Suchergebnisse

Internationale Organisationen greifen insbesondere seit dem Ende des Ost-West-Konflikts verstärkt in innergesellschaftliche Prozesse ein und treten immer öfter in direkte Herrschaftsbeziehungen mit Individuen. Die Einsätze zum Aufbau politischer Strukturen in Nachkriegsgesellschaften sind hierfür das augenfälligste Beispiel. Im Zuge dieser Entwicklung kam es zur Verletzung von Menschenrechten direkt durch internationale Organisationen. Als besonders gravierende Beispiele gelten die Fälle sexuellen Missbrauchs im Kontext von Friedensmissionen der UNO. Es wird zudem behauptet, dass es auch im Rahmen der Strukturanpassungsprogramme des IWF und der Weltbank zu Menschenrechtsverletzungen gekommen sei. Direkte Herrschaftsbeziehungen führen freilich auch umgekehrt dazu, dass normative Ansprüche hinsichtlich des Schutzes grundlegender Rechte direkt an internationale Organisationen herangetragen werden. In dem geplanten Projekt wollen wir deshalb der Frage nachgehen, wann internationale Organisationen diese Ansprüche anerkennen und Verfahren einrichten, mit denen der Schutz von Menschenrechten gewährleistet werden kann. Konkret soll untersucht werden, unter welchen Bedingungen internationale Organisationen auf den Vorwurf, eine ihrer Politiken verletze Menschenrechte, mit der Einrichtung entsprechender Verfahren reagieren. Dabei soll es vor allem darum gehen, Kausalmechanismen und deren Rahmenbedingungen zu identifizieren und zu gewichten. Außerdem wollen wir Erkenntnisse darüber gewinnen, ob entsprechende Reformen internationaler Organisationen als Ausdruck der Etablierung einer neuen generellen Norm angesehen werden können. Das Projekt soll einen Beitrag zur Forschung über die neuen Funktionsweisen internationaler Institutionen im Zeitalter der Globalisierung leisten. Zudem soll es zur Weiterentwicklung der Forschung zur Diffusion von Normen im Allgemeinen und von Menschenrechts- und rule of law-Normen im Speziellen beitragen, indem die Möglichkeit sowohl einer vertikalen Diffusion von Normen auf die internationale Ebene als auch der horizontalen Diffusion von Normen auf der internationalen Ebene diskutiert wird.

This article examines how states and international organizations can be held to account for extraterritorial human rights violations. I develop and investigate the potential of what I call an "indirect accountability" mechanism. In indirect accountability relationships, accountability fora do not directly hold states and international organizations that commit extraterritorial human rights violations to account as these are frequently immune to direct accountability claims. Instead, they hold them to account indirectly by addressing accountability claims to an implicated third party, expecting that the third party will upload the accountability claims to the state or international organization. After conceptualizing the mechanism and its scope conditions, I conduct two brief qualitative case studies using the method of deductive process tracing to explore the potential of the mechanism. The first case study traces efforts to indirectly hold the United States to account for violating foreigners' privacy rights in the context of mass surveillance. The second case study traces attempts to indirectly hold the United Nations Security Council to account for violating the due process rights of blacklisted terror suspects. Both case studies provide support for the mechanism.

This article examines how states and international organizations can be held to account for extraterritorial human rights violations. I develop and investigate the potential of what I call an "indirect accountability" mechanism. In indirect accountability relationships, accountability fora do not directly hold states and international organizations that commit extraterritorial human rights violations to account as these are frequently immune to direct accountability claims. Instead, they hold them to account indirectly by addressing accountability claims to an implicated third party, expecting that the third party will upload the accountability claims to the state or international organization. After conceptualizing the mechanism and its scope conditions, I conduct two brief qualitative case studies using the method of deductive process tracing to explore the potential of the mechanism. The first case study traces efforts to indirectly hold the United States to account for violating foreigners' privacy rights in the context of mass surveillance. The second case study traces attempts to indirectly hold the United Nations Security Council to account for violating the due process rights of blacklisted terror suspects. Both case studies provide support for the mechanism.

The ability to violate and the duty to protect human rights have traditionally been ascribed to states. Yet, since international organizations increasingly take decisions that directly affect individuals, it has been alleged that they, too, have human rights obligations. Against this background, we can witness a trend among international organizations establishing provisions to prevent human rights violations and to enable individuals to hold them accountable for such violations. This can be seen as a specific manifestation of a more general trend that has been described as the spread of good governance standards to, or the constitutionalization of, international organizations. The purpose of this article is to reveal the mechanisms that can account for the introduction of human rights protection provisions in international organizations. The empirical basis of the article forms a case study on the evolution of such provisions in United Nations sanctions policy. I first develop a conceptual framework that draws on diffusion mechanisms that have been used to explain the spread of norms and institutional design among states and to trace reform processes in international organizations. The empirical analysis suggests that shaming, defiance, litigation and instances of learning can account for the advancement of human rights protection provisions in United Nations sanctions policy: the Security Council was exposed to and responded to various forms of pressure from a variety of different actors. At the same time, it was approached with arguments concerning why it should institute reforms and advice in terms of how such reforms should look and engaged in a learning process. [Reprinted by permission; copyright Sage Publications Ltd. & ECPR-European Consortium for Political Research.]

The ability to violate and the duty to protect human rights have traditionally been ascribed to states. Yet, since international organizations increasingly take decisions that directly affect individuals, it has been alleged that they, too, have human rights obligations. Against this background, we can witness a trend among international organizations establishing provisions to prevent human rights violations and to enable individuals to hold them accountable for such violations. This can be seen as a specific manifestation of a more general trend that has been described as the spread of good governance standards to, or the constitutionalization of, international organizations. The purpose of this article is to reveal the mechanisms that can account for the introduction of human rights protection provisions in international organizations. The empirical basis of the article forms a case study on the evolution of such provisions in United Nations sanctions policy. I first develop a conceptual framework that draws on diffusion mechanisms that have been used to explain the spread of norms and institutional design among states and to trace reform processes in international organizations. The empirical analysis suggests that shaming, defiance, litigation and instances of learning can account for the advancement of human rights protection provisions in United Nations sanctions policy: the Security Council was exposed to and responded to various forms of pressure from a variety of different actors. At the same time, it was approached with arguments concerning why it should institute reforms and advice in terms of how such reforms should look and engaged in a learning process.

Der Beitrag beschäftigt sich mit der These der Herausbildung so genannter "Neuer Kriege" und betrachtet dabei eine Dimension des postulierten Formwandels des Krieges, nämlich der Wandel der Gewaltökonomien. Demnach konnten Konfliktparteien im Rahmen der so genannten Stellvertreterkriege während des Ost-West-Konflikts abhängig von ihrer ideologischen Ausrichtung häufig auf die Unterstützung von Super- und Großmächten zielen. Mit dem Ende dieses Systems gewannen alternative, vielfach kriminelle Versorgungswege an Bedeutung. Anhand von vier Kurzfallstudien werden die Funktionsweise zweier typischer Typen von Gewaltökonomien - nämlich Gewaltökonomien, die sich aus dem Schmuggel von Diamanten und Holz speisen - aufgezeigt und erläutert, mittels welcher Instrumente diese geschwächt werden können. Konkret werden die Gewaltökonomien der National Union for the Total Independence of Angola (UNITA) und der Revolutionary United Front (RUF) in Angola bzw. Sierra Leona (Diamantschmuggel) und die Gewaltökonomien der Khmer Rouge und der National Patriotic Front of Liberia (NPLF) bzw. National Patriotic Party (NPP) in Kambodscha bzw. Liberia (Holzschmuggel) in den Blick genommen. (ICB2)