempt was performed.
In a 2001 study, Jeffrey Checkel performs process tracing to register rationales of actors complying with norms. He describes this process as follows: “To document the processes and motivations through which agents comply with norms I use process tracing, where one seeks “to investigate and explain the decision process by which various initial conditions are translated into outcomes (compliance, in this case)” (Checkel, 2001).
Process tracing is a method to evaluate and develop theories in, for example, political science. During such a process, verbal data is structured to understand relevant cognitive processes and decision making that, in this case, occur as a result of persuasive attempts. In my research, I also aim at analyzing verbal content to categorize arguments into a defined scheme. The most important technique that will be used to measure persuasion is the
performance of content analysis of sources that will be defined in the next section. This will hopefully enable me to check the beliefs and motivations of particular actors who participated in the process that lead to the amendments of the Iranian Islamic Penal Code in 2012
(Checkel, 2001). By performing content analysis, I hope to form a clear image of the presence and use of persuasive attempts.In this way, it will be possible to effectively manage and interpret the data, before drawing conclusions from it.
Data sources
In advance of finding actual data about persuasion in this case, I tried to depict a framework of data that would be ideal to perform my research. According to me, there could be several sources of data that could prove themselves to be helpful for my case. In the first place, data about the content of the arguments that were used by international actors in their persuasive attempts. In the second place, it would be positive to find data with the positions of the Iranian policy-making actors before- and after the amendments of the Islamic Penal Code. And finally, it would be extremely beneficial if there would be data about the grounds on which these actors changed their position, if they changed their position at all.
For data about the content of the arguments that were used by relevant international actors, I will make use of sources from institutions such as United Nations Human Rights Monitoring Bodies and the Universal Periodic Review. These institutions form important factors in the process of reviewing international human rights. The Human Rights Monitoring Bodies evaluate human rights situations regarding explicit treaties, in this case the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC) is a body of 18 independent experts that monitors the implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child by its State Parties. It also monitors implementation of two Optional Protocols to the Convention, on involvement of children in armed conflict and on sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography.
The Universal Periodic Review involves a process of the assessment of human rights situations in specific countries. The Universal Periodic Review provides an opportunity for each state to declare what actions they have taken to improve the human rights situations in their countries and to fulfill their human rights obligations. For the assessment of human rights situations, the Universal Periodic Review is designed to ensure equal treatment for every country, with the ultimate goal of improving human rights situations and addressing violations whenever they occur.
The specific documents that will be used to acquire data for this research will be the Universal Periodic Review National Report of the Islamic Republic of Iran (2014), the
Compilation of Information prepared by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (2014), the Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review of the Islamic Republic of Iran (2014), and finally, the state party’s report of the Committee on the Rights of the Child (2015). These documents provide us with important information about the positions of the relevant parties and will be very useful for the outcomes of this study.
For data about the positions and reactions of the Islamic Republic of Iran, I will make use of the Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review of the Islamic Republic of Iran, formulated in 2014. This document includes an “Interactive dialogue and responses by the State under review”, in this case Iran. The country’s reactions to the
formulated arguments could provide me with important information on the Iranian process of decision-making, and are important factors to take into consideration when examining a process of persuasive attempts.
Validity of the research
When performing research, the validity of one’s work is of vital importance to the study. I am well aware that, in order for replication of my work to be possible, the outcomes should be replicable and valid. The validity of my outcomes concerns the integrity of the conclusions that are generated from my piece of research. However, we should take in consideration that the main concept of this study, persuasion, is not the most easily validated phenomenon.
The idea of validity consists of three important components: the measurement validity, internal validity and external validity. In the first place, the measurement validity deals with the question whether or not the measure that is devised of persuasion really does reflect the concept that it is supposed to be denoting. In this case, it may be difficult to prove. The measure that will be used, documentation of the processes and motivations through which actors comply with norms, may not provide a legitimate outcome of the process that we really want to measure. In other words, I expect some difficulties in proving that actors are really persuaded by the arguments given through internationally performed persuasive attempts.
