Working Papers

Current Working Papers and Work in Progress

“Domestic Human Rights NGOs and Victim’s Support in International Human Rights Litigation” - Under Review

Abstract

How do victims of government human rights abuse gain access to international human rights litigation? Domestic Human Rights NGOs in autocratic regimes take on a variety of roles, including educating victims of political violence on the existence of human rights and their violation, connecting victims to networks of domestic and international Human Rights NGOs, and assisting victims in their attempt to lodge complaints with the domestic court system. Despite previous research highlighting the crucial role Human Rights NGOs play in supporting victims of political violence in autocratic regimes, there is a dearth of research on whether domestic Human Rights NGOs support victims when attempting to file individual communications with the UN Treaty Bodies after having exhausted domestic remedies. This project begins to answer this question by exploring the relationship between the number of domestic Human Rights NGOs and the number of individual communications after incidents of large-scale violence in autocratic regimes, utilizing an original dataset of international non-governmental organization data and the number of individual communications to the UN treaty bodies.

“Migration in Conflict: The Empirical Roots of Strategic State Violence” with Elisa D’Amico & Nguyen T. Ha

Abstract

A large body of research examines how governments respond to disasters during armed conflict, yet the empirical findings are inconsistent. Some studies find that states provide humanitarian aid and direct disaster relief, while others conclude that governments may choose to pursue peace due to resource scarcity, increase repression or other forms of strategic violence to prevent internal migration to unaffected areas, or to seize the opportunity to regain territorial control. We address this gap by drawing on the formal model developed by Sun (2024), which proposes a mechanism of preemptive violence in which governments facing conflict deliberately intensify repression in order to reduce future internal displacement and preserve domestic political stability. We use a large-N analysis combining data from the UCDP Georeferenced Event Dataset (GED) and the IOM Displacement Tracking Matrix (DTM), covering all civil war-affected countries monthly from 2010 to 2024 at the administrative level one unit level. We test whether economic disruptions in contested areas trigger increases in state repression and whether these effects operate through anticipated migration flows, directly corresponding to the predictions of Sun’s model.

“(Semi)independent Human Rights Advocates: National Prevention Mechanisms an Human Rights Monitoring and Reporting”

Abstract

Countries’ ratification of international human rights treaties has long been an inconsistent predictor of human rights compliance. While joining a treaty regime does not necessarily predict compliance, the creation of domestic human rights-promoting institutions – such as National Prevention Mechanisms (NPMs) under the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture (OPCAT) – may signal a stronger commitment to improve human rights standards. For NPMs to drive positive change, however, they must be empowered to monitor and report on detention conditions. An NPM can therefore be considered a costly signal of democratic accountability and compliance, while mere NPM creation does not necessarily introduce meaningful oversight. A government’s willingness to publish monitoring visit reports by the OPCAT treaty body – the Subcommittee on the Prevention of Torture (SPT) – can serve as an additional signal of domestic democratic accountability. Using a novel dataset of 708 annual NPM reports to the SPT, I extract empowerment indicators with natural language processing methods and find that countries are more likely to establish empowered NPMs when accountable to democratic audiences, or when expected benefits of NPM empowerment outweigh the monitoring and reporting costs, while democratic backsliding and realized benefits are associated with lower empowerment in aid-receiving countries. Initial empowerment levels stay path-dependent, but during periods of political instability, countries appear to restrict NPM monitoring frequency. Finally, SPT visits are driven by human rights standards in ratifier countries rather than democracy levels, and the likelihood that governments publish SPT visit reports depends on their level of democratic accountability.

“UNtold Stories: PKOs and Gender-Based Violence” with Gabriela Okundaye Santos & Nila Zarepour-Arizi

Abstract

How does the presence of United Nations peacekeeping missions in post-conflict African countries affect women’s willingness to report domestic sexual violence to the police? Drawing on individual-level survey data from Afrobarometer, the novel United Nations Peacekeeping Mission Mandate (UNPMM), and the Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) datasets, I theorize that the classification of peacekeeping missions matters: missions that take on more tasks focused on peacebuilding will lead victims of gender-based violence to report violence, and reduce fear of reprisal from institutions and the community. By changing the dynamics of post-conflict societies, peacekeepers may foster an environment where reporting gender-based violence encourages vulnerable populations to seek recourse.

“Now What? National Prevention Mechanisms and Human Rights Compliance”

Abstract

Does human rights monitoring and reporting in detention settings have the potential to improve human rights compliance? After states parties ratify the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture (OPCAT), they are required to establish domestic institutions, National Prevention Mechanisms (NPMs). NPMs conduct monitoring visits to places of detention and report on human rights compliance. However, little research has assessed whether NPM monitoring and reporting practices improve human rights standards in detention. Building on previous scholarship on treaty ratification and compliance, this paper assesses whether a country’s choice to create an empowered or restrained NPM and its subsequent monitoring and reporting practices affect human rights standards in places of detention. I argue that NPM monitoring frequency and reporting depth significantly affect whether governments implement reforms to improve human rights compliance in detention. When NPMs conduct only occasional monitoring visits and reporting is sparse, governments are likely to maintain existing practices. When monitoring and reporting are frequent and in-depth, governments are likely to face criticism for existing violations and are incentivized to address NPM recommendations. While improved human rights standards may be delayed, violation frequencies and severities should decrease with consistent visit and reporting frequencies. Using a novel dataset of annual NPM visit reports to the OPCAT treaty body, the SPT, this research analyzes NPM visit and reporting patterns and develops measures of violation frequency and severity in OPCAT-ratifying countries using NLP methods. Thus, this research introduces a fine-grained measure of domestic NPM operating practices and country-level violation severity, advancing our understanding of the operating conditions of domestic human rights instruments and whether their monitoring and reporting can improve respect for human rights in places of detention.