Human Rights

(2020) "Human Rights versus National Interests: Shifting US Public Attitudes on the International Criminal Court." International Studies Quarterly 63(4): 1065–1078.

Author: Kelebogile Zvobgo

Read six related articles from April 2019, March 2020, June 2020, February 2021 [1, 2] and April 2021 in The Washington Post

The United States—an architect of international criminal tribunals in the twentieth century—has since moderated its involvement in international justice. Striking to many observers is the United States’ failure to join the International Criminal Court—the institutional successor to the tribunals the nation helped install in Germany, Japan, the Balkans, and Rwanda. Interestingly, the US public’s support of the ICC increases yearly despite the government’s ambivalence about, and even hostility toward, the Court. Drawing on the US foreign policy public opinion literature, I theorize that human rights frames increase support for joining the ICC among Americans, whereas national interest frames decrease support. I administer an online survey experiment to evaluate these expectations and find consistent support. I additionally test hypotheses from the framing literature in American politics regarding the effect of exposure to two competing frames. I find that participants exposed to competing frames hold more moderate positions than participants exposed to a single frame but differ appreciably from the control group. Crucially, I find that participants’ beliefs about international organizations’ effectiveness and impartiality are equally, if not more, salient than the treatments. Thus, the ICC may be able to mobilize support and pressure policy change by demonstrating effectiveness and impartiality.

(2020) "The World Bank as an Enforcer of Human Rights." Journal of Human Rights 19(4): 425–448.

Authors: Kelebogile Zvobgo and Benjamin A.T. Graham

2019 Best Paper Award, Human Rights Section, International Studies Association
2018 Best Faculty Paper Award, West Region, International Studies Association
Watch an explainer video

Since the 1990s, the World Bank’s Inspection Panel and Compliance Advisor/Ombudsman (CAO) have responded to hundreds of human rights complaints filed by or on behalf of project-affected communities. Yet, little is known about complaint outcomes and factors that enhance the likelihood of complaint success. We theorize that complaints involving indigenous communities, or those pertaining to involuntary resettlement and severe environmental impacts, will be more likely to result in a favorable outcome due to the Bank’s novel policies governing these issues. We also expect that NGO-supported communities are more likely to succeed due to organizational capacity, expertise, and advocacy. We evaluate these expectations using an original dataset of Inspection Panel and CAO complaints (1993–2017). We find strong support for our expectations about indigenous communities, weak support for projects involving involuntary resettlement, and no support for environmentally-risky projects. NGO support is strongly associated with complaint success, perhaps principally due to screening.

(2023) "Defending the Watchdogs: How Citizens and Courts Protect the Press." Journal of Human Rights 22(3): 367–385.

Authors: Jonathan Solis and Kelebogile Zvobgo

A free and independent press monitors government actions, broadcasts public grievances, and facilitates debate and dissent among citizens. Because of this, some executives run interference – censoring newspapers, harassing journalists, and shutting down media outlets. But, other executives do not. What explains this variation? We argue that executives decide to repress or to respect the press based on the sanctions they anticipate from two important constituencies: courts and citizens. We expect that attacks are less likely where courts can make adverse rulings and where citizens can vote leaders out of office. In addition, we suggest that these constraints can function as substitutes; we anticipate the reductive effect of judicial independence wanes as the level of electoral democracy rises, making courts vital to protecting journalists in less democratic systems. We evaluate these expectations using panel data on executive branch attacks on the press in 175 countries, from 1949 to 2016, and find strong support.

(2025) "Do Americans Support War Crimes Prosecutions?" Foreign Policy Analysis 21(3): oraf021.

Authors: Kelebogile Zvobgo and Alan J. Simmons

Do Americans support war crimes investigations and prosecutions? Historically, the United States has considered itself a torchbearer of international criminal justice, leading the establishment of tribunals in Nuremberg, Tokyo, the Hague, and Arusha. The United States even participated in the drafting of the Rome Statute, which established the International Criminal Court (ICC). Yet the nation was not a subject of an international criminal tribunal—until the ICC’s Afghanistan investigation, which covers, among others, the Afghan National Security Forces, the Taliban, and US military and intelligence personnel. Previous scholarship shows Americans support the ICC and US membership. However, almost all of this research precedes the Afghanistan investigation, leaving open two important questions: (1) to what extent does the US public support ICC investigations and possible prosecutions of US personnel and (2) what discursive frames (i.e., arguments) support or undermine the ICC’s work? Extending research on US foreign policy public opinion, we propose that human rights arguments will increase and national interest arguments will decrease support for the ICC’s work in Afghanistan. We test this proposition using an online survey experiment. The upshot is Americans are fairly fixed in their opinions and the vast majority support investigations and prosecutions.

(2025) "Internal Dynamics of Transnational Advocacy Networks." In Hall, Nina and Nina Reiners (Editors). Forum: Challenges and Opportunities for Transnational Advocacy. International Studies Review 27(3): viaf015.

Authors: Andrea Vilán and Kelebogile Zvobgo

In this essay, we explore internal challenges (and opportunities) that transnational advocacy networks must navigate to advance their causes. First, we consider unequal or asymmetric power and influence within networks, which can, but do not always, raise representational dilemmas and engender conflicts over whose ideas should be pursued and whose ideas should be set aside. Second, we address differences in values, strategies, and tactics among network members, which can create conflicts, on the one hand, and can spur growth, on the other hand. Third, we draw attention to individuals, who possess moral authority, technical expertise, and power and influence in their own right, but whose impact is not always highlighted in the networks in which they work. Fourth, we note that not all potential partners come together and collaborate within networks: some potential partners may be unaware of a network and therefore do not join it, while others may intentionally not join it. Others, still, may be excluded, while yet others may strategically hide their connection to a network. Individually and jointly, these internal dynamics of transnational advocacy networks raise conceptual, theoretical, methodological, and inferential challenges for researchers. We offer some possible solutions and invite continued scholarly engagement and progress.

Innovations in Human Rights: Concepts, Data, and Measurement (edited volume)

Forthcoming with Edward Elgar Publishing

Editors: Kelebogile Zvobgo and Francesca Parente