In the second place, there is the internal validity that should be taken into
consideration. Internal validity is concerned with the question of whether a conclusion that incorporates a causal relationship between two or more variables holds water. This has to do with the causality of the concept of persuasion. If we suggest that the internationally
performed persuasive attempts caused Iranian policy-making actors to have amended their domestic Islamic Penal Code, can we be sure that it was really persuasion to have caused the variation in the outcome and not something else that is producing an apparent causal
relationship? In this case, I used Hawkins’ (2004) arguments on the patterns that support the importance and validity of persuasion. He states that while detailed process-tracing would be needed to test the real empirical validity of persuasion, there is already data available to support the claim. “As of August 2003, states had created some 52 international human rights treaties and protocols (excluding regional agreements), with an additional 54 declarations or statements of principle. Of these, only nine may be classified as creating some kind of
enforcement authority, as stated above. A persuasion model predicts that these enforcement institutions will focus bodily harm, rely on strong precedent and make tight links between cooperation and progress” (Hawkins, 2004, p. 800). The initial evidence that came with this theory lends additional plausibility to this argument. All nine treaties with enforcement authorities dealt with war crimes, crimes against humanity, torture, and genocide (Hawkins, 2004, p. 800). Despite of this theory not completely covering the contents of my study, it provides us with some empirical evidence on the effects of persuasion. However, in his study Hawkins focuses mostly on international human rights treaties and protocols. In the case of the amendments to the Iranian Islamic Penal Code in 2012, we examine the impact that
internationally performed persuasive attempts may have on domestic policy-making. I suppose the effects to be somewhat similar. But, as is the case with the measurement instruments, I expect that it won’t provide us with a full-covering internal validity.
The final component of the validity of a research is the external validity. The external validity is concerned with the question whether or not the results of a study can be generalized beyond the specific research context. When doing analysis on the available data, I will
certainly try to expose patterns that may be generalized and could prove themselves useful beyond the specific research context. However, neither single nor multiple case studies allow for real statistical generalization. This concerns, for example, inferring conclusions about a population (Yin, 1994, p. 31; Numagami, 1998). It does not mean, however, that case studies are devoid of generalization (Gibbert et al., 2008). In her widely cited paper, Eisenhardt (1989) argues that case studies can be a starting point for theory development and that a cross-case analysis consisting of 4 to 10 case studies may provide a good basis for analytical generalization (Eisenhardt, 1989). Finally, researchers should provide a clear “rationale for the case study selection” and provide details on the context of the particular case study. In this way, it will allow readers to appreciate the researchers sampling choices that were used in the study (Cook, Campbell, 1979). Given that I will only study the impact of internationally performed persuasive attempts on the amendments to the Iranian Islamic Penal Code in 2012, I won’t presume that the outcomes and conclusions of my research will provide a solid basis for analytical generalization. Nevertheless, I hope that my findings may be part of such a basis in the future and contribute to further research on the effects of internationally performed persuasive attempts on domestic policy-making.
4. Results
In this section, I will discuss the results that emerged from the research that I performed. Before heading on to the actual results from the data I used, there will be some clarity on the contextual factors that should be taken into account when analyzing this study. These
contextual factors will provide some information on the relevant articles of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Iranian Islamic Penal Code, and the amendments that were made to the documents in 2012. In this way, I will try to clarify the contextual factors that were mentioned in the first two sub-questions. As a reminder, the contextual sub-questions were formulated as follows:
- How do articles of the Iranian Islamic Penal Code relate to the Convention on the Rights of the Child article 37(a)?
- How could international actors perform persuasion on Iran to amend the domestic policy documents?
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child is an international human rights treaty which sets out the civil, political, economic, social, health and cultural rights of children. The Convention defines a child as any human being under the age of eighteen, unless the age of majority is attained earlier under national legislation (UNCRC, 1989, art.1). Before the amendments to the domestic Islamic Penal Code in 2012, girls at the age of nine lunar years, and boys at the age of 15 lunar years were fully responsible for their crimes (Nayyeri, 2012). The Islamic Republic of Iran has complied to the convention since 1991 and ratified it in the Iranian Parliament since 1994. However, Iran formulated the following reservation upon their ratification:
"The Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran reserves the right not to apply any provisions or articles of the Convention that are incompatible with Islamic Laws and the
international legislation in effect."
Although Iran is a state party to the Convention of the Rights of the Child, we will see that the country got repeatedly criticized by international human rights organizations and foreign governments for their executions of Iranian child offenders. For my research upon persuasion, the most relevant article of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child is article 37(a). The article consists of the following declaration: “States Parties shall ensure that: (a) No child shall be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Neither capital punishment nor life imprisonment without possibility of release shall be imposed for offences committed by persons below eighteen years of age;” (UNCRC, 1989, art. 37(a)). This article is the most relevant one because it is the basis for most
criticisms on Iranian policy, especially regarding juvenile execution (FIDH, 2009).
