The UPR Boomerang thrown by NGOs for Improvement of Human Rights:

(1)

The UPR Boomerang thrown by NGOs for Improvement of

Human Rights:

United States of America and the United Kingdom compared.

Master Thesis

International Relations

Specialization: International Security

University of Groningen

Merel Lenters

S2519704

Trompenburgstraat 39-2, 1079 TM,

Amsterdam, The Netherlands

+31657574898

19 May 2019

Prof. dr. R Holzhacker

28.717 words

(2)

DECLARATION BY THE CANDIDATE

I hereby declare that this thesis “The UPR Boomerang thrown by NGOs for Improvement of Human Rights: The United States of America and The United Kingdom compared” is my own work and by my own effort and that is has not been accepted anywhere else for the award of any other degree or diploma. Where sources of information have been used, they have been acknowledged.

Name: Merel Lenters

Date: 19 May 2019

Signature:

Abstract

This research will look into the Universal Periodic Review established by the UN Human Rights Council. 70 years after signing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, human rights are still not universal. This research will analyze the UPR process to investigate to what extent NGOs can use this process to improve human rights on the ground. The theoretical framework used is the ‘Boomerang Pattern’. This framework is based on transnational advocacy networks on which NGOs are build. The thesis analyzes the UPR process, how it came into practice and why it was established in the first place. The credibility and effectiveness of the Commission on Human Rights was taken into question. Therefore, the CHR was replaced by the Human Rights Council. With the founding of the HRC the UPR process was founded. Furthermore, the research analyzes the role of NGOs in the UPR process. It found several ways for NGOs to influence the process, by providing information, lobbying to Member States or active participation in the follow-up phase. The final part of the analysis is a case-study, which is a comparison between the United States of America and the United Kingdom. The thesis puts the theory into practice by analyzing the three phases of the ‘Boomerang Pattern’ in both nations. It examines different aspects of both nations, such as political leadership, and documents provided for the UPR process. The research studies the recommendations made to the US and the UK to see whether there will be a correlation between submissions of NGOs and recommendations made to either state. A high correlation is found, yet no specific NGOs are mentioned concerning recommendations made. This research finds that NGOs might not be seen as key players but do have the potential to become one. Moreover, NGOs are indispensable for the international system and do have a great effect of improving human rights domestically by using the UPR process as a tool.

(3)

1. Abbreviations

AI – Amnesty International

CAT – Convention Against Torture

CEDAW – Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women

CHR – Commission on Human Rights

CID treatment – Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading treatment

CRC – Convention on the Rights of the Child

CRPD – Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

ECHR – European Convention on Human Rights

EHRC – Equality and Human Rights Commission

ECOSOC – Economic and Social Council

EU – European Union

HRA – Human Rights Act

HRC – Human Rights Council

HRW – Human Rights Watch

ICERD - International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination ICESCR – International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights

ICCPR – International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

IR - International Relations

NHRIs – National Human Rights Institutions

NGOs – Non-Governmental Organizations

NSS – National Security Strategy

OHCHR – Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights

OPAC – Optical Protocol on the involvement of children in Armed Conflict

OP-CRC-AC – Optical Protocol to the CRC on the involvement of children in armed conflict

SUR – State Under Review

UK – United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

UN – United Nations

UDHR – Universal Declaration of Human Rights

UPR – Universal Periodic Review

USA/US – United States of America

(7)

2. Introduction

2.1 Introduction to the Research

“Over seven decades, this mighty document has helped to profoundly change our world, [The Universal Declaration of Human Rights] establishes the equality and dignity of every human being. It stipulates that every government has a duty to enable all people to enjoy their inalienable rights and freedoms. And it establishes that these rights are universal, however, in practice, recognition of the inherent dignity and equal rights of human beings is still far from universal, and human rights defenders still face persecution, reprisals are rising and the space for civil society action is shrinking in very many nations.” - Secretary-General of the United Nations António Guterres at the UN Headquarters commemorate Human Rights Day on 10 December 2018.

“We may have different religions, different languages, different colored skin, but we all belong to one human race.” – Former Secretary-General of the United Nations Kofi Annan on Twitter 3 September 2016.

“In the 21st century, I believe the mission of the United Nations will be defined by a new, more profound awareness of the sanctity and dignity of every human life, regardless of race or religion.” – Former Secretary-General of the United Nations Kofi Annan at the Nobel lecture in Oslo, Norway on 10 December 2001.

It has been 70 years, since the establishment of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). It started at the end of World War II. “In 1945, nations were in ruins, World War II was over, and the world wanted peace.”1_{When World War II came to an end, many states were desperately looking for} peace. After World War I and before World War II, states too were determined to find peace and created the League of Nations. The League of Nations was a forerunner of the United Nations (UN), which promoted “international cooperation and to achieve peace and security.”2_{However, the League of} Nations could not prevent World War II.3_{In 1941, the Atlantic Charter was signed between the United} States and the United Kingdom to set principles “for international collaboration in maintaining peace and security.”4_{In 1942 the Declaration of the United Nations was signed by 26 countries. Three years} later the Charter of the United Nations existing of 111 articles and was signed by 50 nations on the 25th of April 1945. On October 24, 1945 the Charter was ratified and the Security Council was created with five permanent members.5_{The term ‘human rights’ was mentioned in the Charter of the UN to make it} a “key purpose and guiding principle of the Organization”. 6_{Another three years later, on December 10,}

1_{“About the UN,” United Nations (website), http://www.un.org/en/about-un/.}

2_{“History of the United Nations,” United Nations (website), http://www.un.org/en/sections/history/history-united-nations/.}

3_{The League of Nations was established at the Paris Peace Conference in 1920. There were some successes, but failures as well. The United}

States never really joined the League of Nations and the Soviet Union joined very late. Furthermore, Germany was not allowed to join. France and Britain were one of the essential members, but had suffered greatly from World War I. The League did not have the power to stop nations from expanding. The League of Nations main task was to prevent future wars. This task failed, as history has shown. However, it did set out a framework on which the United Nations is built. More information can be found in Ruth Henig, The League of Nations: the

league of nations, London: Haus Publishing, 2010, https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/rug/reader.action?docID=3038291.

