FAILURE OF SHAMING

FAILURE OF SHAMING
US REFUSAL TO ABOLISH DEATH PENALTY

COREY MCKEON (cwm34) Georgetown University Communication, Culture & Technology

Global Governance & Deliberation Georgetown University Professor J.P. Singh December 19, 2010

Failure of Shaming

1

INTRODUCTION
After a country is publicly shamed it deliberates domestically and makes a conscious decision to either cave in and alter its position or firmly refuse to change. The contents of this essay will delve into when and why shaming a country fails in global governance. This is not to say that shaming is never a successful outcome, there are instances when shaming does succeed and the reciprocal instance is that which this essay examines. I will argue that through two conditions, shaming will fail; domestic politics and self-comparison. By looking at these two conditions we will see that for an issue involving human rights, even the act of shaming does not always have the capability of instantly changing the responsiveness of a country. By looking at an example of when shaming fails, we can better understand where domestic politics and self-comparison play into the equation. In early November of 2010, the United Nations Human Rights Council met in Geneva to examine the human rights efforts of the United States through the microscope of the UN and other nations. Recommendations were made to change how the US enforces the death penalty, the US did nothing in response to these recommendations from 228 nations. Through this case we will focus in on an instance where the death penalty, being enforced by the US, disrupted other countries by violating a deviants rights to consult their home country before penalizing this person to death, in the case of Murphy versus Netherland. Through this case we will see how domestic politics surrounding the issue of the death penalty cannot be effected by global interference, yet through the narrower case of Murphy versus Netherland we will see where the death penalty fails to be a domestic

Failure of Shaming

2

political issue when multinational involvement is ignored. We will also look at the selfcomparison of a country through this case, when compensation of human rights efforts is satisfied through other philanthropic contributions. Literature from a variety of authors can be integrated into this argument to support my claim for shaming to fail within the international arena. By pulling in scholarly work from James Lebovic & Erik Voeten, Ole Jacob Sending & Iver Neumann, Emilie HafnerBurton, Alastair Ian Johnston and Bruce Bueno de Mesquita we can examine similarities on the distinctions involving human rights and the interactions that take place in global deliberations. This paper will show that through heavily internalized domestic politics and narrow self-comparison a country will fail to be shamed in global governance.

THE CONCEPT OF SHAMING
Shaming, being the main problem within this essay, can have many outcomes. Many conditions – which will be later discussed – have influence over the outcome of this deliberative strategy. Within an international social environment shaming is not blatantly manifested, through later media portrayals, political documents, and residual interactions, shaming can manifest. Although Lebovic and Voeten through their work The Politics of Shame: The Condemnation of Country Human Rights Practices in the UNCHR may not agree with the final outcome of my paper, being the failure of shaming, they do make many valid and transferable statements apparent and relevant to my argument. Through a case involving the UNCHR, Lebovic and Voeten analyze the actions of this international institution and the actions it took to publicly name and shame countries it felt were not aligned with its

Failure of Shaming

3

initiatives. “Both reputation and the social conformity arguments imply, as well, that the role of human rights records in public shaming has increased over time. This has led some observers to speak of the emergence of a “new world order” based on the idea that liberal norms and ideas are coming to dominate the UN agenda (see Barnett 1997). We assuming, then, that the growing priority of human rights and related norms within global society has increased the value of having a reputation as a good human rights performer and pressures to conform to rights norms (Hafner-Burton and Tsutsui 2004)” (Lebovic and Voeten 2006). Lebovic and Voeten were seeking to imply the importance and true emergence of naming and shaming in the United Nations. They also point out some of the negative associations with the deliberative of act of naming and shaming on weak and strong countries alike. This is also implied by my argument, by first seeing that shaming does exist in global governance we can then identify the conditions under which this act of shaming will fail, which is not a major implication held by Lebovic and Voeten through this piece of writing. They also discuss reputation and social conformity as a cause for being targeted and punished by the UNCHR. Obviously, this is evident when thinking logically about who would be a causal target for an international organization, a country that has a reputation for deviant opinions or stances and the lack of instances where that country will conform to the international organization’s stance. In the article Naming and Shaming: the Human Rights Enforcement Problem, Hafner-Burton states that from anecdotes created by journalists and spread through media, propositions are made to the public, which can entirely change the impact of an issue and its awareness, whether positive or negative (Hafner-Burton 2008). Anecdotes are first described as being ignored by government because they are so blatantly pulled out of

