J’accuse! Does Naming and Shaming Perpetrators Reduce the Severity of Genocides or Politicides?1

TLDR

Naming and shaming should compel perpetrators to reduce atrocity severity by shifting spotlight, protecting reputation, reframing identity, maintaining legitimacy, and easing external pressure. The study tests whether naming and shaming by NGOs, media, and IOs reduces the severity of ongoing genocide or politicide. The authors use ordered logit analyses of 1976–2008 genocide and politicide cases to assess the impact of naming and shaming by NGOs, media, and IOs. Ordered logit analyses show that naming and shaming by Amnesty International, the Northern media, and the UNCHR significantly reduces the severity of extreme atrocities, indicating that transnational advocacy networks can lead to life‑saving policy changes.

Abstract

This study tests the effectiveness of naming and shaming by transnational advocacy networks in reducing the severity of ongoing instances of genocide or politicide. I argue that naming and shaming should force perpetrators to reduce the severity of these ongoing atrocities in order to shift the spotlight, save their reputation, reframe their identity, maintain international legitimacy and domestic viability, and ease pressure placed on them by states or IOs. I test whether naming and shaming by NGOs, the media, and IOs significantly reduces the severity of the killing. Ordered logit analyses of ongoing genocides and politicides from 1976 to 2008 reveal that naming and shaming by Amnesty International, the Northern media, and the UNCHR have significant ameliorative effects on the severity of the most extreme atrocities. Transnational advocacy networks have the potential, through naming and shaming, to lead to life-saving changes in these murderous policies.