4_{“History of the United Nations,” United Nations (website), http://www.un.org/en/sections/history/history-united-nations/.} 5_{Ibid. The five permanent members are China, France, Russia, United Kingdom and United States.}

(8)

1948, the General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Paris, France.7_This document is “a common standard of achievements for all peoples and all nations. It sets out, for the first time, fundamental human rights to be universally protected.”8_{The Universal Declaration of Human} Rights “brought human rights into the realm of international law.”9_{The purpose of the UDHR was to} prevent conflict and to grant every person to enjoy the same rights all over the world.10_{As Eleanor} Roosevelt, one of the founders of the UDHR, stated: “[t]he destiny of human rights is in the hands of all our citizens in all our communities.”11

The UN created a Commission on Human Rights (CHR) in 1946 to monitor Member States on compliance of their duties and obligations under human rights treaties.12_{The UN and the CHR were} sometimes accused of using ‘double standards’ by the judgement of different states considering human rights.13_{The CHR lost its credibility and the effectiveness to protect human rights worldwide declined.} Therefore, it was decided to replace the CHR with the Human Rights Council (HRC). With this replacement in 2005, the HRC could gain trust again and could work on its ultimate duty and goal: to protect human rights.14_{Not only a new council was created, a new mechanism was founded in March} 2006, as result of the accusations of using double standards, to monitor human rights: the Universal Periodic Review (UPR). This mechanism came into practice in 2008, when the first round of reviews was held. The UPR is different from any other UN human rights mechanism due to its “universal rather than selective character”.15_{All Member States of the UN are reviewed every 4 years by each other with} the same methodology.16_{The review is based on different documents which presents a nation best} practice or its issues in need of improvement, all concerning human rights issues. The goal of the UPR is to improve human rights situations in every Member State and to “address human rights violations wherever they occur.”17_{After a Member State is being reviewed, the state has responsibility to} implement the recommendations made during the review process to improve the human rights situation on the ground. The UN mechanisms, civil society, human rights institutions and other relevant stakeholders are able to assist the nation with this.18

7_Ibid. 8_Ibid. 9_Ibid.

10_{“What is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?” Amnesty International UK (website),}

https://www.amnesty.org.uk/universal-declaration-human-rights-UDHR.

11_{50 years of Universal Declaration of Human Rights (website), http://www.udhr50.org.}

12_{“Who We Are: Brief History,” OHCHR (website), https://www.ohchr.org/EN/AboutUs/Pages/BriefHistory.aspx.}

13_{Jane K. Cowen and Julie Billaud, “Between learning and schooling: the politics of human rights monitoring at the Universal Periodic}

Review,” Third World Quarterly, 36, no. 6 (2015): 1175,

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279865525_Between_learning_and_schooling_the_politics_of_human_rights_monitoring_at_the_ Universal_Periodic_Review/download.

14_{“Welcome to the Human Rights Council,” OHCHR (website), https://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/Pages/AboutCouncil.aspx.} 15_{Jane K. Cowen and Julie Billaud, “Between learning and schooling: the politics of human rights monitoring at the Universal Periodic}

16_{“What is the UPR?” UPR info (website), https://www.upr-info.org/en/upr-process/what-is-it.}

17_{“Universal Periodic Review,” OHCHR (website), https://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/UPR/Pages/UPRMain.aspx.}

18_{Kate Gilmore, Luis Mora, Alfonso Barragues, and Ida Krogh Mikkelsen, “The Universal Periodic Review: A Platform for Dialogue,}

Accountability, and Change on Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights,” Health and Human Rights Journal, 17, no. 2 (December 2015): 168, https://cdn2.sph.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/13/2015/12/16.Barragues.pdf.

(9)

The UPR process is not only different in the way how states are peer-reviewed, but the methodology of the process is distinctive as well. The UPR process has three key stages. The first stage is the “preparation for the review and reporting on implementation.”19_{The second stage is about the} review of a State under Review of its human rights situation and adoption of the ‘Report’.20_{The third} stage is about “implementation of recommendations and reporting at mid-term.”21_{The three stages are} a full-circle process. There are three different documents which are reviewed: a national report, a compilation of UN information and a summary of stakeholders’ information.22_{In the summary of} stakeholders’ information, among others, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) can submit information. Aside from providing information, “NGOs can attend UPR Working Group sessions and can make statements at the regular sessions of the Human Rights Council when the outcome of the State reviews is considered.”23_{Even though the UPR process is a state-orientated mechanism, civil society,} NGOs and National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs) can have influence in the process. Through the ability of providing information in the stakeholders’ report, NGOs can submit a different point of view on how human rights issues are established at a domestic level. The UPR process in potential deems a great way to enforce the purpose of the UDHR. It could be interesting to analyze how the UPR process can be used by NGOs to create awareness of human rights issues. As the Secretary-General of the UN stated on Human Rights Day, the practice of human rights is far from universal, but are NGOs through the UPR process able to make a step in the right direction of universality of human rights?

2.2 Research Question

Considering all the above, this leads to the main research question: ‘To what extent can Non-Governmental Organizations use the Universal Periodic Review process as a tool for improvement of human rights issues at a domestic level?’.

The research question will be answered through multiple sub-questions. The first sub-question is ‘How does the UPR process function?’. The second sub-question is ‘What is the role of NGOs in the UPR process?’. Next to these sub-questions, there will be a case-study to make it more tangible. The United States of America (USA) and the United Kingdom (UK) will be compared and analyzed to understand how NGOs can use the UPR process as a tool. The case-study will look at the first cycle of the USA and the second cycle of the UK. This will be explained in the methodology.

19_{“What is the UPR?” UPR info (website), https://www.upr-info.org/en/upr-process/what-is-it.} 20_Ibid.

21_Ibid.

22_{“Universal Periodic Review – Afghanistan,” United Nations Human Rights Council (website),}

https://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/UPR/Pages/AFIndex.aspx.

23_{“Basic facts about the UPR,” United Nations Human Rights Council (website),}

(10)

2.3 Significance of the Research

The UPR process has been implemented in 2006 and the first sessions took place in 2008. The UPR process was established to improve the quality of monitoring human rights as the CHR was accused of using double standards, which will be explained elaborately later on. In the literature, there is a gap between the research on the UPR process itself and what the impact on national level is. Therefore, the research question is an important one to raise. This gap is mentioned by different scholars, like Mie Roesdahl, who questions “in which manner the UPR process have the potential to facilitate change in human rights compliance and enjoyment at the national level?”24_{The research question of the thesis} focuses on the manner of impact the UPR process makes while it is used as a tool. The research questions the impact of an international human rights mechanism on a national level.25_{The protection of human} rights could be improved by the UPR process in the way that not only states, but other actors too can provide analyses on the current situation on the ground. From different angles there is information provided and so the full picture can be drawn. It furthermore can show where improvement is needed specifically. This research focuses on the information provided by NGOs on the current situation and adds to the debate in how NGOs can help with the improvement needed in certain areas.

