Confronting a Repressive Regime: Individual Petitions in International Law

• In Event: International Law, Human Rights, and Non-State Actors

Abstract

When do individuals feel comfortable bringing an international human rights complaint against an authoritarian regime? United Nations human rights treaties have an often-overlooked mechanism which grants individuals legal standing, allowing complaints about treaty violations to an overseeing committee. I analyze the conditions under which individuals bring complaints to the Human Rights Committee against authoritarian states, which systematically violate civil and political rights. Individuals may fear state retaliation for this legal confrontation, but this fear varies due to characteristics of both the regime and the individual. The state must have both the capacity and the political will to retaliate against this legal confrontation. Persons residing outside the original violating state may perceive less fear, and politically active individuals—especially those under a legalized political opposition—may strategically use this international mechanism to bring attention to repressive state practices. To test the relationship between state characteristics and individual petitions, I present statistical analysis using panel data. Second, I construct an original dataset of petitions to the Human Rights Committee and use it to statistically analyze individual characteristics. This research explores the actual usage of individual petitions, theoretically praised for its empowerment of non-state actors in the international system and has implications for understanding costly mobilization.

Author

• Rachel Schoner, University of California, San Diego