The other document of great importance to my research is the Iranian Islamic Penal Code. Following the 1979 Revolution, the Islamic Republic of Iran was formally established. With the establishment of the republic, a new constitution based on Islamic ideology was prepared and adopted into law. The first article of the new constitution declared that the Twelver Shi’a creed of Islam, the second largest branch of worldwide Islam, would be the formal State religion. Furthermore, article 4 of the new constitution expressed that all laws and rulings should be in total conformity with the Islamic Shari’a (Nayyeri, 2012).
When connecting the Iranian Islamic Penal Code to article 37(a) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, I will mostly look at how the criminal responsibility of children is described in the Penal Code. For years, according to the Islamic Penal Code, recognition of criminal responsibility was given to girls at the age of 8 years and 9 months and to boys at the age of 14 years and 7 months. The fact that children could be held criminally responsible at
such a young age, has always been one of the main grounds for international criticism by international bodies (Nayyeri, 2012). These grounds for international criticism are the basis of the answer to the second contextual sub-question. In the next section, I will analyze the content of the arguments that are formulated by international bodies. I wish to do this by classifying the content into one of five given categories, so I can answer the last sub-question:
- In which ways did international actors try to perform persuasion affecting Iranian political decision-making?
To provide a clear overview of the formulated content, I will perform an analysis on each of the documents mentioned in the section about the data sources that are used for this study. The classification of the relevant content of the documents will hopefully provide me with further insights on the performance of international persuasive attempts in the case of Iran’s amendments to their Islamic Penal Code. The most relevant documents for this research are:
1. The Universal Periodic Review National Report of the Islamic Republic of Iran (UN, 2014).
2. The Compilation of Information prepared by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (UN, 2014).
3. The Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review of the Islamic Republic of Iran (UN, 2014).
4. The state party’s report of the Committee on the Rights of the Child (2015). The Universal Periodic Review National Report of the Islamic Republic of Iran According to article 44(1) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, “States Parties undertake to submit to the Committee, through the Secretary-General of the United Nations, reports on the measures they have adopted which give effect to the rights recognized herein and on the progress made on the enjoyment of those rights” (UN, 1989). In the Universal Periodic Review National Report, recommendation 89 is the most relevant one for my case since it is the only recommendation that explicitly mentions the criminal responsibility of children: “It must be highlighted that child who commit crimes is not held criminally responsible. Rather, the law has put emphasis on education, and with the authorization of juvenile courts, this important task is entrusted to guardians of the child, and when necessary, juvenile rehabilitation centers, so that once adolescents return to society, they can resume their ordinary lives.” (UN, 2014).
In my opinion, the content of this recommendation depicts the importance of the physical freedom of children. The fact that it mentions the ambition of adolescents returning to society in order to resume their ordinary lives, demonstrates the importance of the
prohibition of bodily harm on children. Instead of carrying out punishments, there is a clear aim of protecting the physical freedom of children. Therefore, I will classify the relevant content of this document into the first category of my operationalization of persuasive attempts.
The Compilation of Information prepared by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
The report is a compilation of the information contained in reports of the treaty bodies and special procedures, including observations and comments by the State concerned, in reports of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, and in other relevant official United Nations documents (UN, 2014).
Analyzing this compilation of information, I found multiple relevant persuasive attempts. In the description of the implementation of international human rights obligations, Iran is repeatedly criticized for violating juvenile offenders’ rights. I classified the following statements: “The Secretary-General urged the authorities to fully abolish the death penalty for crimes committed by persons under 18 years of age, in accordance with the country’s obligations under the ICCPR and CRC”, which I classify into the first category (UN, 2014). “…expressed concern about the imminent execution of Razieh Ebrahimi, who was convicted of killing her husband when she was 17 years old. … The High Commissioner expressed alarm at the large number of juvenile offenders who reportedly remained on death row” (UN, 2014). Likewise, I will classify this statement into the first category. “The HR Committee urged the Government to amend the draft Juvenile Crimes Investigation Act with the aim of abolishing the death penalty for crimes committed under the age of 18; and to commute all death sentences for juvenile offenders”, is also classified in category 1.
The Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review of the Islamic Republic of Iran
This report is particularly interesting, because it offers an opportunity to review the reactions and positions of Iran. The report presents an interactive dialogue and the responses by the state under review. In this report, I analyzed relevant content from the perspective of present state delegates. For example, “Belgium was concerned about the increase in executions, including of children” and “Iceland noted the prevalence of the death penalty, and its application to children, in particular” (UN, 2014). The following relevant recommendation was done, along with similar recommendations, which can also be classified in the first category of persuasive attempts: “Establish a moratorium on executions with a view to abolishing the death penalty, and guarantee that no individual under the age of 18 at the time of their alleged crime is sentenced to death, in line with its obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child (Ireland)” (UN, 2014).
The state party’s report of the Committee on the Rights of the Child
In this document, I focused principally on the paragraphs dedicated to article 37(a) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The report focuses primarily on the reflection of the activities undertaken by the Government to protect, respect and promote rights of children. It specifically takes into account the obligations included in the Convention on the Rights of the Child and attempts to present its contents according to the general guidelines regarding the form and content of the periodic reports to be submitted under Article 44(1)(b) of the
Convention (UN, 2015). Since this report is more of an observation of the activities of Iran’s government regarding article 37(a) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, it leaves little space for the expression of persuasive attempts by international actors.
The combination of the classifications of my data forms the answer to the last sub-question. By analyzing the separate documents, and classifying the relevant content, I was able to indicate how international actors tried to perform persuasive attempts to affect Iranian political decision-making.
5. Conclusion and Discussion
This research I performed aimed to identify the influence of persuasion, related to article 37(a) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, on the process leading to the
amendments of the Iranian Islamic Penal Code in 2012. Based on Hawkins’ three taken-for granted norms, I analyzed relevant data sources about the Iranian case, and came to the conclusion that persuasion has indeed played a role in the amendments of the Iranian Islamic Penal Code.
In his article, Hawkins argues that states tend to be persuaded into creating
international institutions when persuasive attempts that are being used draw on three universal taken-for-granted norms. These norms consist of prohibitions on bodily harm, the importance of precedent in decision making, and the link between cooperation and progress (Hawkins, 2004). By formulating his theory of persuasion, Darren Hawkins tried to explain why states create enforceable international human rights norms that empower third parties to prevent and sanction domestic human rights abuses. My research, based on operationalizing Darren Hawkins’ theory of persuasion, clearly illustrated the presence of one of the widespread norms, hence indicated the performance of persuasive attempts. However, my outcomes also raise questions about the absence of the other norms in persuasive attempts. While every persuasive attempt, regarding article 37(a) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, contained arguments based on the prohibition on bodily harm of children, I wasn’t able to identify arguments based on the importance of precedents, or the link between cooperation and progress.
Based on these conclusions, I wish to put my results in a bigger picture. Where Hawkins illustrated his argument on the three taken-for-granted norms by examining the international convention against torture, I aimed to test his theory by investigating the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The results of my research were dominated by only one of three widespread norms. This could mean that Hawkins’ theory on persuasion isn’t applicable to every enforceable international human rights institution, or that I should once again reflect on my key research question and related methodology. Analyzing my key
research question, I realized that an important part of it (article 37(a) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child) could be interpreted as a biased variable. Given that article 37(a) of the Convention itself is principally based on Hawkins’ norm of the prohibition on bodily harm, it may explain why my results showed an extreme dominance of only one norm. Looking back on the process of formulating a research question, I think it would have been better to select an article of the Convention on the Rights of the Child that was not directly related to one of Hawkins’ widespread norms. In that way, I would have been able to perform my research based on a less biased key research question.
However, these limitations on the implications of my thesis allow me to do relevant suggestions for further research. In the first place, I realized that there is much room left for the analysis of the effects of internationally performed persuasive attempts on the national level of policy-making. Many scholars perform their research on the level of state
interactions, but do not consider the link between the national- and international arena. Analyzing the link between the different levels of the political arena, we may be better aware of the effects of internationally performed persuasive attempts in the future.
Furthermore, I think we should consider the future role of the concept of persuasion in the (international) political arena. Recently, I had the opportunity to speak to Jamie Susskind, author of award-winning bestseller Future Politics: Living Together in a World Transformed by Tech (2018). He provided me with insights on the role of technology and algorithms in the process of political decision-making. If you imagine an international arena, where states base their decision whether or not to participate in the creation of costly international entirely on data and algorithms, will there be any future left for persuasion and the use of arguments to
prevail? In my opinion, this will be an important element to take into consideration in the decades to follow.
References
Abbott, K. W. R. O. (2000). The Concept of Legalization. International Organization, 54: 401-419.
Carlsnaes, W., Risse, T., & Simmons, B. A. (2012). Handbook of International Relations. SAGE Publications.
Checkel, J. T. (1999). Norms, Institutions, and National Identity in Contemporary Europe. International Studies Quarterly, 43:1, 83-114.
Checkel, J. T. (2001). Why Comply? Social Learning and European Identity Change. International Organization, 55(3), 553–588.
Cole, W. M. (2015). Mind the Gap: State Capacity and the Implementation of Human Rights Treaties. International Organization 69:2, 405-441.
Cook, T.D. & Campbell, D.T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field settings. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Cortell, A. P. (1996). How Do International Institutions Matter? The Domestic Impact of International Rules and Norms. International Studies Quarterly, 40:4, 451-478. Eisenhardt, K. (1989). Building Theories from Case Study Research. The Academy of
Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.
EU Presidency, (2009). EU Presidency Statement on the execution of Delara Darabi. Retrieved May 3, 2019, from
https://web.archive.org/web/20110716060626/http:/www.eu2009.cz/cz/news-and
documents/cfsp-statements/*kopie-1:-eu-presidency-statement-on-the-execution-of delara-darabi-by-stoning--19876/.
FIDH/International Federation for Human Rights. (2009). IRAN: Death Penalty.
George, A., & McKeown, T. (1985). Case Studies and Theories of Organizational Decision Making. Advances in Information Processing in Organizations.
Gibbert, M., Ruigrok, W., & Wicki, B. (2008). What passes as a rigorous case study? Strategic Management Journal, 29(13), 1465–1474.
Goodman, R., & Jinks, D. (2004). How to Influence States: Socialization and International Human Rights Law. Duke Law Journal, 54(3).
Hall-Lew, L., Coppock, E., & Starr, R. L. (2010). INDEXING POLITICAL PERSUASION: VARIATION IN THE IRAQ VOWELS. American Speech, 85(1), 91–102.
Hawkins, D. (2004). Explaining Costly International Institutions: Persuasion and Enforceable Human Rights Norms. International Studies Quarterly, 48(4), 779–804.
Human Rights Watch. (2015). An Assessment of Iran’s New Penal Code. Retrieved May 3, 2019, from https://www.hrw.org/report/2012/08/28/codifying-repression/assessment
irans-new-penal-code.
Human Rights Watch. (2015). Iran: Secret Execution of Juvenile Offender. Retrieved April 28, 2019, from https://www.hrw.org/news/2009/05/01/iran-secret execution-juvenile offender.
Koh, H. H. (1997). Why Do Nations Obey International Law? Yale Law Journal, 106, 2599 -659.
Krasner, S. D. (1993). Sovereignty, Regimes and Human Rights. In V. Rittberger
(Ed.), Regime Theory and International Relations (pp. 139–167). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Nayyeri, M. (2012). New Islamic Penal Code of the Islamic Republic of Iran: An Overview. Retrieved from
https://www1.essex.ac.uk/hri/documents/HRIU_Research_PaperIRI_Criminal_Code Overview.pdf.
Risse, T., & Sikkink, K. (2000). The socialization of international human rights norms into domestic practices: introduction. The Power of Human Rights, 1–38.
Thevathasan, V. (2017). Iran: Children of Death Row. Retrieved May 3, 2019, from
https://intpolicydigest.org/2016/02/12/iran-children-of-death-row/.
United Nations Human Rights Council. (2014a). Compilation prepared by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights in accordance with paragraph 15 (b) of the annex to Human Rights Council resolution 5/1 and paragraph 5 of the annex to Council resolution 16/21. Retrieved from https://documents-dds
ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G14/138/81/PDF/G1413881.pdf?OpenElement United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child. (2015). Consideration of reports
submitted by States parties under article 44 of the Convention. Retrieved from file:///Users/vincentcoppola/Downloads/G1507367%20(1).pdf
United Nations Human Rights Council. (2014). National report submitted in accordance with paragraph 5 of the annex to Human Rights Council resolution 16/21. Retrieved from https://documents-dds
ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G14/098/67/PDF/G1409867.pdf?OpenElement United Nations Human Rights Council. (2014). Report of the Working Group on the
Universal Periodic Review. Retrieved from https://documents-dds
ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G14/248/22/PDF/G1424822.pdf?OpenElement Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: design and methods. Sage Publications.
