Scope Methods

1197 Words5 Pages
In 1999 the editors of The Persistent Power of Human Rights co-edited another book entitled The Power of Human Rights: International Norms and Domestic Change. In the 1999 book, the editors developed the spiral model with the purpose to understand the conditions under which international human rights regimes and the principals, norms, and rules embedded in them are internalized and implemented domestically and how this affects political transformation processes (Sikkink, Risse, and Ropp 3). Building upon the boomerang effect by Margaret Keck and Kathryn Sikkink, the spiral model incorporates theories about causal relationships between state and non-state actors (Sikkink, Risse, and Ropp 5). The model consists of five phases: repression, denial, tactical concessions, prescriptive statues and rule consistent behavior. Therefore, the spiral model explains how the state moves from being a human rights violator to compliance. This transformation is particularly connected and dependent on the pressure transnational organizations and domestic opposition groups can place on the violator state forcing a change in behavior. After 10 additional years of research the editors revisited the spiral model in The Persistent Power of Human Rights. In revisiting the editors noted several weaknesses in their original work, one of which includes scope conditions. As stated by the editors, they, “under- specified the processes and scope conditions by which and under which states as well as private actors could be moved from commitment to human rights norms to actual compliance with them,” (Sikkink, Risse, and Ropp 4). The editors discuss these scope conditions under which their spiral model of the spread of human rights is not expected to apply. Working off of the spiral model, Sikkink, Risse, and Ropp find that there are 4 social mechanisms to induce compliance: coercion, changing
Open Document