Naming and shaming is a widely used strategy by the transnational advocacy network (TAN) to prevent human rights abuses and increase compliance to international humanitarian law (IHL). However, existing research demonstrates controversial results about the efficacy of naming and shaming as a method to increase compliance to IHL. To add new insights to the ongoing IR debate, this paper investigates United Nations’ (UN’s) naming and shaming of children’s rights abusers in conflict. A quantitative analysis of UN’s Annual Reports on Children and Armed Conflict between 2013-2018 provides an assessment of the assumed link between public condemnation of state actors and armed non-state actors (ANSAs) who commit children’s rights violations in conflict, and an increase in compliance to IHL and protection of children. This paper aims to investigate the results of UN’s shaming policy through the theoretical framework of Constructivism and thus provide a critical assessment of the issue. The results of this thesis indicate that there seems to be a convincing link between the number of state actors listed on UN’s “lists of shame” and the number of parties who put in place measures to improve protection of children and increase compliance to IHL. On the other hand, the link seems to be weak when it comes to the number of publicly exposed ANSAs who subsequently commit to UN action plans and increase compliance to IHL.

No description available.

Scholars generally assume that states are shamed for their own behavior, but they can also be shamed for the lack of investigation for violence perpetrated by domestic non-state actors. I engage this previously-unstudied phenomenon and develop a theory to explain how states will respond to being shamed for failing to control domestic violence. I examine two types of outcomes: the governments' change in behavior, and the accountability efforts against state agents that have abused human rights. For the government's reaction to being shamed for violence from non-state organizations, I develop a theory to examine changes in coercive state capacity – including military and police personnel – since this reaction may largely exacerbate human rights violations. I hypothesize that states shamed due to abuses by violent non-state organizations (VNSO) will increase military personnel to halt criminal violence and respond to the international spotlight. I then examine the relationship between naming and shaming states over physical integrity abuses by different types of perpetrators and human rights prosecutions. Using newly coded data on the types of perpetrators shamed in the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) country reports, I find that shaming over abuses that include VNSO as perpetrators decreases the likelihood of expanding their police force when the state has the military patrolling the streets and is likely to increase the predicted number of police prosecutions, particularly if the shaming is over killings from VNSOs. Lastly, I examine how changes in coercive capacity affect human rights violations and the number of violent episodes from VNSOs.

This research explores the impact of proscription on non-state groups' behaviour, specifically regarding their use of violence. Recognizing that counterterrorism measures influence the behaviour of targeted groups, this thesis builds on existing literature that identifies proscription as a critical tool used by governments. Utilizing Social Identity Theory (SIT) and the naming and shaming principle to explain group behaviour, the analysis focuses on the shaming mechanism associated with terrorist designation. The developed theory posits that groups perceive their terrorist designation as an existential threat, prompting increased violence as a defensive strategy. A within-case comparison of Boko Haram before and after proscription reveals inconsistent shaming effects but shows changes in the group's narrative and identity. These findings challenge the proposed theory, suggesting that terrorist labels may bolster group identity. The study underscores the complex dynamics of labelling and its potential to increase violence and civilian casualties.

The thesis concers the issue of conflict minerals in the Democratic republic of Congo. The situation in the country has been monitored by the NGO Global Witness for decades. Human rights violation, illicit trade followed by exporting of minerals out of the country, have been supervised by militaristic rebel groups. As a result these groups have been indirectly founded by international corporations.The aim of this thesis is to evaluate the performance of Global Witness at the agenda setting of conflict minerals, including a critical assessment of legislative measures.