From another perspective, the research question is of importance because international security is more than just military security. International security can include political or economic security. Human rights consist of a wide range of topics, on the mere political, economic or military issues. International security includes the protection of human beings and their rights. Although the UDHR exists and is signed by the majority of the states, human rights can still be received as uncertain for several persons. Uncertainties that can be manageable become risks. “Uncertainties are a problematization of order and of processes of order”.26_{The ones who can manage the uncertainty, make} it into a risk and control the risk, are the ones in control, the risk managers.27_{By being in control of the} ordering principles, in control of the risk, it is possible to create uncertainties as well.28_{“Thinking the} governance of risk therefore entails an engagement with how is it that uncertainty is presented in a way amenable to governance.”29_{Therefore, the one who is able to govern risks, is the one who is empowered.} The risks for human beings should be governed by them who are able to manage the risks and who are able to protect them. As governments should be able to manage risks applying to human beings, it is necessary to analyze how they govern these risks. Next to governments, this thesis will question if NGOs can help governments to manage risks and protect the people against the risks. Therefore, this thesis will add to the debate how human rights are managed, how they are secured, and whether it is done according

24_{Mie Roesdahl, “Universal Periodic Review and its Limited Change Potential: Tracking the Complexity of Multiple Actors and Approaches}

to Human Rights Change through the Lens of the UPR Process of Nepal,” Journal of Human Rights Practice, 9 (2017): 419, doi: 10.1093/jhuman/hux033.

25_{Ibid, 402.}

26_{Prof. dr. Luis Lobo-Guerrero, “The Marriage of Statecraft and Risk,” October 12, 2017.} 27_Ibid.

28_{Prof. dr. Luis Lobo-Guerrero, “Thinking the Governance of Risk and the Politics of Uncertainty,” October 19, 2017.} 29_Ibid.

(11)

to the standards established in the UDHR. Hence, the thesis will add to the ongoing security of human rights debate.

2.4 Thesis Outline

The thesis will be structured in the following manner. This thesis will start with describing the ‘Boomerang Pattern’, a theoretical analysis and its limitations in chapter two. In this theoretical framework, it will define based on literature and research, the concepts used in this thesis. It will state the definition of NGOs used in this research. This research will examine different academic journals and other articles. To continue, the first sub-question will be debated. This question, discussed in chapter four, will describe the foundation and methodology used in the UPR process. The second sub-question, analyzed in chapter five, will focus on the role of NGOs in the UPR process. It will discuss different effects and to what extent NGOs can influence the UPR process. After this question, the research will conduct a case study on the USA and the UK. Both the USA and the UK are influential and very powerful members of the UN and both are developed countries.

First the US, it will try to examine the practical side of the NGO influence in the UPR process. USA has been chosen as an interesting case for this study as it is the country of freedom. As president of the US during the first cycle of the UPR process, Barack Obama, stated:

“the United States was founded on the idea that all people are endowed with inalienable rights, and that principle has allowed us to work to perfect our union at home while standing as a beacon of hope to the world. Today, that principle is embodied in agreements Americans helped forge - the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Geneva Conventions, and treaties against torture and genocide - and it unites us with people from every country and culture.”- Statement by the President-Elect on Human Rights Day

Furthermore, he said that “U.S. support for universal rights is not a secondary interest but a top priority that must be translated into concrete actions, and supported by all of the diplomatic, economic and strategic tools at [the U.S. government’s] disposal.”30_{However, there are several cases where human} rights are a secondary interest and not a top priority. During his presidency, Obama promised that “he would stop CIA torture immediately and close the military prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, within a year.”31_{While he stopped the torturing, the prosecution of those responsible for the torturing did not} occur. Obama’s administration left “the hopes behind his early receipt of the Nobel Peace Prize – that he would lead a new kind of U.S. foreign relations, built to a large extent on defending human rights – unfulfilled.”32_{Even though, the US argues that it considers human rights a top priority, literature can} state otherwise. It will be interesting to see if NGOs can make changes on a domestic level using the UPR process as a tool in a country like the US.

30_{Kenneth Roth, “Barack Obama’s Shaky Legacy on Human Rights,” Human Rights Watch (website), January 9, 2017,}

https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/01/09/barack-obamas-shaky-legacy-human-rights.

31_Ibid. 32_Ibid.

(12)

Next to a case-study on the USA, the research will continue with a research on the UK. Together with the US, the UK signed the Atlantic Charter, the initial for the United Nations. When the HRC and the UPR were established, the UK set the example and was one of the first who was reviewed.33 Furthermore, a UK ambassador was certain that the UK had set an example for the rest, as “he believed that the UK delegation’s performance had reassured other countries, demonstrating that ‘none of us is perfect – we’ve all got something to learn!’, and that in this way it had helped them ‘to relax’.”34_{As UK} sees itself as an example for the rest of the nations, it will be interesting to see whether they do comply with their international obligations and commitments. During the second cycle of the UPR David Cameron was prime minister of the UK. He said that “[f]or centuries, it has been quoted to help promote human rights alleviate suffering all around the world. But here in Britain, ironically the place where those ideas were first set out, the good name of human rights has sometimes become distorted and devalued.”35_{Interesting to see, is that the same prime minister stated three years early that the European} Court of Human Rights obtained too much power and that it frustrated him that terrorists, criminals and prisoners were able of abusing the rules. As he said: “[t]he problem today is that you can end up with someone who has no right to live in your country, who you are convinced – and have good reason to be convinced – means to do your country harm. And yet there are circumstances in which you cannot try them, you cannot detain them and you cannot deport them.”36_{Interesting for this thesis, is to comprehend} whether the UK has flaws and whether NGOs can influence human rights issues on the ground in the UK, while it sees itself as an example for the rest of the world.

The research will end with a concluding chapter. The conclusion will discuss the findings on the research question. It will combine the answers on the sub-questions and will attempt to answer the main research question. Furthermore, it will discuss the limitations of the thesis and will suggests recommendations for further research.

2.5 Methodology

The methodology used for the thesis is a qualitative research. Chapter three will elaborate on the theoretical framework used in the thesis. Chapter four discusses the UPR process. It will explain the process itself and the establishment of the UPR process, containing how it became an UN mechanism. After chapter four, the thesis will discuss the role of NGOs in the UPR process in chapter five, as the central question of this research is how NGOs can use the UPR process as a tool. Both chapters will analyze literature. Besides academic literature, it will look at the resolutions, decisions and policies of

33_{“Meeting Highlight for the 1}st_{session,” OHCHR. https://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/UPR/Pages/MeetingsHighlightsSession1.aspx.} 34_{Jane K. Cowen and Julie Billaud, “Between learning and schooling: the politics of human rights monitoring at the Universal Periodic}

35_{“David Cameron: I’ll fix human rights ‘mess’,” BBC New Politics (15 June 2015), https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-33134338.} 36_{Rowena Mason, “David Cameron: human rights laws stop Britain protecting against terrorism,” The Telegraph Politics (25 January 2012),}

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/9038869/David-Cameron-human-rights-laws-stop-Britain-protecting-against-terrorism.html.

(13)

the UN and especially of the General Assembly on the institution-building of the HRC and the UPR process. These resolutions and decisions set out the basic framework of the UPR. After setting the scene on paper, chapter six will try to put the theory into practice.

This research chose to do a case-study on the USA and the UK and compare both countries. As already mentioned above, these are world leading countries. It is interesting to see of these influential countries, who are spreading democracy and the importance of human rights, have their cases settled at home. It would be contradicting, when preaching for establishing human rights instruments and being compliant to those, when they are not compliant themselves. When the two leading countries on spreading democracy and pushing for universal respect for human rights do not have their game on point, it is difficult to expect other states to have it perfectly laid down in their national policies. Therefore, the thesis chose these two leading countries to find out if they set the right example.

In the case-study of the USA and the UK, the research will take into consideration the documentation of the UPR process of the first cycle of the USA and the second cycle of the UK. The research will look at the first cycle of the USA and the second cycle of the UK due to its time-period. The first cycle of the USA was in 2010 and the second cycle of the UK was in 2012. The first cycle of the UK was in 2008, which is the same difference in time. Yet, the UK was one of the first states to be reviewed in the UPR process. Therefore, Member States were still finding the ‘best’ way to participate. Furthermore, more guidelines for submissions of information were established. The way the documents are structured is more similar in the first cycle of the USA and the second cycle of the UK. Therefore, these cycles will be compared and analyzed.

The case-studies will analyze the three phases of the ‘Boomerang Pattern’. It will analyze the political leadership of the states at the time of the review, to see whether a political leadership influences the path towards human rights and whether there are differences. It will compare the submissions of NGOs with the national report to see whether topics of national interest are the same as issues NGOs find important. The thesis will continue with analyzing if these topics mentioned in the NGO submissions, are mentioned in recommendations and whether these recommendations are accepted by the USA or UK, which implies there needs to be a follow-up. It might be concluded that if recommendations based on NGO statements in stakeholders’ submissions, have been supported and thus need follow-up on the recommendations, there will be a change in human rights policies on the ground due to the influence of NGOs with using the UPR mechanism as a tool.

(14)

3. Theoretical framework

“After all, the raison d’être of many NGOs is to put pressure on Governments and hold their feet to the fire. NGOs have helped give life to the idea of an international community … this partnership of NGOs, the private sector, international organizations and governments, in my judgement, is a powerful partnership for the future.” – Former Secretary-General of the United Nations Kofi Annan Berlin 1999 at the Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) ‘Forum on Global Issues’.

Human rights have been a controversial topic in the discipline of international relations (IR). In three dominant theories of IR, realism, liberalism and constructivism, human rights are explained differently. Realism was for a serious amount of time the most influential theory in IR. The end of the Cold War is an important data-point among IR scholars as it was a unique moment.37_{Realism was not the only} dominant theory anymore, as it could not clarify the end of the Cold War. Realists see the world in an anarchic order. This means that there is no “international state that has the power and authority to impose a just peace.”38_{As neorealist Kenneth Waltz argues “states in an anarchic order must provide for their} own security, and threats or seeming threats to their security abound.”39_{For realists, states are primarily} searching for power, because of anarchy and to protect themselves.40_{Therefore, human rights are just} words for realists.41_{In the contemporary world, realists solely see the importance of human rights, when} it is of national interest. As the world was still colored by a realist perspective in IR, human rights did not get the attention it was expected by the United Nations, even though the UHDR was signed at the end of World War II. Moreover, due to the Cold War it did not get the expected attention and as stated above for realists, human rights were just words.42_{Some say that after 9/11 realism came back as the} dominant theory in IR, where states are looking for power to be able to protect themselves.

During the Cold War, there was a rise of non-state actors, including “various international human rights regimes and the rise of international non-governmental organizations and human rights activists.”43_{Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) gained more power and “have undertaken an} enormously varied range of activities, including … promoting human rights.”44_{With the rise of NGOs} and non-state organizations, the realist perspective of states as the only actors of the international system was questioned. NGOs were not particularly state bounded and so transnational networks came into existence. Furthermore, the question of sovereignty of states became interesting. “As sovereignty is one

37_{William C. Wohlforth, “Realism and the End of the Cold War,” International Security 19, no. 3 (Winter 1994-1995): 93,}

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/2539080.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3A9f048197a6abe5f501e499a82ffb8b46.

38_{Tim Dunne and Marianne Hanson, “Human Rights in International Relations,” Human Rights: Politics and Practice, ed. Michael}

Goodhart, Oxford Universtiy Press, 2016, p. 45.

39_{Kenneth Waltz, “The Origins of War in Neorealist Theory,” The Journal of Interdisciplinary History, vol 18, no. 4, The Origin and}

Prevention of Major Wars (1988), p. 619,

https://www-jstor-org.proxy-ub.rug.nl/stable/pdf/204817.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3A1b88876d2fd08da40cee8cc73c8eb751.

40_{John Mearsheimer, “Structural Realism,” http://mearsheimer.uchicago.edu/pdfs/StructuralRealism.pdf.}

41_{Tim Dunne and Marianne Hanson, “Human Rights in International Relations,” Human Rights: Politics and Practice, ed. Michael}

Goodhart, Oxford Universtiy Press, 2016, p. 46.

42_{Ibid, 44.} 43_{Ibid, 44.}

44_{William F. Fisher, “Doing Good? The Politics and Antipolitics of NGO practices,” Annual Review of Anthropology, 26 (1997): 440,}

(15)

of the central organizing principles of the international system, transnational advocacy networks that contribute to transforming sovereignty will be a significant source of change in international politics.”45 The non-state organizations gained influence in state-society relations.