Failure of Shaming

4

context. The first hypothesis made by Hafner-Burton is that perpetrators do not change human rights practices or legislation after they are shamed. A circumstance is stated by Hafner-Burton as an unintended consequence that international publicity about human rights abuses may encourage domestic opposition to the abusive government. Opposition may be highly threatening towards leaders; the publicity creates incentives for the government to cease the citizens’ ability to compete for power before they are able to mobilize further (Hafner-Burton 2008). In support of my argument, Hafner-Burton believes that because of cheap talk, deviant countries can simply ignore naming and shaming. Hafner-Burton uses statistics and media analysis through The Economist and Newsweek to demonstrate how the anecdotal titles can raise awareness of shaming, but ultimately be ineffective.

DOMESTIC POLITICS
Before an international institution or organization can expect a country to instantly change its stance on an issue, the country must first decide where it stands. Factors are pulled in; are the citizens agreeing on this issue and how strongly does the public feel in regards to changing its stance? We must first analyze the internalization of a country and its domestic politics. Bueno de Mesquita examines methods of research within international relations – formal logic, detailed case analysis, and large-sample statistical assessment – that he describes as being marshaled to evaluate how international affairs are shaped by and give shape to domestic politics (Bueno de Mesquita, 2002). He takes a methodological approach to domestic politics that will be tied in through this paper.

Failure of Shaming

5

For the purposes of this essay we look at issues within domestic politics, such as the death penalty, that will grasp strongly held beliefs surrounding an issue and how that issue can be eradicated. Domestic politics, as I will discuss them, are issues within a nation that are internalized solely by that nation and are altered by domestic political figures and activist groups, not by international institutions. Bueno de Mesquita goes further – make no mistake about it, examining international relations as a form of domestic politics leads to radically different ideas and propositions than those that arise when we think of leaders as surrogates or fiduciaries for the well-being of the state and all of its citizens (Bueno de Mesquita, 2002). The political figures are those that must sooth the woes regarding an issue within their nation and then must represent and defend that issue to foreign states, while still holding that issue as an internal matter that should not be affected by a foreign state. Within domestic politics Sending and Neumann state that non-state actors have become more powerful and that states have become less so, with resulting changes in the institutionalization of political authority (Sending & Neumann 2006). They also discuss the processes of governances and a commitment to the triangle of sovereignty, authority, and legitimacy as it is related to and drives these processes. Within domestic politics there is an order to how issues are handled, looking at human rights, there are many factors that determine a stance on issues involving human rights, whether non-state actors or organizations are at the root of the cause or how much influence or power they have related to that issue. The problem of bringing that issue to an arena where it can be scrutinized or enlightened is determined by how much influence and impact the non-state actors and organizations have to affect that issue.

Failure of Shaming

6

SELF-COMPARISON
Countries have many priority levels, views, legislations and protests on issues faced by many nations. Outsiders frown upon some issues, but change may not be urgent on their agenda. By comparing its efforts to that of other countries, a country will be less likely to change its stance on an issue that is already on its “back burner”. We can look at selfcomparison as both a domestic and international condition that supports many diverse issues. Domestically self-comparison can stem from our social interactions and the information technology filter we, as citizens of a country, must navigate. In a world where media is a major source of information deliverance, it is difficult to separate oneself from the national issues and look at them from a global perspective, even for domestic political leaders. In A Theory of Social Comparison Processes by Festinger, we learn that we as humans have an inherent desire and need to compare ourselves – our abilities, appearance, desires, goals, actions – to those we believe are closely related to ourselves based on values we find important. This theory can be applied to a collective identity of a country where the country is comparing itself to other countries that it feels – through population, gross domestic product, human rights, trade – it is making an initiative to better itself and other countries inclusively. By comparing itself it may give up efforts where it feels it does not require more action and focus its abilities on another effort. Later in my research I will apply how this affects countries and actions by countries. Festinger tests several hypothesis related to social comparison in his essay, one of those hypothesis is “To the extent that objective, non-social means are not available, people

Failure of Shaming

7

evaluate their opinions and abilities by comparison respectively with the opinions and abilities of others” (Festinger 1954). The hypothesis is later proved through his experimentation using methods of sample distribution, interviews, and survey research. In Treating International Institutions as Social Environments, Johnston describes the social interaction among international institutions and the effects of the media and behavior to enforce political influences. Shaming as a role in international deliberation is described as a force to alter a countries position towards an issue and how that form of influence among international institutions and actors has the opportunity to be effective because of the social environment in which it is enforced. However, Johnston fails to examine instances in which shaming does not work. By self-comparison, examined by Festinger, we see that there are instances and factors where shaming can fail because of the severity of other elements within the comparison within this social environment. Through Festinger and Johnston, we can almost envision children on a playground, deciding how they want to be perceived by others and what conditions, which can be obvious to onlookers, but oblivious to the children, can play. Conditions such as economic welfare, hygiene, communication actions, and friendship connections can all shape the infractions between children on the playground. When shaming is enforced by one child onto another, we most often associate that child as being a bully, but there are many instances, especially in the twenty first century where this shaming has a major possibility to fail. Instances where a child feels they have more friends, do better in school, have a more stable relationship with their family at home, or any number of other conditions will force that child to overcome the shaming and continue with their own objective, whether or not they are right or wrong has little

Failure of Shaming

8

influence.

COMBINING DOMESTIC POLITICS & SELF-COMPARISON
Domestic politics and self-comparison, when viewed together can be the catalyst for shaming to fail as a strategic method in international relations. Johnston states that through changes in the domestic distribution of power among social groups pursuing (mostly) a constant set of interests or preferences such that different distributions lead to different aggregated state preferences (Johnston, 2001). Through this article Treating International Institutions as Social Environments, we can see how domestic politics – the beliefs held by a country and mostly remain unchanged by outside opinions – and selfcomparison, pulling from the children on the playground example, when a country views itself as opposed to another similar standing country and pays more attention to one issue and not another – can be a determinant of the outcome of shaming. Sending and Neumann have set the stage on how political issues are affected by non-state actors and organizations. This is also supported by Hafner-Burton and his views on cheap talk and when shaming leads to no action by the shamed. The degree by which a country is being shamed and the number of countries pointing fingers can also be taken into consideration. For countries with strong domestic politics and a high standard for self-comparison would have little change due to shaming. We have seen in the literature how self-comparison must meet certain standards to compare to. Through each piece of literature I have incorporated into this paper, we have seen common themes surrounding shaming, domestic politics and self-comparison. In the following case study we will see how highly internalized domestic politics surrounding the

Failure of Shaming

9

death penalty within human rights and the self-comparison of the United States can be the conditions that lead this country to ignore being shamed and refuse to change their stance on the issue. We look more closely at the case of Murphy versus Netherland when the United States acted wrongly in not providing a man with proper representation before subjecting him to the death penalty in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Following the broad case and narrow case of human rights and the death penalty, I will analyze more closely how domestic politics and self-comparison played a part in the two cases.

BROAD CASE // US REFUSAL TO ABOLISH DEATH PENALTY
In November of 2010, the United Nations Human Rights Council met in Geneva, Switzerland to examine the efforts by the United States of America on human rights. As a notion to improve it’s name abroad the United States sent three top officials from the State Department to Geneva’s UN Human Rights Council to be questioned about America’s human rights record by the likes of Cuba, Iran, and North Korea (Bayefasky 2010). The US had never previously gone under such a universal review by other countries, the Obama Administration agreed to join in 2009, this was the first of its efforts to put the country on display for critique by others. Members of the UN Human Rights Council agree to go under review every four years, where other countries have the opportunity to provide suggestions surrounding human rights acts. This represents the US moving away from its previous actions, prior to American Foreign Policy, which has been to ratify selected human rights treaties after due consideration and submit American policy-makers to recommendations based on wellconceived standards by the United Sates. According to procedure of the Council, all

Failure of Shaming 10

members are given the opportunity to comment and make recommendation to the state in the hot seat. Since only three hours are provided per state, the first sixty minutes are for open speech (Bayefasky 2010). On the morning of November 5, 2010, fifty-six countries lined up for the opportunity to speak openly at the representatives of the US. Some were standing outside overnight a day before the meetings in order to be near the top of the list. The first to speak were Cuba, Venezuela, Russia, Iran, Nicaragua, Bolivia and North Korea. Recommendations were plentiful. Cuba’s suggestion was to end “violations against migrants and mentally ill persons” and “ensure the right to food and health.” Iran, which currently allows citizens to stone an Iranian woman for adultery, recommended the US “effectively to combat violence against women.” North Korea, which has secluded its entire population and is allowing citizens to starve, has told the US “to address inequalities in housing, employment and education” and “prohibit brutality by law enforcement officials” (Bayefasky 2010). As reported by FoxNews.com and several other sources, these recommendations are all stated publicly for the citizens to ponder, clearly showing that the United States is displaying recommendations selectively from countries that also have debatable human rights records. As a form of self-comparison, right sided reporting stations are broadcasting statements that make the recommending countries appear to be hypocritical, such has North Korea addressing housing, employment and education, when it has blocked itself off from the rest of the world and has recently stirred up trouble with South Korea and the United States. This act also has domestic causation as well, by taking a stance reporters are influencing how someone perceives the news being reported and typically leans in the

Failure of Shaming 11

favor of certain politicians or human rights organizations, etc. We did see in relation to self-comparison, Hafner-Burton’s notion of cheap talk and anecdotal news headline reporting. However, the majority of news sources did cite the UN Universal Periodic Review. In response to recommendations from adversaries such as Iran, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, the US State Department legal Advisor, Harold Koh, said some proposals were “plainly intended as political provocations, and cannot be taken seriously.” He did not elaborate on this statement, which really shows how he was comparing the countries efforts related to the death penalty to how he feels other countries treat their citizens, or criminals, and that his statement was more trying to brush off statements made by other countries. If we were to look more closely at his personal stance on issues, others may take an adverse position towards his statement. The self-comparison involved in this debate is clearly stated by major publications in the United States, defending the countries position on the death penalty, but also because it is a domestic political issue and cannot be altered by the foreign countries. This broad case involving shaming by the UN was examined by many of the major news sources in the United States. The United States reportedly made many efforts to impress the international crowd. Esther Brimmer, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of International Organizations, told the attendees “it is an honor to be in this chamber.” According to an article on FoxNews.com, she was referring to the meeting place of the UN Human Rights Council – the new and improved direct UN human rights body created by the General Assembly in 2006 over the negative vote cast by the United Sates. In this same chamber the Council has adopted more resolutions and decisions condemning Israel than all other 191 UN member states

Failure of Shaming 12

combined. The chamber is home to Council members Libya, Saudi Arabia, Cuba and China. It was later reported, by the Associate Press on the Tuesday, November 9, 2010, that the United States dismissed the international calls to abolish the death penalty, as ally countries and adversarial countries alike made their recommendations to the US on how Washington can improve its human rights record. “This international engagement must be followed by concrete domestic policies and actions and a commitment to fixing all domestic human rights abuses, not just the ones that are most convenient,” the director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s human rights program, Jamil Dakwar, said in a statement (Associated Press 2010). Koh said capital punishment was permitted under international law, ignoring long standing appeals by European countries and others to temporarily halt or completely abolish the death penalty, which critics say is inhumane and unfairly applied (Associated Press 2010). The call to abolish the death penalty was mentioned repeatedly by the 228 countries that made recommendations made part of the first comprehensive review of human rights efforts in the United States. Koh made other statements mentioning that the US was committed to some of the recommendations, such has including the to sign a declaration on the rights of indigenous people. These were clearly rights that were unrelated to current domestic politics in the United States. The death penalty has been a topic of discussion for many years now. In the same article published by FoxNews.com, Anne Bayefasky, Senior Fellow at he Hudson Institute and Director of the Touro Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust, reported “in the three-hour inquisition which took place this morning, Michael

Failure of Shaming 13

Posner, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor responded with “thanks to very many of the delegations for thoughtful comments and suggestions” shortly after Cuba said the US blockade of Cuba was a “crime of genocide,” Iran “condemned and expressed its deep concern over the situation of human rights” in the United States, and North Korea said it was “concerned by systematic widespread violations committed by the United States at home and abroad” (Bayefasky 2010). Again, she has mainly highlighted people less than aligned with the United States political views and have at times, posed a threat to the nation. Flashing back eighteen months prior to the US rejecting recommendations to abolish the death penalty, we see that China, a communist country, also rejected proposals to end the death penalty and labor camp sentences in a United Nations review. They did however, backed Cuba’s call to take firm action against people “qualifying themselves as human rights defenders with the objective of attacking interests of China” (Branigan 02/2009). The articles written on this event are vastly similar to the ones we have seen involving the United States at the UN Human Rights Council meeting in Geneva. Despite rejecting the abolition of the death penalty, China said it would consider further restrictions on its use. It also supported proposals to improve the supervision of prison staff and the training of the judiciary and to extend disability rights. We see two highly different systems of government, undergoing the same reviews by the UN. When comparing statements and recommendations, and relevant allied countries and adversaries recommendations. China rejected recommendations from the Czech Republic, France, Hungary, Italy and Mexico. In the end China backed its recommendation to “make more widely available to the world its experience in combining a strong state with regional

Failure of Shaming 14

autonomy” (Branigan 02/2009). By standing behind its original position, it refused to shamed and give in to the recommendations of the UN Human Rights Council. China, believed to be the world's most prolific executioner, with at least 7,000 sentenced to death and 1,718 executed last year, according to Amnesty International, will be reducing the number of perpetrators being sentenced to the death penalty. Zhang Jun, Vice-President of the Supreme People's Court, said it would tighten restrictions on the use of capital punishment. But he stressed that the country would not abandon the death penalty, saying it was "impossible" to do so under current conditions and that people had strongly supported it for a long time (Branigan 07/2009). As we’ve seen from both countries being shamed by allies and adversaries alike, transparency has little to do with the death penalty and it is clearly a large issue on the international field. However, some countries have supported the abolition of the death penalty without embracing their negative human rights efforts. The UN Human Rights Council holds these reviews of countries every four years for each country that is a member of the Council. We may see more public retaliation by countries still holding the death penalty as a form of capital punishment, however, with such scrutiny in a public arena, domestic politics and self-comparison to these other countries may withhold any domestic policy changes related to the death penalty.

NARROW CASE // MURPHY VERSUS NETHERLAND
In the case of Murphy versus Netherland, the death penalty in the Commonwealth of Virginia was magnified. When reviewing the case of the US refusal to abolish the death penalty we saw how the media had a critical position in relaying what had been stated in

Failure of Shaming 15

the recommendations by foreign countries in the review of the United State’s human rights efforts. Specifically, Murphy versus Netherland is a clear example of when the death penalty was applied in the US, in the Commonwealth of Virginia, when foreign interaction would have been beneficial for the United States prior to its implementation of the death penalty. As outlined in the Capital Defense Journal, Mario Murphy pleaded guilty to murder-for-hire and to conspiracy to commit murder, and was sentenced to death. After one failed attempt, Murphy along with two hired accomplices planned to stage a burglary in which they would kill the man they were hired to execute, the husband of the woman who hired him. In preparation, the employer drove Murphy to an apartment building, pointed out the victim’s car and told him the specific bedroom in which the victim slept. July 28, 1991, after dressing and arming themselves, Murphy and his two accomplices went to the victim’s apartment. They entered through an unlocked window, waited for the wife to leave the room, went in and beat and stabbed her husband to death. Following instruction of the employer, to make it look like a robbery, Murphy took a videocassette recorder and a video game (Martin 1997). Little did they know this murder would stir up controversy on a global scale. Clearly stated by the United States Court of Appeals, “Following his arrest on September 4, 1992, Murphy waived his constitutional rights and confessed to killing the victim. The Virginia Beach Circuit Court found Murphy’s guilty pleas to murder-to-hire and to conspiracy to commit murder both voluntary and intelligent. At a separate sentencing hearing, the court found that: (1) Murphy’s actions constituted “aggravated battery; (2) Murphy exhibited “depravity of mind”; and (3) Murphy was “a continuing

Failure of Shaming 16

serious threat to society.” The Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed both the convictions and the sentences” (Martin 1997). Following these court findings, Murphy filed a federal habeas petition, claiming that his conviction and death sentence were unlawful because the local authorities did not inform him that, as a foreign national of Mexico, he had a right under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations to speak to the consulate of Mexico. Whether or not this would have changed his sentence or anything related to the case other than a few more hours to prolong the case, was debatable. After a trial, hearing Murphy’s plea, the district court rejected his assertion because it was not raised in state court, and, therefore, was procedurally defaulted (Martin 1997). Obviously, when dealing with the death penalty, what appears to be procedurally correct may need to be made an exception, since dealing with a foreign citizen. Their rights in their home country must also be taken into consideration, or at the least inform their home country of the current ordeal. Because of the severity of this case, it may come across as not requiring equal representation due to an individual coming into another country and murdering another individual. More than 100 countries unanimously adopted the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations in 1963. Under Article 36 of the Convention, “a citizen of one country who is arrested in another country is given the right to contact the country’s consul, and consequently the consul is allowed to visit the detainee and provide assistance.” Clearly, this would have been in the best interest of Murphy prior to waiving his constitutional rights and pleading guilty to the charges, and he did not have the proper education prior to making an unwise decision, being involved in murder-to-hire, to educate himself in the

Failure of Shaming 17

case of being found guilty of this crime. In the end, Murphy’s claims were not enough to find the Commonwealth of Virginia in violation of the Vienna Convention by denying him of his consul. However, in 1969, the United States did agree to make the Vienna Convention the “supreme Law of Land” under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution. Because Murphy did not arise his right to a consul at the right time during his trials, he missed his opportunity to consult with Mexico. Murphy also tried to claim ethnic discrimination, which the court ultimately found that even with the use of a consulate, it would not have in any way altered his termination. In court finding, his claim of ethnic discrimination appeared to be a ploy to lengthen the court hearings. This case was also viewed as a highly domestic affair, because the victim was an American, the United States did not see any realistic need to involve outside affairs. The man being charged had resided in the United States for many years and the man murdered was born and resided in the US for his entire life. He did not do anything unaccepted in comparison to US norms and did not deserve to have been murdered. What Murphy did, was morally wrong and he was viewed as a deviant by the society he resided in. In his hypothetical deliberation with Mexico, nothing could have possibly been done to find him not guilty of the crime and because it happened on the soil of the United States he was subjected to the punishment by the United States, which in the case of his crime, happens to be death. It was ultimately found that cause and ultimate prejudice must be found in the case of the Vienna Convention being waived in defendant rights. The United States continues to enforce the death penalty today, with people continuing to be punished by death this month.

Failure of Shaming 18

ANALYSIS // UNHRC SHAMING US & MURPHY VS. NETHERLAND
When analyzing the case of the US refusal to abolish the death penalty we saw how the media had a critical position in relaying what had been stated in the recommendations by foreign countries in the review of the United State’s human rights efforts. Specifically, Murphy versus Netherland is a clear example of when the death penalty was applied in the US, in the Commonwealth of Virginia, when foreign interaction would have been beneficial for the United States. We saw how the US refused to incorporate the participation of Mexico because Murphy was in fact a citizen of Mexico. Through acts of self-comparison, feeling that the United States was the more powerful child on the playground, they chose to ignore order and deal with Murphy internally, without the incorporation of Mexico. The Vienna Convention became the “Law of the Land” in 1969 and clearly did not remain. By denying Murphy the right to consult with Mexico officials, the United States made a faster conviction of Murphy and ultimately utilizing the death penalty, instead of handing him over to his home country after his punishments are fulfilled. The death penalty is a huge issue internationally because some countries choose to recognize the use of the death penalty and others do not. Mexico no longer recognizes the death penalty, and has not executed a person since 1961. How then, would the United States feel that they could subject a citizen of a country that does not recognize the death penalty, to death? Because the United States still recognizes the death penalty, and it is a domestic issue, being put under heavy scrutiny, policy must be recommended internally and reach level where a bill can be supported and passed to end the use of the death penalty. In self-

Failure of Shaming 19

comparison, the United States donates millions of dollars each year to third world countries, providing them electronics, vaccines, educational aids, shelter, and support and many other helpful items. The country may feel that by doing these things for other countries, the death penalty can be something that is enforced when people in its own country, do something that people do not generally accept such as murder or drug sales. We also see that the decisions involving Murphy versus Netherland and other similar cases may have instigated foreign countries to make their recommendations regarding the death penalty to the United States. There are however, countries that implement the death penalty for sins much less unfavorable than murder, such has sexual orientation, by comparison there are countries that will subject same-sex intimacy to death. The United States by comparison, kills people for acts of murder or other large scale crimes unrelated to a persons religious affiliations, beliefs, race, or sexual orientation. These countries are also issued recommendations to avoid discrimination against particular discourses and orientations. A different set of conditions would exist as to why these countries and the cultures within them tend to refuse to change their death penalty rulings. The culture within countries like the United States has more of a deliberative and majority ruling way of solving problems, or working towards a better solution.

CONCLUSION
We have found in this paper that through domestic politics involving the death penalty and self-comparison of the United States to its other human rights efforts and the human rights efforts of countries of comparison, the act of shaming will fail. Domestic politics has been viewed as a condition to support the failure of shaming, it involves the

Failure of Shaming 20

politics within a country, with little influence from actors outside of that country. These politics must be dealt with internally before any outside issues that contradict the domestic politics can be dealt with. Self-comparison, we have seen, is the act of a country or individual analyzing their flaws, opportunities, and fortunes in contrast to a comparable counterpart. In the case involving the United States being shamed by many countries in its review by the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, we saw that many countries provided hypocritical claims of negative human rights efforts. We also found that through current policy and action in the United States the death penalty is indeed a domestic political issue and any action of converse nature must first be ratified internally. Other countries such as China have undergone the same scrutiny by allies and adversaries alike in the arena of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, and it to has failed to make significant changes regarding its use of the death penalty. If anything, China has retracted its use slightly, but still uses the death penalty. In the case involving Murphy versus Netherland, we saw that Mexico, who has not used the death penalty since 1961, should have most likely been involved in the decision making of the punishment involving Mario Murphy. There are several other conditions, which may have caused the recommendations of abolishing the death penalty to be rejected. Conditions such as power, favorability, and superiority complex. When looking at the China and the United States, which are clear examples of when shaming can fail in international deliberations, there are obvious factors that can allow people to assume that power may be a factor in the failure of deliberation. China and the US are major importers and exporters of goods and services to other

Failure of Shaming 21

countries. There is a sense of control displayed domestically for each of the countries regarding the market and actions with other countries. However, this may just be an assumed condition for power would not logically play a role in the deliberations with the UN Human Rights council, for power has little to do with making the choice to reject the act of shaming. Favorability to the death penalty may also be an assumed condition that would cause shaming to fail. A country that favors the use of the death penalty and ending the life of someone who has maliciously ended the life of someone else may be a concept that will manifest or resonate with wonderers of the failure of shaming. For such a strong notion, the favorability would be much more visible in countries being shamed if it were indeed a factor that in the failure of shaming. However, this would be a condition that would have to be analyzed much further, for the majority people find killing of any kind to be immoral and selfish. Superiority, much related to a sense of power in international deliberations, could also be a thought of condition to the failure of shaming. This sense of superiority or entitlement could be a condition that the US or China could have emulated, however, we have seen that the Obama Administration subjected itself to the review by the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva as an examination of their human rights efforts for the use of change and global engagement. For a country to portray itself as superior to other countries, it must have no visible flaws, and the countries that refused to be shamed had many flaws, China and the US alike. Flaws in the form of GDP, trade deficits, or how a country is led. By moving past the notion of superiority we can see that this would be a factor that is less likely to occur in global governance and on an international playing field.

Failure of Shaming 22

Superiority as a condition of the failure of shaming would be a selfish alternative. Domestic politics and self-comparison appear to be the most logical conditions for the failure of shaming, which I have support through literature scholarly research involving personal self-comparison, the act of shaming and interactions within the social environment that exists on the international level. The role of domestic politics and self-comparison in relation to shaming are that they must support the act of shaming and instances where placing shame fails. We have now seen other instances where one might think the alternative factors would be a condition that supports the failure of shaming, but really they are just descriptions of the brand of that country and have less to do with why a country acts a certain way. How a country acts when involved in international relations also has to do with domestic politics, what issues they support would most likely be issues that are heavily supported back on a domestic level.

Failure of Shaming 23

BIBLIOGRAPHY // WORK CITED
ALCEVES, W. (01/1998) International Decision - MURPHY v. NETHERLAND. 116 F.3d 97. U.S. Court of Appeals, 4th Cir., June 19, 1997. American Journal of International Law. Retrieved November 15, 2010 from LexisNexis online database. ASSOCIATED PRESS, THE (11/09/2010) U.S. rejects U.N. call to abolish death penalty. The Associate Press. 13 November 2010. < http://www.npr.org/templates/story/ story.php?storyId=131189156 >. BARNETT, M. (1997) Bringing in the World Order: Liberalism, Legitimacy, and the United Nations. World Politics 49:526-551. BAYEFSKI, A. (11/05/2010) U.N. Gives Obama a New 'Shellacking' -- Over Human Rights! Fox News. 13 November 2010. <http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/11/05/ anne-bayefsky-america-human-rights-council-geneva-cuba-iran-north-korea/>. BRANIGAN, T. (02/11/2009) China rejects UN recommendations to end death penalty and labour camps. Guardian.co.uk. 20 November 2010. < http://www.guardian.co.uk/ world/2009/feb/11/china-death-penalty-united-nations/>. BRANIGAN, T. (07/29/2009) China to restrict death penalty and cut executions. Guardian.co.uk. 02 December 2010. < http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/29/ china-death-penalty-executions/>. BUENO DE MESQUITA, B. (2002). Domestic politics and international relations. International Studies Quarterly, 46: 1-9. FESTINGER, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117–140. HAFNER-BURTON, E.M. (2008) Sticks and Stones: Naming and Shaming the Human Rights Enforcement Problem. International Organization, 62: 689-716. HAFNER-BURTON, E.M. & TSUTSUI, K., (2005) Human Rights in a Globalizing World: The Paradox of Empty Promises. The American Journal of Sociology 110(5): 13731411. JOHNSTON, A. (2001). Treating International Institutions as Social Environments. International Studies Quarterly, 45(4), 487. LEBOVIC, J. & VOETEN, E. (2006). The Politics of Shame: The Condemnation of Country Human Rights Practices in the UNCHR. International Studies Quarterly, 50(4): 861-888. MARTIN, M. K. (1997). Murphy v. Netherland - Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Failure of Shaming 24

[Editorial]. Capital Defense Journal, Vol. 10, 17. Retrieved November 15, 2010 from Hein Online database. < http://0-www.heinonline.org.library.lausys.georgetown.edu/ HOL/Page?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/capdj10&id=21> SENDING, O.J. & NEUMANN, I.B. (2006) Analyzing NGOs, States and Power. International Studies Quarterly, 50(3): 651-672. UN Human Rights Council Issues Recommendations To US, Common Dreams News & Views. 09 Nov 2010. Web. 13 Nov 2010, <http://www.commondreams.org/ newswire/2010/11/09-10>.

Failure of Shaming 25

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful