Distinct Norm Communities and Shaming Issue Choice

Abstract

Why do some human rights issues receive greater attention at the United Nations than others? Prior research suggests that shaming varies depending on the identities of senders and targets, yet recent work has argued that states follow a uniform pattern: favoring certain issues when shaming adversaries and others when shaming allies, regardless of who initiates the criticism. This paper revisits that claim through a replication study that addresses model specification concerns and introduces a network-based approach. Two key findings emerge. First, consistent with conventional wisdom, states are systematically more likely to shame adversaries than allies. Second, net of geopolitical affinity, states display heterogeneous issue preferences, contradicting the assumption of uniformity. Applying community detection, I further reveal clusters of states with distinct normative alignments. This approach highlights the influence of mid- and small-sized states in shaping global human rights politics and demonstrates how network tools can uncover overlooked normative structures. The findings extend our understanding of international shaming beyond realpolitik and illustrate the value of understanding states as makers and shapers of international human rights norms.