In the 1976, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social Cultural Rights (ICESCR) became international law.46_{Together with} the UDHR, it converted into the “International Bill of Human Rights”.47_{Human rights enhanced in the} 1970s a part of international diplomacy. “Transnational advocacy networks played a key role in placing human rights on foreign policy agendas.”48_{The long-term division between national and international} realms changed as networks were created. Some argued that global citizen activities would be impossible to be effective. However, civil action has proven to challenge the relationship of power in multiple ways.49_{An example of the rise of power of non-state actors are the Seattle protests in 1999.} Those protests demonstrated the ability of shaping the international political agenda.50_The anti-globalization movement which organized the protests was the first that represented the power of the civil society. “[T]he New York Times referred to it as a second “world power”, a power that in the name of peace opposed those who wanted war. It is no exaggeration to say that everything that happened in the past few years had something to do with this movement.”51

The non-state actors participating in the Seattle protest can nowadays be identified as NGOs. This term is very broad and needs to be clarified. Therefore, this theoretical analysis will start to define the concept of NGOs used in this research.

3.1 Non-Governmental Organizations

The concept of NGOs is one of the main concepts used in this research. There is not one strict definition of NGOs, there is even a lack of consensus in the literature on how to define NGOs. The term ‘non-governmental organizations’ was ‘invented’ by the UN after World War II.52_{In article 71 of the UN} Charter is stated that “The Economic and Social Council may make suitable arrangements for consultation with non-governmental organizations which are concerned with matters within its competence.”53_{Article 71 just names the expression ‘NGOs’ without definition. The term was mostly}

45_{Margaret E. Keck and Kathryn Sikkink, Activists Beyond Borders, Advocacy Networks in International Politics (Ithaca: Cornell University}

Press, 1998), 79.

46_{“International Bill of Human Rights,” United for Human Rights,}

https://www.humanrights.com/what-are-human-rights/international-human-rights-law/international-human-rights-law-continued.html.

47_Ibid.

48_{Margaret E. Keck and Kathryn Sikkink, Activists Beyond Borders, Advocacy Networks in International Politics, (Ithaca: Cornell}

University Press, 1998), 79.

49_{John Gaventa, “Global citizen action,” in: Global Citizen Actions, ed. Michael Edwards and John Gaventa, London: Earthscan (2001): 278.}

https://books.google.nl/books?id=TMlQAwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&hl=nl&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=citiz en%20power&f=false.

50_{David Chandler, Constructing Global Civil Society: Morality and Power in International Relations, New York (2004): 6,}

https://link-springer-com.vu-nl.idm.oclc.org/content/pdf/10.1057%2F9780230005846.pdf.

51_{Fausto Bertinotti, “Reformist social democracy is no longer on the agenda: the anti-globalisation movement is the basis of a left}

alternative,” The Guardian Politics (11 August 2003), https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2003/aug/11/globalisation.world.

52_{Kerstin Martens, “Mission Impossible? Defining Nongovernmental Organizations,” International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit}

Organisations, vol. 13, no. 3 (September 2002): 271,

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.466.7530&rep=rep1&type=pdf.

(16)

applied to organizations, engaged in UN context. Nonetheless, nowadays the term ‘NGOs’ is more than that. It is used for all kind of actors engaging inside or outside the UN framework, internationally or nationally.54_{In Resolution 1996/31 of the UN, there were some general requirements established for} NGOs.55_{However, the UN failed to describe precise characteristics of NGOs.}56_{As Archer argued that} the term ‘NGOs’ remains “an awkwardly negative title coined by the United Nations to describe a vast range of international and national citizens organizations, trade unions, voluntary associations, research institutes, public policy centers, private government agencies, business and trade associations, foundations and charitable endeavors.”57_{Where NGOs is now an overarching expression, there were} multiple other terms, like ‘non-profit’, ‘voluntary’ or ‘civil society’ organizations.58

There are multiple attitudes towards the definition of NGOs. Gordenker and Weiss argued that NGOs are considered as “non-profit organisations – that is, they are private in form, but public in purpose.”59_{This is a more general definition, whereas Charlton & May stated that NGOs should be} defined as “dependent rather than as independent variable in Third World development, and, specifically, their ambitions to ‘scale up’ their activities beyond a project focus are subject to some immutable constraints,”60_{which is a more specific description. Yet, another interesting explanation is} from Vakil, who states that NGOs are “self-governing, private, not-for-profit organizations that are geared to improving the quality of life for disadvantaged people.”61_{Martens states a definition of NGOs} should include all relevant ideal-typical features. He argues that NGOs can be defined as “NGOs are formal (professionalized) independent societal organizations whose primary aim is to promote common goals at the national or international level [italics removed].”62_{DeMars argues that there are several} elements which most NGOs share. To begin, most NGOs are domiciled in more than one nation, the organization is transnationally structured. Another comparison is the promise of future progress.63 Amnesty International (AI) promises a world of universal respect and protection for human rights, where

Organisations, vol. 13, no. 3 (September 2002): 271-272,

55_{“Resolution 1996/31: Consultative relationship between the United Nations and non-governmental organizations,” United Nations}

Economic and Social Council, forty-ninth plenary meeting (25 July 1996). http://www.un.org/documents/ecosoc/res/1996/eres1996-31.htm.

57_{Able Archer, “Methods of multilateral management: The interrelationship of international organizations and NGOs,” In: The US, the UN}

and the Management of Global Change ed Toby Trister Gati, New York (1983): 303.

58_{David Lews, “Nongovernmental Organizations, Definition and History,” Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg (2009): 1,}

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/5b42/5f2c896991e5ab7fce43ccd1fb9b9c1bf439.pdf.

59_{Leon Gordenker and Thomas G Weiss, “Devolving Responsibilities: A Framework for Analysing NGOs and Services,” Third World}

Quarterly, 18, no. 3, Beyond UN Subcontracting: Task-Sharing with Regional Security Arrangements and Service-Providing NGOs (1997):

444, https://www-jstor-org.proxy-ub.rug.nl/stable/pdf/3993262.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3Aca3d48404ab046f44f4868311817a2e2.

60_{Roger Charlton and Roy May, “NGOs, Politics, Projects and Probity: A Policy Implementation Perspective,” Third World Quarterly, vol.}

16, no. 2 (June 1995): 238,

https://www-jstor-org.proxy-ub.rug.nl/stable/pdf/3993307.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3Afc87d8eaaef589ddd16887f34ca66db1.

61_{Anna C. Vakil, “Confronting the Classification Problem: Toward Taxonomy of NGOs,” World Development vol. 25, no. 12 (1997): 2060,}

https://ac.els-cdn.com/S0305750X97000983/1-s2.0-S0305750X97000983-main.pdf?_tid=4e540f17-3540-46ea-a2cb-c1cfe8f32c42&acdnat=1549298962_cc9888667eb47f89a869851ffbfdd083.

63_{William E. DeMars, NGOs and Transnational Networks: Wild Cards in World Politics, London: Pluto Press, 2005: 3, ProQuest Ebook}

(17)

Greenpeace promises a world with protection for the environment.64_{Moreover, NGOs share the} challenge “to infuse very small steps with very large meanings, and thereby either to transform or obscure the self-interests of partners.”65_{DeMars further argues that NGOs influence world politics more} than the public imagine and “[t]heir real significance is that NGOs often create inadvertent political consequences whose impact is more important than either success or failure in reaching official goals[italics removed].”66

This research is investigating how to improve human rights, using the ‘Boomerang Pattern’, based on transnational networks. Consequently, it will concentrate on NGOs with focus area in human rights. It combines different opinions in a definition workable for this research. Hence this thesis states that non-governmental organizations are private with a public purpose, not-for-profit, independent, transnational organizations, promising to improve the quality of life.

Quality of life in this thesis is focused on human rights, yet for other research it can be concentrated on the quality of life for animals or the environment. As the ‘promise’ of most human rights NGOs is the universal respect for human rights, it is interesting to analyze promising future progress, as it investigates whether NGOs, while using the UPR process as a tool, can improve (progress) human rights (promise) on the ground. In this research it is key for NGOs to be independent, as they provide information for the review process. If governments are involved in NGOs, the information might not be objective. With not-for-profit it is the same issue. If profits are one of the goals for NGOs, it needs to satisfy its stakeholders. The promise for future progress is difficult to achieve if there are other goals at the same time. The characteristic of being private with a public purpose concerns the same arguments. It needs to be an organization aiming to achieve its goals without influence of anybody outside the organization, for example a government or other state officials. Consequently, it needs to be a private organization, but the goals of the organizations are for improvement for the public. Moreover, NGOs are transnational. An example is the arrest of General Augusto Pinochet of Chile.67_{Pinochet was} grounded in London for almost two years, while the British government was considering handing him over to Spain, who asked for his extradition.68_{This impeachment of Spain was established, since a} network of NGOs had put pressure on the Spanish government. The transnational network of NGOs worked independent, not-for-profit and was private with the public purpose of bringing justice to Pinochet after his crimes in Chile. Bringing justice to Pinochet restored peace to the people to whom the horrors occurred and retaliated his actions. This can be seen as a promise for improvement of the quality of life for the people of Chile.

64_{Ibid, 3.} 65_{Ibid, 3.} 66_{Ibid, 2.}

67_{For more information on the horror Pinochet established in Chile, see for exanple: Heraldo Muñoz, The Dictator’s Shadow: Life Under}

Augusto Pinochet, New York: Basic Books (2008).

68_{William E. DeMars, NGOs and Transnational Networks: Wild Cards in World Politics, London: Pluto Press (2005): 1.}

(18)

This movement in Chile showed the strength of transnational networks. Transnational advocacy networks are described by Margaret Keck and Kathryn Sikkink in their book: ‘Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics.’ Transnational advocacy networks are part of the ‘Boomerang Pattern’ mentioned in this book. This ‘Boomerang Pattern’ will be used as an approach to answer the research question.

3.2 Transnational Advocacy Networks

To understand the ‘Boomerang Pattern’, it is key to understand what transnational advocacy networks are. To start with the concept of network, Keck and Sikkink use the concept of network from a sociological perspective to bridge the gap between national and international realms.69_{Keck and Sikkink} based this terminology on the work of organizational theorist Walter Powell. Powell argued that networks are “lighter on their feet then hierarchies.”70_{What is meant by being lighter on their feet is} that hierarchies are structures which have “clear departmental boundaries, clean lines of authority, detailed reporting mechanisms, and formal decision making procedures”.71_{Hierarchical organizations} are bulky organizations, for which adapting change can be difficult. As networks are not such massive organizations, the adaptability to change is easier. Furthermore, networks depend on each other and hierarchical organizations depend in the end on the managerial team. So, networks are ‘lighter on their feet’. Powell moreover argued that networks share the burden and benefits, which is better for an organization.72_{Powell stated that “[n]etworks are particularly apt for circumstances in which there is a} need for efficient, reliable information… Networks, then, are especially useful for the exchange of commodities whose value is not easily measured.”73_{Commodities are issues difficult to put a price on,} such as philosophies on innovation or experiments, certain approaches to production or a technological capability for example. He explains the economic model, which Keck and Sikkink use as the foundation for their theory of transnational advocacy networks in the political system.

Networks came into existence when the world politics did not only include states anymore, but many non-state actors became important as well.74_{Interactions between states and non-state actors were} organized in the form of networks. Those networks were transnational and became visible in the international political arena.75_{These networks include activists and are different, because the focus of} the networks is based on principle ideas or values to motivate their information.76_{Advocacy networks}

70_{Walter W. Powell, “Neither Market nor Hierarchy: Network Forms of Organizations,” Research in Organizational Behavior 12, 1990:}

303, https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Walter_Powell/publication/301840604_Neither_Market_Nor_Hierarchy_Network_Forms_of_Organiza tion/links/5a9edb4f0f7e9badd99e78a8/Neither-Market-Nor-Hierarchy-Network-Forms-of-Organization.pdf?origin=publication_detail. 71_{Ibid, 303.} 72_{Ibid, 303.} 73_{Ibid, 304.}

74_{Margaret E. Keck and Kathryn Sikkink, Activists Beyond Borders, Advocacy Networks in International Politics (Ithaca: Cornell University}

Press, 1998), 1.

75_{Ibid, 1.} 76_{Ibid, 1.}

(19)

can be defined as “actors working internationally on an issue, who are bound together by shared values, a common discourse and dense exchanges of information and services.”77_{These networks create} multiple ways of accessing the international system by establishing relations between the civil society, the state and international organizations.78_{With these new links, they can make international resources} available for other actors in domestic and in social battles.79_{Furthermore, being part of a network gives} organizations tools for the improvement of the public good. These tools can include increased information and resources, with which it is possible to put something on the global agenda or in the media.80_{The boundaries between states and its citizens are becoming more blurred. The road to the} international system, for both the people and the state, can be transformed through transnational advocacy networks who change the practice of national sovereignty.81_{These networks are essential for} the ‘Boomerang Pattern’, because “participation in transnational networks has become an essential component of the collective identities of the activists involved, and networking a part of their common repertoire.”82_{For a boomerang to be able to ‘work’, it needs a network, which it can use to put pressure} on the government.

Transnational advocacy networks have elements of both agent and structure. Networks can be seen as structures, when the question is asked who creates networks and how networks are created. This question asks for “patterns of interactions among organizations and individuals.”83_{On the other hand,} when it is seen as an agent, then added to the structure is an agency which is not comparable with its components.84_{Nonetheless, when the networks are seen as an agent it should be kept in mind that this} agency is run by activists of the networks, as the effectiveness of being an actor depends on the structure the network is in.85_{Transnational advocacy networks are not powerful in the way states are powerful.} They are powerful in the way they obtain information and ideas. Moreover, the strategies these networks have to modify information and value context, in which states create polices, give them power.86_NGOs function in networks. Networks use soft power to achieve their goals. Soft power is the power to achieve your objectives through the ability of drawing attention instead of coercion or payments.87_{It is for} example getting a state or organization to want the objectives, the outcomes, you want as an

77_{Kathryn Sikkink, “A Typology of Relations Between Social Movements and International Institutions,” Proceedings of the Annual}

Meeting (American Society of International Law) 97, (April 2003): 302, https://www.jstor.org/stable/25659874.

79_{Ibid, 1.}

80_{Amanda Murdie, “The Ties that Bind: A Network Analysis of Human Rights International Nongovernmental Organizations,” British}

Journal of Political Science 44, no. 1 (2014): 2,

https://www-cambridge-org.ezproxy.leidenuniv.nl:2443/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/826D44351BAB81279CA398223CAEBE5C/S0007123412000683a.pdf/ties_that_bind_a_network_analysis_of_human_ri ghts_international_nongovernmental_organizations.pdf.

University Press, 1998), 1-2. 82_{Ibid, 14.} 83_{Ibid, 5.} 84_{Ibid, 5.} 85_{Ibid 207.} 86_{Ibid, 16.}

87_{Joseph S. Nye Jr. Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics, New York: PublicAffairs (2009),}

(20)

organization.88_{“NGOs and networks organizations have soft-power resources and do not hesitate to use} them.”89_{Networks persuade and socialize, which includes putting pressure, ‘arm-twisting’, pressuring} for sanctions and embarrassing states to urge them make changes.90_{As networks are transnational,} changes in the state policies do not come from a one level analysis.91_{As Brysk states in her article:} “change does not come solely from the state, civil society, or international influences. In this model, the relationship between civil society and the state is mediated by the international system; change comes from above and below.”92_{By using information and legitimacy as a force and not as a weakness, social} movements can create international networks.93_{The international system is pressed from below through} non-state actors and networks, whereas the pressure from above comes from institutional networks.94 “The international system gives social movements resources, protection and more information.”95_These networks create opportunities of putting pressure on states from below and above. The ‘Boomerang Pattern’ uses these networks for its function.

3.3 The ‘Boomerang Pattern’

The ‘Boomerang Pattern’ describes how domestic NGOs can circumvent their state governments “and directly search out international allies to try to bring pressure on their states from outside.”96_The ‘Boomerang Pattern’ can be explained in laymen’s terms as a process in which domestic NGOs of State A are blocked, causing the NGOs to connect to their networks. Members of these networks put pressure on the states they are domiciled in and if relevant on other third parties as well, who in turn put pressure on State A again.97_{States are the number one guarantors of security of human rights but are the number} one violators as well.98_{As mentioned in the introduction, governments are the risk managers but can} create uncertainties. NGOs can use this framework to manage risks and uncertainties. This framework is based on international and transnational contacts. These contacts “can amplify the demands of domestics groups, pry open space for new issues, and then echo back these demands into the domestic arena.”99_{Figure 1 visualizes the ‘Boomerang Pattern’ established by Keck and Sikkink.}100

88_{Joseph S. Nye Jr, “Public Diplomacy and Soft Power,” The Annals of the American Academy of Political Science, 616 (2008): 95,}

https://www-jstor-org.proxy-ub.rug.nl/stable/pdf/25097996.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3Ad406700cd0d1a58eb7ce8de8959c5772.

89_{Joseph S. Nye Jr. Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics, New York: PublicAffairs (2009): 94,}

https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.ezproxy.leidenuniv.nl:2443/lib/leidenuniv/reader.action?docID=903654.

91_{Alison Brysk, “From Above and Below: Social Movements, the International System, and Human Rights in Argentina,” Comparative}

Political Studies vol. 26, no.3 (October 1993): 260, https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414093026003001.

92_{Ibid, 260.} 93_{Ibid, 261.}

94_{David Chandler, Constructing Global Civil Society: Morality and Power in International Relations, New York (2004): 1,}

https://link-springer-com.vu-nl.idm.oclc.org/content/pdf/10.1057%2F9780230005846.pdf.

95_{Alison Brysk, “From Above and Below: Social Movements, the International System, and Human Rights in Argentina,” Comparative}

Political Studies vol. 26, no.3 (October 1993): 261, https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414093026003001.

97_{Ibid, 13.} 98_{Ibid, 13.} 99_{Ibid, 13.} 100_{Ibid, 13.}

(21)

Figure 1 – ‘Boomerang Pattern’ by Margaret E. Keck and Kathryn Sikkink”101

3.4 Challenges for the ‘Boomerang Pattern’

Although this framework is received as very useful, there are missing elements. Where Keck and Sikkink are lacking in their framework, is the linkage between domestic movements and advocacy networks.102_{They assume that individuals will seek for international and transnational networks, but} domestic networks too are important. Issues that are different in every nation, cannot be addressed internationally and therefore the domestic networks and connections need to be considered.103_Another criticism stated is that Keck and Sikkink do not “analyse power relations within NGOs and between NGOs and their partners.”104_{Relationships within NGOs and between NGOs and their partners are} assumed to be ‘horizontal’ and voluntarily, however there might be inequality in power between several NGOs. Moreover, critics state that the model is based on only “British and especially American academic literature.”105_{Critics question whether this framework would be applicable for the global} South. Not only because of the literature used, also because of the inequality of relationships in networks.106

Yet, the most interesting lack of the framework as stated by David Bassano: “[the Boomerang Pattern] do not represent the international NGOs or State B [as in Figure 1] as fields of conflict which determine whether or not pressure is applied to State A [as in Figure 1].”107_{The boomerang framework}

101_Ibid.

102_{Francesca Polletta, “Reviewed Work(s): Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics by Margaret E. Keck and}

Kathryn Sikkink,” Contemporary Sociology 28, no. 1 (January 1999): 96-97.

103_{Ibid, 96-97.}

104_{Jan Aart Scholte, “Reviewed Work(s): Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics by Margaret E. Keck and}

Kathryn Sikkink,” International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs) 75, no. 2 (April 1999): 394. https://www-jstor-org.proxy-ub.rug.nl/stable/pdf/2623353.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3A93b4e921ff1b13958394bc1419f12d48.

105_{Ibid, 394.} 106_{Ibid, 394.}

107_{David Bassano, “The Boomerang Pattern: Verification and Modification,” Peace & Change vol. 39, no. 1 (January 2014): 27,}

(22)

provided by Keck and Sikkink assumes that ‘State B’ will put pressure on ‘State A’ in each case. Yet, in ‘State B’ there are multiple actors who need to decide whether or not pressure will be exercised on ‘State A’, Bassano argues. This is what he calls the fields of conflict. Bassano adds several differences to the ‘Boomerang Pattern’ of Keck and Sikkink, yet essential changes. It adds an extra arrow so that not only domestic NGOs are providing information to international NGOs but there is more of an interaction between them. Bassano established a two-way street of providing information and support to each other. He states that “the purpose of a modified version of the Boomerang Pattern are to complicate the interactions between domestic and international NGOs and to problematize the situation in the global North, where the results of NGO activism are hardly predetermined.”108_{This interaction} between international NGOs and domestic NGOs is established for the most effective process of change. Information gives NGOs power and the information comes from inside the state. Furthermore, when international NGOs can support the domestic NGOs, the pressure can come from below and above to the government. Therefore, for the boomerang framework to be even more effective, this link is essential. Next, he adds the word ‘contingent’ to pressure from ‘State B’ to ‘State A’ and change the word pressure from the international NGOs towards Intragovernmental Organizations into ‘contingent response’. Adding these terms creates a complication of the setting. There are cases where international NGOs do not support domestic NGOs or where states choose not to put pressure on other states, the fields on conflict. Bassano represents the states “as fields of conflict which may or may not result in pressure on State A as a result of NGO activism”.109_{The different actors are linked to each other but} listed separately. The conflict between these different actors defines the eventual government policy and so the outcome of activism.110_{Bassano argues that a more detailed version of the ‘Boomerang Pattern’} might be more useful.111_{Figures 2 and 3 show the ‘Boomerang Pattern’ and the modified ‘Boomerang} Pattern’, as mentioned by David Bassano.112

108_{Ibid, 28.} 109_{Ibid, 40.} 110_{Ibid, 40.} 111_{Ibid, 28.} 112_{Ibid, 25 and 29.}

(23)

Figure 2 – ‘Boomerang Pattern’ by Keck & Sikkink113

Figure 3 – Modified ‘Boomerang Pattern’ by David Bassano114

3.5 Three Phases of the ‘Boomerang Pattern’

The ‘Boomerang Pattern’ can be divided into three different phases. The first phase is when domestic NGOs are being blocked by the government. It is necessary to find other ways to put pressure on the state to reach the goals of the different NGOs. In this phase the actors are the NGOs operating in their transnational advocacy networks. The process of the phase is providing information towards their network to circumvent the state. It continues with the second phase of the boomerang framework. NGOs reach out to their transnational networks. The domestic and international NGOs put their hands together and extend to the intragovernmental organizations, and/or to State B. Actors in this process are the domestic NGOs who are being blocked, together with international NGOs searching for the

113_{Ibid, 21.} 114_{Ibid, 24.}

(24)

intragovernmental organizations for support. As Bassano had added, from the international NGOs there will be a contingent response towards the intragovernmental organizations. This is the process of stage two. The final and third phase of the ‘Boomerang Pattern’ is when State B contingently put pressure on State A and/or whether intragovernmental organizations will put pressure on State A. The actors are the intragovernmental organizations or State B and the process is putting pressure on State A.

3.6 Spiral Model

Sikkink herself has modified the ‘Boomerang Pattern’ as well. Together with Thomas Risse and Stephen C. Ropp, she edited the book “The Power of Human Rights” in 1999. They create another framework, called the ‘Spiral Model’. This framework is based on the theory of norms socialization processes.115 The definition of a process of socialization is “the process by which principled ideas held by individuals become norms in the sense of collective understandings about appropriate behavior which then lead to changes in identities, interests, and behavior.”116_{This model is built upon the concept of transnational} advocacy networks created by Keck and Sikkink. The ‘Spiral Model’ is “a more dynamic conceptualization of the effects which these domestic-transnational-international linkages have on domestic political change.”117_{The ‘Spiral Model’ can be understood as a multiplied ‘Boomerang} Pattern’, where several boomerangs are thrown. Figure 4 will show the ‘Spiral Model’.118

115_{Thomas Risse and Kathryn Sikkink, “The socialization of international human rights norms into domestic practices: introduction,” In: The}

Power of Human Rights: International Norms and Domestic Change, edited by Thomas Risse, Stephen C. Ropp and Kathryn Sikkink,

(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999): 6.

116_{Ibid, 11.} 117_{Ibid, 18.} 118_{Ibid, 20.}

(25)

Figure 4 – Spiral model by Risse, Ropp and Sikkink119

However, the ‘Spiral Model’ is not a better fit for this research due to several reasons. To start, ‘Society’ is able to go straight to ‘International’. What will be explained in chapter four and five, NGOs, NHRIs, civil society and other stakeholders can provide information for the UPR process. This information will be used to base, among other documents, the review on. So, the ‘State’ pillar is circumvented. Furthermore, awareness of domestic human rights issues in the international arena can be established. Domestic NGOs can use their transnational networks, so that internationallyrecognized NGOs provide information which can be ‘boomeranged’ back into the domestic arena. Moreover, the UPR process create the ability in which the domestic NGOs display the flaws of their governments directly in the international system, as the UPR includes all states. In the ‘Spiral Model’ the link with intergovernmental mechanisms is not established, yet the UPR is an intergovernmental mechanism and the focus of this research.

The UPR Boomerang thrown by NGOs for Improvement of Human Rights: