Article Presentation

Do rights at home boost rights abroad? Sexual equality and humanitarian foreign policy Author(s): Alison Brysk and Aashish Mehta Source: Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 51, No. 1 (January 2014), pp. 97-110 Published by: Sage Publications, Ltd. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/24557537 Accessed: 26-04-2018 09:49 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide

range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and

facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at

http://about.jstor.org/terms

Sage Publications, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Peace Research

This content downloaded from 194.170.173.251 on Thu, 26 Apr 2018 09:49:18 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Journal of , Peace Research

Journal of Peace Research 2014, Vol 51(1) 97-110

Do rights at home boost rights abroad? Sexual equality and humanitarian foreign policy

© The Author(s) 2013

Reprints and permission:

sagepub.co.uk/joumalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0022343313500805

jpr.sagepub.com

®SAGE

Alison Brysk

Department of Political Science and Global & International Studies Program, University of California, Santa Barbara

Aashish Mehta

Global & International Studies Program, University of California, Santa Barbara

Abstract

Does women's empowerment strengthen global good citizenship? We test theories of democratic foreign policy and

feminist international relations that suggest that more deeply democratic countries with greater gender equity will be

stronger international human rights promoters. First, the direct empowerment of women as policymakers and civil

society constituencies may shift states' incentives and ability to pursue international human rights initiatives. Second,

greater sexual equality may lead to feminist socialization of the wider society to promote human rights values. We test

these predictions by measuring the relationship between five different measures of sexual equality and a country's

propensity to support 30 international human rights outcomes, including legal commitments, humanitarian assis tance, and sanctions, controlling for previously established contributing factors such as level of development and

democratic regime type. We find that more sexually equal countries are more likely to support international com

mitments to constrain state violence against individuals, international measures to combat gender and sexual orienta

tion discrimination, and more and higher quality development assistance. However, sexual equality appears to yield

less benefit for more costly human rights initiatives: yielding sovereignty to international legal institutions, promot

ing economic rights through concessionary trade policies, or adopting diplomatic sanctions against pariah states. These effects are stronger in democratic states, where citizen empowerment translates more readily into foreign

policy, and are also found in a sample that excludes the Western powers.

Keywords

deep democracy, gender equity, international human rights, sexual equality

Introduction Why is it important to add women's empowerment to „ , , ... ... the supply side of global governance? First, it is critical to Does women s empowerment strengthen global good ciu- . , , r . > . <■ , ri , , .

- ... . I,, understand the factors that lead a small number of global zenship? 1 his study will systematically test whether domes- „ . „ , .. .. . . ^ .

, ,. , , . I r • i- Cood Samaritans to contribute disproportionately to the tic sexual equality strengthens human rights foreign policy, .. ... . _ ,. , ,, , . . ,. ,f i j worlds humanitarian collective goods. Leading propo above and beyond previously studied factors such as dem- r . . , , , . . . , ,

. „ p .. . ... nents of peace, international law, humanitarian aid, and ocratic regime type. Our findings are consistent with the- . . . ... „ . ._ _.

, j- i r , democratization - like Sweden and Costa Rica - are not ones that predict that women s empowerment deepens . . . . . . , ... ... , . > c c j ust democracies, but relatively egalitanan social democra democracy, projects women s preferences for peace and '. ,, _ , r

• Li, . ,. , rr • l- i cies, notable for the empowerment of women (Aggerstam, care globally, socializes makers of foreign policy to combat r gender discrimination, and mobilizes transnational civil

society to foster a greater supply of global governance in sev- Corresponding author: eral key areas. abrysk@global.ucsb.edu

This content downloaded from 194.170.173.251 on Thu, 26 Apr 2018 09:49:18 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

98 journal of Peace Research 51(1)

2008; Biysk, 2009; Manners, 2008). At the same time, Our analysis of the international impact of a state's several lines of scholarship suggest that improving sexual gendered character contributes to both liberal democratic

equality brings a variety of benefits for a nation's develop- and constructivist approaches to foreign policy which pre

ment and peace, so it makes sense to trace the possible diet that states' identities and domestic characteristics consequences for global governance (Sen, 1999). On the may influence their international niche and mode of oper negative side, a recent study shows that sexual inequity ation (Hopf, 2002; Smith, 2001). Our study also builds and women's insecurity predicts international aggression on the feminist international relations analysis that gen

(Hudson, Ballif-Spanvill & Caprioli, 2012). Positively, dered power relations do not stop at the water's edge, and greater equity at home is linked to improved domestic that more gender balanced societies may speak'in a differ human rights outcomes for all citizens (Melander, ent voice' in the global arena (Gilligan, 1982; Tickner, 2005), and local women's consciousness, participation, 2001). Finally, our findings shed light on the question or empowerment in receiving countries improves the sue- 'what do women want?' in foreign policy, and support the

cess of international human rights initiatives (Gizelis, prediction that empowered women will seek protection 2009). In a complementary vein, case study research sug- against violence, care for the vulnerable, and equal rights

gests that at the global level, empowered women in foreign for all (Steans, 2006).

policy institutions and civil society have played an impor tant role in promoting particular foreign policies such as „ . . , , r

, °r . . . . Feminist theory and foreign policy; international measures against violence against women, ,„n , J r « « « . . ■ .

, j l j j I- • r a ■ Why gender matters tor global citizenship and gender-based asylum policies ror women rleeing J ° " r gendered forms of persecution (Alfredsson, 2009; Keck The central contention of feminist international relations

& Sikkink, 1998; Spees, 2008). analysis is that gendered consciousness, roles, and experi In order to extend these findings and map the broader ences structure world politics. We use this insight to

influence of gender relations on foreign policy, we sys- extend three overlapping lines of international relations tematically examine the relationship between women's theory that each claim that some forms of domestic empowerment and a broad set of human rights foreign identity will influence states' international behavior: con policy initiatives, including most outcomes considered structivist socialization of states, the Kantian liberal view in previous studies, and controlling for previously known of democratic international relations, and domestic factors that generally predict international human rights politics analyses of foreign policy. Combining the promotion. We test the statistical relationship between predictions of these theories, women's empowerment domestic sexual equality and a representative package should change conventional masculinist socialization in of humanitarian commitments and outputs, including state foreign policy (constructivist feminism), increase human rights treaties and conventions, participation in women's civic participation to build transnational colla international human rights institutions, humanitarian boration and advocacy (transnational feminism), and economic assistance and complementary economic foster foreign policymakers' ability and incentives to flows, votes on sanctions, and specific measures against enact women's preferences as leaders and interest groups discrimination against women and by sexual orientation, in deep democracies (liberal feminism). Feminist values using five different measures of sexual equality and are said to include cooperation, care, justice, and equity women's empowerment. We find that, other things - and we will critically examine arguments that predict being equal, countries with more empowered women that states with more empowered women will pursue make stronger international commitments to restrain these values: from the gendered experience of insecurity

state violence against vulnerable individuals, to humani- to a hypothetical 'ethic of care'. tarian aid, and to global measures against sexual discrim- Constructivist feminist approaches to international ination. Since there is wide debate about the ultimate relations hold that visions of national interest, the ambit

humanitarian impact of particular global human rights of foreign policy, and the nature of the global system are

policies on recipient societies, this study simply tests the constructed by gender relations (Enloe, 2000; Pettman, influence of gender balance on the generation of forms of 1996). Constructivists contend that foreign policy is a human rights policy previously studied, and does not constructed response to perceptions of national interest, predict that any treaties, aid packages, or sanctions filtered through states' roles and identities - not an inev adopted will necessarily produce an improvement in itable response to objective conditions as realists argue, local human rights conditions on the ground. (This Specifically, constructivist approaches stress that 'foreign debate is discussed below.) policy is what states make of it' (Smith, 2001); states may

This content downloaded from 194.170.173.251 on Thu, 26 Apr 2018 09:49:18 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Brysk & Mehta 99

choose to become global citizens as an alternative pathway produce the observed liberal democratic peace as an inter to power and influence, animated by an alternative concep- twined combination that links domestic and constructivist

tion of national interest based on identity. Moreover, global dimensions and parallels feminist arguments: institutional

discourses on women's human rights help to constitute the representation of citizens, ideological commitment to identities of states that position themselves as middle pow- human rights, and transnational interdependence (Doyle,

ers, 'moral powers', or leaders of regions - promotion of 2005; Maoz & Russett, 1993). More recendy, analysts of women's human rights becomes a 'mark of civilization' regional integration and value promotion by 'middle pow in international society (Towns, 2010). The mechanism ers' have gone beyond democratic regime type to link more

of constructivist feminist socialization works in part by deeply democratic states that are more equitable and parti

enlarging the issue agenda and stakeholder constituency cipatory to more globalist foreign policies (Cooper, Higgott

across gender lines and coalition-building on global com- & Nossal, 1993; Dunne, 2008; Kaldor, 2007). mons concerns like public health (Baer & Brysk, 2009; How does feminism affect this deep democracy model Weldon, 2006). Feminist agendas and interdependence of human rights foreign policy? Deepening democracy by arguments are picked up by both male and female national empowering women may translate to foreign policy by cre

and global norm entrepreneurs, information elites, and the ating interest group pressures by women's organizations, an

'common sense' of global governance - such as the link attentive constituency for feminist issues, and transnational

between women's education, population growth, and ties among women's organizations that affect foreign policy development (King & Mason, 2001 ; Sen, 1999). bureaucracies and participate directly in international insti On the transnational dimension of feminist interna- tutions (Joachim, 2003). Foreign policy is a three-level tional relations theory, a systemic transformation of femin- game shaped by diplomats, executives, parliaments,

ist consciousness and collaborative modes of global politics domestic interest groups, public opinion, transnational

should foster greater attention, resources, and receptivity to advocacy networks, international institutions, and coali

global problems that disproportionately affect women tions (Evans, Jacobson & Putnam, 1993; Smith, Chatfield (Peterson & Runyan, 2010). Women's feminist, abolition- & Pagnucco, 1997). Changes in the power and participa is!, or pacifist movements have a long historical association tion of women in society could operate to shift foreign pol

with transnationalism, dating from at least the 19th cen- icy through all of these channels: with increasing sexual

tury. In 1938, Virginia Woolf famously asserted, 'As a equality, women become foreign policy decisionmakers, woman, I have no country. As a woman, I want no country, lobby foreign policymakers as groups and via public opin

As a woman my country is the world' (Brown, 2003: 183). ion, and socialize foreign policymakers. Deeper democratic

Women's transnational advocacy movements have been participation by women's groups does seem to have played influential in shifting global agendas and leading states' pol- a key role in fostering international organizations' attention

icies on issues such as female genital mutilation and sex traf- to a range of women's rights issues, including the designa

ficking that affect women as a class, but not the tion of rape as a war crime (Spees, 2008; Stienstra, 1994). movements' own members (Brysk, 2013; Brysk & Choi- Foreign policymakers in societies with empowered women

Fitzpatrick, 2012). Moreover, systematic evidence from are socialized to attend to'women's issues'; for example, in

70 countries over four decades shows that domestic and a debate on the introduction of gender-based asylum in transnational feminist mobilization in civil society signifi- Canada, an initially unresponsive immigration minister

candy improves both domestic and international policies was forced to defend himself - and eventually yield to on violence against women (Htun & Weldon, 2012). women's groups' pressure - by reference to the norm, 'let Moving to extend a feminist perspective to the liberal me assure you that the Minister does not condone democratic approach to international relations, domestic discrimination against, or persecution of, women' (Alfreds

politics arguments show that factors such as a state's regime son, 2009: 191-192). Conversely, Lynn Savery (2007)

type, leadership beliefs, class structure, culture, and religion shows that less deeply democratic and more patriarchal

are projected in distinctive ways into the international electoral democracies are less likely to adopt international

arena (Beasley et al., 2013; Hartz, 1955;Hopf, 2002). The women's rights norms. most well-known application of state type to global citizen- Women's empowerment at home may also have an ship is the democratic peace theory, derived from Imma- impact on foreign policy via the inclusion of more women

nuel Kant's vision of a liberal democratic international as foreign policymakers in diplomatic and representative

community, and bolstered by contemporary findings that institutions. Liberal feminists contend that giving women

mature democracies are less prone to conflict among their voice, vote, and representative leadership roles will change

ranks (Ray, 2008). Doyle summarizes the mechanisms that the global system (Tickner, 2001). In this 'women in

This content downloaded from 194.170.173.251 on Thu, 26 Apr 2018 09:49:18 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

100 journal 0/Peace Research 51(1)

politics' argument, women as foreign policymakers are in or gender roles, and our study will attempt to contribute

a position to allocate resources to internauonal issues that to assessing these overlapping explanations. Gendered disproportionately affect women - and female executives experiences of vulnerability to violence, poverty, and dis

and parliamentarians often state that they do so. Demo- crimination give many women an interest and sensitivity

cratic women's leadership may also circulate to the inter- to these issues - even if not direcdy affected, all women are

national level, and women foreign policymakers may be vulnerable to rape and domestic violence, the economic socialized by domestic women's rights experience. Costa and health burdens of childbearing and child-rearing, and

Rican jurist Sonia Picado, who became the first female social persecution for private behavior that challenges judge on the Inter-American Human Rights Court, ascribed roles (Kaufman & Williams, 2007). If the pre stated, 'My experience with international human rigfits ference for peace is because women are the first and started with the fight for women's rights here at home' worst victims of state violence and state-sponsored (Interview, 5 June 2003). Although isolated elevation of patriarchal societies (Hudson, Ballif-Spanvill & female elites to national leadership is not necessarily pro- Caprioli, 2012), we would expect empowered women gressive, feminist theory suggests that more systematic to support limitations on state violence and antidiscri incorporation of a formerly excluded half of society mination measures. broadly throughout decisionmaking institutions should Alternatively, some feminist theory argues that women's improve the human rights agendas and grassroots access distinctive political values come from gendered thinking,

of a wide range of bodies relevant to foreign policy (Meyer These feminists contend that women engage in more com

& Prugl, 1999). For example, Japan's Sadako Ogata, the passionate moral reasoning in the public sphere (Cho first female head of the UN High Commission on Refu- dorow, 1978; Gilligan, 1982), and thus follow an 'ethic gees, returned home to head the Japanese International of care' in public policy (Held, 2006), including foreign Cooperation Agency, where she markedly increased the policy (Robinson, 2011). grassroots and humanitarian focus of aid. Feminist theories also predict that gender roles and If empowering women does make a difference, what identities such as motherhood may influence foreign pol

foreign policy goals are more gender-balanced societies icy goals. Since women are the primary parents in most more likely to pursue - and why? Perhaps because the state societies, many women will be especially sensitive to is gendered and constructed by war, historically the empow- issues that involve the nurturing and protection of chil erment of women is associated with demilitarization of the dren (Ruddick, 1989). Women mobilize as mothers'

state (Kaufman & Williams, 2007; Steans, 2006) and movements to advocate for human rights and receive women participate more in peace movements and conflict preferential response: from the Nobel Laureate Liberian

resolution within the state (Goldstein, 2001). In democra- women's peace movement that ended that country's cies, there are observable differences in women's and femin- decades-long civil war, to the human rights campaigns

ists' individual attitudes, political mobilization, and voting of Mothers of the Disappeared in Latin America, to food

behavior regarding peace, social welfare, and discrimination security campaigns and economic protests banging that may translate to the global level. In most OECD coun- empty pots and pans worldwide (Peters & Wolper, tries, there is a consistent'gender gap'in which women are 1995; Turpin & Lorentzen, 1996). If this gender role less supportive of the use of military force and more suppor- mobilization translates into foreign policy, we should see

tive of humanitarian policies (Conover & Sapiro, 1993; differentially greater support by countries with greater Togeby, 1994). As individuals, women worldwide are more sexual equality for children's rights and self-designated

tolerant of all forms of difference (Nortis & Inglehart, maternalist global commons issues. 2003), and in most countries, women support gay rights In sum, if states can choose to be good global citizens, and marriage equality more strongly. In many cases, these and citizens in more deeply democratic states have more

differences by gender identity are cross-cut or even oversha- latitude to influence these choices, improving sexual

dowed by gender ideology. Thus, in a situation of acute equality should move foreign policy in a more globalist nationalist conflict in the Middle East, women are not more direction. If women are more vulnerable to violence,

peace-promoting than men - but across the'most different poverty, and discrimination, then where women have cases' of Israel, Egypt, Palestine, and Kuwait, more feminist more influence, they should encourage their societies

men and women alike are more supportive of Middle East to be better global citizens as promoters of peace, care, peace (Tessler & Warriner, 1997). and tolerance. Women's empowerment should make a These preferences for peace, care, and equity may be difference in foreign policy through a combination of

explained by gendered experiences, gendered thinking, increasing female participation in government, greater

This content downloaded from 194.170.173.251 on Thu, 26 Apr 2018 09:49:18 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Brysk & Mehta 101

' We use present-day UN country definitions. When constructing

historical variables for countries that were reunited during the period

that these scores were recorded (Germany and Yemen), we attribute

to the combined country the average values of these variables for their

constituent countries during the years they were divided. For those

that separated (the former Soviet and Yugoslav republics), we use scores for the combined nation in the pre-separation years.

leverage of the gender gap in public opinion on govern ment, mobilization of women's movements in civil soci

ety, and diffusion of feminist norms across national and

international institutions. Together, these arguments imply that greater domestic sexual equality should lead to greater support for human rights treaties, international

legal institutions, international sanctions against human

rights violators, humanitarian aid, projects that improve the welfare of women and children, and measures to combat discrimination.

Putting sexual equality to the test: Methods, data, and testable hypotheses

We examine countries' commitments or contributions to

30 international human rights initiatives as of 2009-11,

regressing each of them separately on each of five differ

ent measures of sexual equality as recorded in 2007-08. We control for countries' basic economic characteristics,

and the averages over appropriate time frames of three

key sociopolitical indices (described below). With the exception of a few outcomes with small sample sizes, we also control for an interaction of the sexual equality

measure with a democracy index in order to see whether

sexual equality had different effects on rights promotion

in autocracies and democracies. The precise form of the

regression varies, depending upon the characteristics of

the dependent variable: we use ordinary least squares when the dependent variable is continuous, probit when

it is binary, ordered probit when it is ordered categorical

(e.g. vote against, abstain, vote in favor), and Tobit when

it is censored (e.g. contributions to the UN population fund, which have a lower bound of zero). Online supple ment A summarizes the dataset and sources. We have

195 countries' in the dataset, although missing data for

some variables reduce the effective sample sizes as indi cated in tables throughout.

Our outcome variables belong to the following five sets of measures of global citizenry. First, we considered whether countries have ratified ten different human

rights treaties (conventions and protocols). In cases of near-universal ratification like the ICCPR, we chose the

optional protocols to these treaties to test state

commitment - in this case, Optional Protocol 1 permits

individual access to the treaty monitoring body, and Optional Protocol 2 commits the country to abolishing the death penalty. Second, we looked at whether they signed and ratified the Rome Statute on the Interna tional Criminal Court (ICC), and whether they have bilateral immunity agreements (BIAs) shielding United States citizens from the court.2 Third, we examined their

votes on UN resolutions on pariah states, extrajudicial executions, and the death penalty, including some selected because they involve a commitment to freedom from discrimination based on sexual orientation. Fourth,

we examined states' commitment to development, as proxied by both the quantum of aid they provide and the

five most human rights-related components of the Com

mitment to Development Index. This last set of variables

is measured only for a small group of developed countries, and so does not include a full set of controls or an inter

action between sexual equality and democracy. Finally, we

examined funding commitments to the UN Population Fund, the international agency most exclusively dedicated

to women's reproductive rights.

Online supplement B examines the relationship between our outcome measures, with a view to establish

ing whether they do indeed capture some national proclivity for global citizenship. Unrelated outcomes would cast doubt on the argument that national charac teristics such as sexual equality promote participation in

rights initiatives. Our analysis shows that the levels of a

country's support for different initiatives are indeed related to each other, but also that these levels of support

vary across outcomes and countries. Thus, we argue, national character seems to matter for human rights pol

icy, but our outcomes test it in distinctive ways.

We have experimented with seven different measures of

sexual equality, but only discuss five in the article. The

Gender Equity Index (GEI) combines data on female male ratios of several variables along three dimensions: economic activity (labor-force participation and estimated

income), empowerment (the percentages of women in tech

nical positions; management and government; parliament;

and ministerial level positions), and education (literacy, plus

primary, secondary, and tertiary enrollment). The Gender

Inequality Index (Gil) combines information on maternal

mortality, adolescent fertility, secondary-school comple

tion, parliamentary representation, and labor-force

2 The Bush administration sought BLAs with other countries as a means of ensuring that US citizens were not handed over to the

ICC without US government permission.

This content downloaded from 194.170.173.251 on Thu, 26 Apr 2018 09:49:18 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

102 journal of Peace Research 51(1)

outcomes. It therefore includes the same dimensions as the concerns or alter their incentives to do so.4 In order to dis

GEI, but adds health outcomes to the mix. In keeping with tinguish wealth from true development and control for the

a human development approach, gender-equitable health presence of potentially exploitative economic structures, outcomes are likely to be strong signals of deep democracy we also introduce a measure of economic dependence because they reflect a democratization of the capabilities on resource rents, averaged over 1995-2007 to smooth and the social status of women and girls. In consideration out price volatility. Trade dependence (exports plus of more strategic 'women in politics' arguments, we also imports as a share of GDP) is intended to capture, inter considered a direct measure of women's political participa- alia, the commercial importance of international relations,

tion in the most internationally influential representative A priori, this might induce countries to more actively sup

institution: parliament (WIP is Women In Parliament).3 port human rights initiatives, if international conformity

Motivated by Hudson, Ballif-Spanvill & Caprioli's increases access to foreign markets, or conversely to (2012) critique that the widely used measures discussed become reticent to support international initiatives that above do not incorporate information on the legal rights could strain relations with trading partners. Social connec

and protections of women, we also utilize two measures tivity (KOF, also averaged over 1995-2007) serves as a drawn from the database provided by WomenStats.org. proxy for how well-informed about international affairs The Physical Security of Women (PSOW) scale assigns and connected to global information flows a country's cit countries to a four-point scale (1 is best, 4 worst) based izens are likely to be, and as an indicator of social moder

on the security of women (in law, practice, custom, and nization alongside economic development, statistics) against domestic violence, rape, marital rape, The Polity IV measure captures prima facie democ and murder. The Inequity in Family Law (IFL) scale racy, while the political terror scale (based on Amnesty translates information on the law and practice regarding International reports) captures the effects of internal on

age of marriage, polygyny, consent in marriage, abortion, external human rights outcomes. These corrections are

divorce, marital rape, and inheritance to a five-point scale central to our core contention that sexual equality influ

(0 is best, 4 worst). Being categorical, these two measures ences international support for a progressive agenda, present some practical complications. Regression coeffi- even holding constant a country's current political sys cients are difficult to identify when all countries in one tern. The timing of these political terror and democracy

sexual equality category have the same discrete human measurements could matter, especially because some of rights outcome. Moreover, while interactions between our outcome variables (e.g. the War Crimes Convention) dummies capturing these sexual equality measures and have been in existence for decades. For these older out the polity index could certainly be included in the regres- comes, we control for a wide range of possible effects sions, this would result in an unwieldy profusion of using the average value of these measures between the marginal effects, given the number of outcome variables date the treaty was opened and 2008.5 When examining analyzed. We therefore report on the basic results using more recent human rights outcomes we correct for the these measures in the text below, exclude interactions average historical political terror and polity scores going between the polity and sexual equality variables, and back as far as they are available (1975 for the terror scale, confine the results table and detailed discussion to online 1948 for the polity measure), but also correct for the supplement E. average values of these variables between 2002 and

Our control variables were chosen based upon prior 2008 to allow more recent history to have different research on determinants of human rights foreign policy effects. Sexual equality is interacted with this more recent

and behavior (Apodaca & Stohl, 1999; Poe, Tate & average polity measure to allow the influence of sexual Keith, 1999). Per capita GDP (corrected for purchasing equality to vary with recent democratic conditions. Our power parity) and the Human Development Index (HDI) hypothesis regarding the effect of democracy was that are indicators of economic development, which could per- oppressive regimes would be less inclined to raise stan

mit countries to train their sights on international dards or expectations of human rights at the international

3 The article excludes our sixth and seventh measures of sexual

equality: the Gender Empowerment Measure (GEM) and the population sex ratio. The sex ratio is seldom statistically significant,

and both the coverage of and the results from using GEM are qualitatively similar to the GEI. The GEM also has a smaller sample size.

4 Our tables provide results controlling for per capita GDP. Replacing per capita GDP with the HD1 does not significantly alter our conclusions.

5 For treaties that were opened for ratification prior to 1976, when

countries were first measured on the political terror scale, we use

the average value of the political terror score from 1976 to 2008.

This content downloaded from 194.170.173.251 on Thu, 26 Apr 2018 09:49:18 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Brysk & Mehta 103

level, although of course the converse situation is possible,

if oppressive regimes support international human rights to deflect attention from their own record. To ensure that

regression coefficients are readily interprétable, we scale

the sexual equality and polity measures so that they have mean 0 and standard deviation 1,6

This wide variety of dependent variables and sexual equality measures permits us to test a number of hypoth eses. For convenience, let b refer to the coefficient on

sexual equality and c to the coefficient on the interaction

between sexual equality and polity.

HI: Other things equal, more sexually equal countries are more supportive of humanitarian foreign policy.

For the average, anocratic country, this involves a test of

the size and significance of b. For an otherwise average country that is one standard deviation more (less) demo

cratic than the mean, the test involves b+c (b-c■). The mag

nitudes of the effects of sexual equality in the probit models

are captured by its marginal effects, conditional on the

scaled polity variable taking on the values -1,0, and +1,

and on all other variables being at their mean values. In the

ordered probit we similarly present the marginal effects for

the outcome most supportive of international human rights (e.g. in a 'vote against, abstain, vote in favor' type

variable, we present the marginal effect of sexual equality

on the probability that a country votes in favor).

H2: Sexual equality is more closely associated with support for international human rights in demo cratic countries.

This is simply a test of the significance of c. How strongly democracy conditions the effectiveness of sexual

equality can be discerned by comparing the magnitudes

of the marginal effects for autocratic countries with those

of democratic countries when c is statistically significant.7

H3: Sexual equality is more closely associated with international human rights commitments when

6 This scaling was performed using means and standard deviations

calculated from the subset of countries reporting our three main continuous sexual equality indices (the GEI, Gil, and WIP measures, defined below).

7 Note that c captures the effects of small changes in the polity score on

the marginal effect of sexual equality. In practice, in a probit model

there will be circumstances when c > 0 but large increases in sexual

equality could nevertheless reduce the marginal effect of sexual equality. It is this non-linearity that motivated us to present the mar

ginal effects of sexual equality for autocratic, anocratic, and democratic

countries separately (Ai & Norton, 2003).

women occupy positions with the authority to make such commitments.

This will be rejected if the marginal effects of the WIP

measure are statistically insignificant.

H4: Sexual equality is associated with outcomes that have no distinctive value for women as an overall

interest group, suggesting a socialization effect.

This hypothesis will be rejected if sexual equality is insignif icant for outcomes that have no distinctive value for

women as an overall interest group. These outcomes include opposition to the death penalty and LGBT dis crimination, both of which affect a very small percentage of women.

In keeping with our objective of shedding light on what

types of international outcomes may be affected by domestic sexual equality, we split our outcome variables

into three groups according to three areas of hypothesized

preferences women may bring to the table: freedom from violence, care, and tolerance. We also note that some out

comes - sanctions against pariah states, pro-development

trade policies, and support for the International Criminal

Court - are overtly costly, because they may involve loss of

aid or trade. These distinctions permit us to investigate

two sets of follow-up questions:

Follow-up A: Does sexual equality influence interna tional human rights outcomes involving (i) the right to freedom from state violence; (ii) an ethic of care; or (iii) discrimination?

Follow-up B: Do the effects of sexual equality extend

to costly international outcomes?

We draw inferences conservatively. We utilize robust

standard errors everywhere, and also run the regressions

with incrementally larger sets of controls to examine the

fragility of our results to the inclusion and exclusion of con

trols. We only report results from the model with the most

complete set of controls. Coefficients on independent variables, if significant with full controls, were generally

of the same sign when controls were excluded. Finally, the

use of indices that combine sexual equality measured along

several dimensions could obscure effects of sexual equality

if only some included dimensions matter.

With respect to interpretation, we claim only to have

established a relationship between sexual equality and global human rights policy, conditional on a rich set of control variables. While the best analyses of international

commitments (e.g. Simmons, 2010) take into account information on the timing of commitments and allow

This content downloaded from 194.170.173.251 on Thu, 26 Apr 2018 09:49:18 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

104 journal of Peace Research 51(1)

for country fixed effects, gender equity measures have polity score one standard deviation below the mean) or only become available from a large number of countries democratic (polity score one standard deviation above in recent years, precluding this type of analysis. Similarly, the mean). For a country with an average polity score,

there appear to be no good instruments that could be the marginal effects/coefficients provide the effect of sex used to cleanse the measured relationship of biases aris- ual equality. The predicted outcome is the dependent ing from reverse causality. variable itself for the Tobit regressions, the probability We select our sample and dependent variables delib- of a positive human rights outcome for probits, and the

erately, in an effort to distinguish the often- most positive human rights outcome for ordered probits, overlapping but analytically distinct phenomena of We now turn to our hypothesis tests, beginning with development, sexual equality, and global human rights the combined effects of sexual equality and democracy participation. We include many variables, such as treaty (Hi and H2), which are generally positive. We have ratification, which are available to less modernized states 30 outcome variables, 23 of which provide sufficient that are not aid providers, and we have run our analysis observations to support estimation of the interaction on the full sample of countries and on a subset of this between sexual equality and democracy. For each out dataset that excludes countries belonging to the Western come, we have three regressions, each corresponding to Europe and Others Group. a different sexual equality measure. Thus, we have 90

Finally, we show only that sexual equality promotes regressions from which we can test HI and 69 regres humanitarian initiatives, without presuming that these sions from which we can test H2. We find that for an initiatives always achieve their objectives. In consider- average country, sexual equality enhances human rights ation of the debate on the impact of treaties, we follow in 42 out of 90 regressions. For countries with democ Beth Simmons's (2010) findings that treaties are often racy measures one standard deviation above the mean, effective, with the presence of sufficient enabling domes- equality boosts human rights in 25 out of 69 regressions,

tic factors that overlap with those we are considering, while for those that are one standard deviation below the such as civil society mobilization. We do not take a posi- mean it does so for 23 out of 69 regressions. Moreover, tion on whether aid is helpful for human development, the effects can be quite large. For example, a one stan given significant evidence that motivations for aid- dard deviation increase in the GEI increases the prob giving are not entirely altruistic (Bueno de Mesquita & ability of ratifying the second optional protocol to the Smith, 2009; Younas, 2008) and frequent mismanage- ICCPR by approximately 14% in a democracy, 23% ment of aid funds (Easterly & Pfütze, 2008). Rather in an anocracy, and 15% in an autocracy. The results we simply ask whether more sexually equal countries are on PSOW and especially on IFL provide further evi apt to give more aid, and whether measures of aid quality dence that countries with higher sexual equality promote

designed to capture a more serious commitment to international human rights more assiduously. Thus, HI development are related to sexual equality. Our sanctions is confirmed for democratic, anocratic, and autocratic measure is UN resolutions, which are purely diplomatic countries alike. and thus transcend the debate on possible humanitarian The interaction between sexual equality and democ harm of economic sanctions. racy is statistically significant in 17 of 69 regressions

(H2), and is of the anticipated sign - democracy appears . , . , , to bolster the effects of sexual equality in 16 of these Analysis and results , . . c . „ ... .. 1 cases, lhe derivatives or the outcome variables with

Tables I—III present the main regression results using the respect to sexual equality are larger at a point estimate GEI and WIP measures, clustered around our three areas in democracies than in autocracies in 15 of these 16

of human rights policy. We relegate results using the Gil cases. Thus, democracy often appears to facilitate the measures, which are broadly similar to those using the projection of sexual equality onto the world stage (H2). GEI, to online supplement C in order to keep the tables Turning to the evidence on possible political pathway readable. However, results from these regressions are effects of sexual equality, we find that having women in

included in the tallies of significant effects below. We parliament matters for an anocratic country for 12 out of present marginal effects for probit and ordered probit 30 outcome variables. WIP help with five out of 23 regressions and regression coefficients for all other regres- outcomes in democracies, and seven out of 23 in auto sion types. We also calculate derivatives of the predicted cracies. Thus, the hypothesis (H3) that sexual equality outcome with respect to sexual equality for typical coun- advances international human rights via political tries with a government that is either autocratic (has a mechanisms cannot be rejected.

This content downloaded from 194.170.173.251 on Thu, 26 Apr 2018 09:49:18 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Table I. Freedom from state violence against individuals

H

il

s j a ;« :§ I g

^ J -S:

il "s o, S

I

I, 5

II U -5

!"

W «

y

ils i lt g. s.-g

S

N N 00 N xr ^ m Vû CN A 00 Cn NT — xr O A A 00 Ai 00 CN O A OO — O OO — A4 A4 A — A4 Ö Ö ÖÖ ÖÖ © © OO ÖÖ I I

A 00 00 00 — — A4 ^ N O A4 CN — xr xr A xr tA tA (NO rA A —'A4 OO OO OO OO OO

oo od dö oo oo oo

00 A4 O A4 O A4 tA CN tA CN IA CN A O O A4 A4 A4

CN A A tA tA xr A A CN NJ" 00 © A © A tA A A O A4 A — O O O o O A4 A4 — O

O* 1

d l

o 1

O 1

© 1

O 1

o i

d l

O 1

O 1

© 1

O 1

* # * # * # * * * * *

A |A |A 00 A xr © tA CN A CN A 00 fA fA A xr A4 A © CN 00 fA © — — tA tA © © xT xr

O 1

© 1

© d O 1

O 1

© © O O O o

* * * * * * * *

© A4 © A CN A tA CN tA A4 A A |A O A4 A IA 00 00 A

q A4 A4 o CN A A A4 A O O —• O © O 1 1 1 1 O ©

* * #

© CN A4 © A CN Ai 1 — CN A4 CN xr CN xr o C > A r—i r—4 o — A4 A xr A4 A4 A4 Ai 1 — — —

© 1

© 1 © 1 o i 1 d © "T : 1 O O

a o xr xr a A4 oo © A4 a — — no xr »a xr © a a a cn O —1 N N A 00 A A O—1 tA xr © o A) — — A xr A ^ A A- A OO OO OO — © A4 A4 OO O A A xr O xr — xT A (N A A4 OO OO OO OO OO OO o o oo o o —' o o o o o I I I I I ! I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I

**** ** *** * * * * * * * * * * * * * —I Al © A — A A — A4 A A00 O A- A- 00 — A4 00 NT 00 Cn fA O — — — — OO — — OO — — A O — — A4 O — — O O A4 A O O o o © © o o o o o o o o © © o o o o O O o o oo oo* oo* oo oo o'o o o oo o o o o o d o* ©

— — XT XT A4 — XT nt A4AtA©A4 — A© O O OOOOOO ©OO©©© - — o o oopooo 00000000

OO OO OO Cj> © oo o o o cp oo o o o o* o o o o *

— — xr A A4*—1 ^ A A N AA O — AfAxTAlOA© — OOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOA4 — — — qqqqqqqqqqqqo qqqqqqqqo oo oo d o" o'o oo oo o o oo o' o o o o o o' o' Il II 1 I I I I I I I

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *

AO CN fA — — >^00 —A4 00 CN OO A4 A4 OO A4 A4 A4 A4 © — OO oo oo oo oo oo o

11 11 °i 11 il il i

tA A © xr A tA

* *

A xr O O o A o O o xr A o o o O o o o o o o o

o 1

o o 1

o o" © o o © 1 o 1

* *

* * *

* *

* * *

© tA xr 00 xr A A4 O fA A4 A «—1 CN A tA A4 xr 00 A4 tA A4 o 00 tA A4 A © © A A4 A O A © 00 © © A A4 A A o o o o O O o O — A4 O O |A A o O xr xr A O xr — — O

1 © 11 © O 1 O O O =? o O d 1 o o o O d o O O O 1

00 00 O— A (A o A4 O A 00 A tA A 00 [A (a A 00 tA 00 A O ©A4 O— AA A4— XT © AlO A 00 N C\ O A4 A4 CN O A A4 O OO A4 q q O O q — — A4 A4 A A4 OO A A4 A4 O A4 — © A do oo o*o" oo' © © oo o o oo o o o d o' © o o

# * * * * * *

* # * *

A A A c ) A o o 00 00 A CN O © o CN tA xr 00 00 xr CN xr A A CN OC i O IA A xr A A A © 00 o 00 CN 00 A A A tA © © O © O C ! P O O tA — — — «—< — © o o — — — O — O o O* O* o' 1 ! o o O O* o* 1 o d o o o'

# * *

* * * J * *

00 A o © A A4 O A4 1 CN 00 tA A © xr 00 xr tA CN © xr tA A tA A4 A A CN A4 1 A A > O xr © A xr A 4 00 A4 A 1 xr tA o ©

q O A4 O O C O O ' o o C > O © C > © O o o o —

o* o' © O 1 O 1 ! © <? 1 5 d d 5 ; 1 1 o 1 1 O d

uJ S ujp U4 r- U4 s UJS u ^ o ^ u ^

blr S fe W fe E&wfeE&SÊ: o ^ u«

T3 © 6 8

T3 © 8 S

"0 -û 8 S

-a © 8 8 1

-o c "H ^ -a c 0 0 0 0

— A4

"o "o

§ § 8 8

eu eu

et et eu eu U U u y y y A © g

-5 | S ~ ~ se y CJ et et -2 e © 5 W r r CU CU CU « * «

j i g g y y y i g ! * à

105

u a -^2

-3*

I-1

§ J s :§ rg

: J

i I fc

«I

% •«^»

.1 g° X l si

I

11 * . .&> - e

3+^ II >j

£*41 3T^ -2 .ft" s;

w i <

» p £~ go

!*

ill

N N 00 N CO NO CN v/1 xr ^ o v/i vr\ oo cn oo cn op —• O © © —- CN N fO © © © © © © © © © © I I

* *

*

co 00 00 CN nt xr r—> CN o o o o o o

I

—I CN XT |\ Cn CN in rNo

o o o o o o oo o o o o

00 CN O CN o CN In CN t\ CN |N CN CO O o CN CN CN

«0n CO CO in t\ V/1 CO CN Nj< 00 o i/l NO vO R CO CO o CN cO •—< o O O O o CN CN «—' O

o I

d I

o l

o I

o I

o i

o I

d l

o i

o I

o I

o l

* * # * * * * * *

co N in 00 CO XT NO N CN v/1 CN i/i 00 t\ •—• W1 CN V/1 NO CN 00 hv NO •—i »—■ •—1 |N |N NO NO XT Xj<

o l

o l

o o o I

o i

o d o o o o

* # * * * * *

no CN no i/i Ci CO in xr CN IN CN v/1 v/1 in o CN CO IN 00 00 CO

xr © CN cn o CN v/1 i/i CN CO O o

o o -* o o I 1 1 ? o o

* *

* *

NO CN CN NO CO CN CN 1 —• CN CN CN xr CN xr o c > CO r—> •—< O •—1 CN CO NT CN CN CN CN 1 —< •— •—<

o i

o =f

o I

o I 1 o o <T ; 1 o o

v/1 NO NT NT CO CN 00 NO CN CO NO xr VTN •sr *

NO 1 CO CO CO CN O — CN f\ v/1 00 CO VO o hs. NJ NO c > CN VTN xr v/1 NT cO t\ CO o o O O O o «—« O CN CN C > O O CO CO Nl" o •—i xr v/1 CN 1 V/1 CN

o o I

o 1

o o i

o I

o I

o i

o i

o i

c i

I o I

o i

c 1 > O

1 o

I o o

! 7 d

i ! o

I C

1 I o

1 O

1

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

— CN NO VO CO CO CN CO CO 00 o 00 CN 00 NT 00 CN o o o O o CO c ) •— CN O o c > CN CO

O O o O o o O o o o c ! °. o c > o o O o o C o c ' o O o o o o d o o o o o c I o 1 1 » o o o i d o C ! o c > o o

* * *

* * * * *

NT CN i —< Nf CN CO NC l CN CO o o o O O c i o o c > O o o c » O c ) • o o o o c ' o o c > O o o c ' o c > o o

o o o i

o o o 1 o o I 1 ' ? 1 ? > o o d i o I 1 c i : 1 1 ; 1 <?

NT CO CN NT CO v/1 r^ v/1 CO NO CO h Nf CN *

1 o vo NO © o O O O o O o O o c » o O o o o o C 1 CN o o O o o o o o o o c • o o o o o o C ' o c > o o

11 o o o i o i o o o o =T I o o c > o o I o I o 1 o l c 1 : 1 c 1 > o o „

# * * * * * * * * *

\T\ NO CN NJ 00 «—i CN OC 1 CN CO h W1 NO 1 1/1 r^ CO o o CN CN o o CN CN CN CN c ) •—i o c > o o CO o • o c > NT CO o o O O o o O O O O c » O o c ) o o o o o c » o c > o O

11 o ? ? o 1 1 ;1 1 c 1 > o o I o o o c • o c ; 1 o I

, * # * # * * * *

— NO O- NT 00 N" CO CN o h . CN CO CN cO t\ CN NT 00 cn r\ CN O 00 CN v/1 NO V0> CO CN CO O vo NO 00 NO NO CO CN v/1 CO O O o o O O o O •—1 CN c ' O r\ CO O o NT cO c » ^ . »—1 o

1d o I o I o o 1 o o o c 1 I o o c 1 ? o o o o c ! o c j o o I

# # # # *

00 00 o _ v/1 NO CN o W1 00 CO r ul 00 t\ CO oo r\ 00 CO b NO CN o CO CO CN NO CN O CO 00 t^. CN o CN CN c V o CO CN o o o CN o O O o o •—1 CN CN v/1 CN O O CO CN CN c ! CN NO CO o o o o

I o o 1 o o o C > o o c > O o o o o c > o c > o o

* * * *

ro CO CO o i/i o o 00 00 CO c v o b c > CN r_ 00 00 NJ« b xr v/1 CO CN 00 o CO NT CO CO CO NO 00 o 00 CN 00 CO CO V/1 NO NO O O o O o o O •—> « «—i •—i c > o o r— •—1 c > •—« c > • o

o o o 1 o o o o c : 1 o c i c j o o # # * #

* * * *

00 CO o NO CO CN o CN CN 00 h - CO NO NT 00 NT CN NO — Nf hv CO r-s cn CO v/1 CN CN v/1 CO O ^ N0 CO NT CI 1 00 CN CN c > NO o o CN O o O O o O i f—i O c > o O O o o c > o c ) »— •—i

d o o o =f

d ? o 1 1 > o o ? ? 1 c ; 1 > o d

n e* c_ _ a. , , c _ cu ! ft ft. ft , , ft , , ft. ft. ft UJ = UJ S U4 P Wm U4 p uj P UJ p Ui = W S ui p W S UJ

o ^ o^ o ^ a ^ o ^ a ^ u

13 JO .t; -O-O 13 -C 13 _o -a -O y p jd y p y p yp yp u< l_ "IT h b In l_ U, l_ U u,

c 2 S s s * I st?: s | o

I 2

ft

| 1 s

— CN

"o "3 8 § 2 2

ft ft

ct ft ft U U u y y y VO $

U ft- <x a _ri c ^ ■ ■ ■ * e i- l ^ w ' ^

H y 5. J D

This content downloaded from 194.170.173.251 on Thu, 26 Apr 2018 09:49:18 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

106

Table II. Ethic of care

r

i-i >1 gl A

1^ II •Î2 -5:

£

21

! ^ \ ^

2 + ÈS ^ 5» - ■*

I! ■*

*1 r? ^"7

§ § sL <u 5" 5

^ « -2

<u 5 §: £ £7 £0

-Ü -c>

■a s

.4- «■»

If ■£î

cn CN CN cn CN no CN NO CN CN CN CN CN CN rO CN cO (N

h- cn C-\ 00 00 o o CN o o o o o o o o

o o o o o o

CN CN , in CN CN cO cO CO CO \r\ O o o o O o

o l

o I

o I

o l

o 1

o I

^ \TiiTi J\»T\ ■—' CN N N r^CN t^*r\ GN CN 00 SO Cn 00 N NO •— N (f) »TN 00 rO r-. GN 00 00 O CN CN COO CO h-. N O Ö Ö Ö CN xj< © •—' ^ CN CN i/"N K © CN I I II

I

Sh- •— cO NO ~ cn cn

i ii cO CN ^ CN —« xr o o o o o o o o o o o o

p d do od

\0 G\ •-' \0 iT\ i/N h- rO GN —■ 00 cO CS ^ (NN oo -h i\ o- —' no itn no »-«.-< co xr o oo oo OO O O O CN »-« ^; *-< oo ^ j © P P P P o o* o o © o o p o o o ? ?o oo o? ?o

KO CN 00 VTN 00 in lO CN co vr\ oo vr\ CO — — o CN CN In 00 NO *T\ NT NO 00 o o

o O o O CN CN o O o o o o o o o

o o o o o o o l

o l

o d I l

o o ?° o l

o I

o o

t-v. i/N

o o

^ \r\ o o o o

p ©

_) CO NO CN CO CO 00 00

o q o o o o d o o o o o

* * * * * * ITN CN CN r\ »TN NO NO 00 CO CO 00 t\ YT\ CO ir\ o 00 VN l/N 00 00 CN 00 NT CN 00 CN CN XT *r\ l/"N vO CN — t\ 00 NO •-* o o O o o

CO CN o o O o o o o o o d o o

*

tf-N CN XJ" r\ CN NO «TN CN

•—1 o o o

o o o o o d

ITN X} xr NO CN Cn »TN CN o o XJ« O o o o o O

o o d o 1

o i

SE: m E: uj £s üj& üj& u4 p uj Es ujt: tut: uj ü§ Oß 0§ Oß Oß Oß 0\

C/5 C/5 C/) C/5 C/3 C/5 <✓) S t-J i—J i-J i-J >-J t-J 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

s On

jo "33

•§ I t2 2 g 2 — " L 1 1 I | | .§ 2 -5 13 * S 2 .§ £ £ = < I > "2 2 > J? c (J U "8 Q o 0 «3 H -S S UJ ai ai ■* O U I I I I I I U U Û

2 2

2 2

5 ^ 3 -^S

I C?

i'l ^'C ~s a

J

11 : -s

3

.£• £ C

«- 3

1 O, o S §

: ft

11 "S ft *> g -2 -3 <£ +

ii -s £"5i

ft & ■ia a

11 5" E

& t?fe>

II S4

CM NO CM NO r\ CN CM CN CM CN CM

1^ CN CN 00 00 O o CM o O o o O O o O d o o

1 o

I o o

I

CN CM CM C\ CN CN cn r<N UN o O o o O O o o o o o o

r\ »— un un c. un •—i n cm r\ r^. cn c- u\ ON CN CN 00 yo C\ 00 N NO — r\ CN »/N 00 CN r— CNOO 00 O M (N 00 O 00 N h^O

o fs Hp o •—< xr cm cm un r- O'

un h>. cn -<r ~ NO c- . _

o o o •—•

© © © <^> I CN CM —-CM o o o o o o o o

NO CN NO UN UN c CN C\ 00 CN CM NT CM o o NO UN NO CN ht O o C ' o o o o o o o CM —| •— O o *-;

•—1 O o c » o o

o o o o ? d i o l ? o o o i o I o l O c ' i 1 i o I * *

UN * CM 00 UN oo Ik UN CM CN UN 00 UN CN hp UN

o CM CM t\ 00 NO UN Hp NO 00 o c > o O o O o O CM CM o O o o o o o o c » o O

o o d o o o o 1

o I

o d 1 l

o o <?

o o l =T

I o c ■ i o I

—H CN NO CM f4 —* NT CN CN 00 00 O o o O o o

o d o o o o

* * # * * * * * * * * * * *

CM UN UN CN CN u\ NO NO 00 cn CN 00 c c UN Hp o UN cn UN o 00 UN UN 00 00 CM 00 hp CM 00 CM

l\ CM hp UN UN UN CM 00 NO •—• O o o o O

d o «-3 o CO ci o o o —* o o o o o o d o o

UN CM HP HP t\ CM NO UN CN

O O «—1 o

o o o o o o

UN Hp Hp HP NO CN CN UN CM o o Hp o o o o o o

o o o =?'

o i

s & 3 & 3 & 3 ~ 3 & 3 & 3 £: 3 o ^ a ^ o ^ o ^ a ^ u ^ a ^ O

tO to to to to CO to w

3 J 3 i-J J hJ J 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 g

fL

pj s uj o§ o \

E a, o

£

£ a o

« 1= I J i S I z 2 •§ "3 § e» p. £ w _ "32 w ob *> < c > 33 2 > c© cUU D §0 -I H — 2 uJ a: ot O O i 1 I I i I u u

This content downloaded from 194.170.173.251 on Thu, 26 Apr 2018 09:49:18 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Table III. Gender equity and tolerance

il

1 S ■Ü -a ■a -a

§

il S I

II .8 a

S.

» II1 1 I 11 ï

q fc i 3 *• :

6

I"

i

m vo rr^ |—. xr CO — rr, «s rr, A vo O — A (S N xr — «*> oo vû vor-- (S iA — fN O — — xr xj- ff) © f«N A n rr © © ÖÖ ÖÖ O O ÖÖ ÖÖ © ©

ON ON O fA A fx 00 m O «S A NO NO G\ (S fx 00 N xT 00 (N lA GN 00 -o

OO fx O A XT xr A «À xr fx A A NO

ii

o o

oo g> cr> oo ® ® oo

00 \û 0000 XP N rv 00 XT ON ON On a oo o <n oo— — — no a A O O— ff) (S «AfA (N xT «SO ÖÖ ÖÖ ÖÖ ÖÖ ÖÖ ÖÖ

oo no oo oo rx oo «SA © GN IA ffi o o «s — o o

vo m «s o fx — \o on — on gn — — — O CS — Gn «SON 0«A AO XT A ff) A fx O o«*) — O OO CO — ff) o ÖÖ ÖÖ ÖÖ ÖÖ ÖÖ ÖÖ ÖÖ

ONO n xr no «sa no gn cn rr a rx no xr O — © — (S — — — OO — (S oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo

? ? o o =f. cp

— A — — (S —

o o — —

— ©

ö ö

— CO

2 §

Q o

U _ D Z U -M r- r i r •> u u

o o ö ö

NO O fx— — xr (S XJ- AA xr — NOVO O — OO — — — O OO OO NO —

<?? ?<? 00 ? ? ?=f ?<? ? <?

rx «s n oo rr, xr xr— «s oo xr xr OO rr, (S A rr, O xr — O — «S OO xr O rr, «s

AA xr A o N 0N rr, — CO — ~ «Sxr rr, «S ON «s rr, — — fx. tx N Äff) O ff) v/N O n0 —; CO rr, xr O ö ö — — ö ö ö ö ö ö ö ö

«so — a xr no o o— rx o no <s cn_ _ .... — no - © —; © p — o «so «s«s" ÖÖ ÖÖ ÖÖ ÖÖ ÖÖ

_ A A NO — «S rr,

— fi- — C- — fi- — fi_ — C- — C- — C ■M tr -M E- 'M r= -M ? 'M cr s iL ~ U £ U? O? D? U 3 O ^ U ^

s o

ï* Ö 1 <? 1 s S < i * i ~ J q c M

O U '35 -O o5 <u 2- -C bû w

v c J= o

bû bû .S h c3 .0 V JD Q* o Q- t «« cl to -ri

J4 12 •S ö .2 -o u u.

rt O

II d a> u- c o c

— <u

I c 3 8 C S .2 <u

-2 13 3 X U <3

u -û 2

'S 'i 1 - .2 ^ 'mn J2 uT £ o 5a w ^ rt £ .d -c o js.ä y l2 * S H * 0 £ "ÖJ U <0 > >

- -g

-= CL i s

-C

u 'C

Ü u Ç =

2i c ■« "® s C Ö o .2 S E (O . . «i 'S Ö y tS -c to V ^ flj b U) 0 _ o .

2 jj3 CL „ rt

O = "o i£ u Ü - -a a. g VI u ! a s

JZ n _

2 b'£ &

S fcë -a u ° 3 1 1 S o ÏS-5 S S o

ï o. V/N &• s 9St v -C 8 N'S c * £ - 8 o q-è-S w 5/5 V > Ü

I î Q ?

1 a Ji

4

*

1 I §* J

C -ST a S § §

-5

^ R

M

rrj NO rc> f^ O — «N <N fS xr — no — — ^r dodo oo

is 0 o

1 <?

ON Gn O ff) iA N CO v/N O (N NO GN N N 00 N ^ 00 (N VA K q \r\ xr -<r q, q q q v/n do o o o d do od

— m oo no oo oo -<p n oo -<r n \a ro Gn v/n OO O n 00— — — (f) f) *0 P O — tf) n rT) rT) M Vf OO oo oo oo oo oo

oo no oo oo oo n *r\ O GN v/N rc> © o n — o o o o o o o o

no m n o N~- — no gn — gn gn — — — o N — ON riON o f<N UNO "<r v/N q q q o o«*} — o o o co — q o oo oo oo oo oo do do

on o r-- xr no ts in noon CNm ia s O— o— <N — — — oo — (N OO © © oo oo oo op oo oo

o o o o> co cji CjJ oo o o

— — >/n — — n — — oo oo o oo oo oq o o q q o q q oo do oo oo do

C<N ^T — O

0 o

1 i o o o o i I

s 2

? CfO ?o ?=f

O — NO o [\ (N v/n r-. oo oo -<r -<r v/n — o n — o

o o — — o o

V/N V/N xr v/N © ON MN — 00 n fA n gn n m— — v/N q o q v/n q q — x fA do — — do o d o o

3 £ o— rv _ _ .. .. .. _ — q — o -; o — o — o n n oo oo oo do

— 00 NO *N rTi —I "" ■ ~ n n on ctn i

n — o o — ■ 2 s

2 r2 2 r5 2 r1 2r- 2 ^ 2 ^ 2 r1 up Op oi op op op op

s s s s o o o o

X

Q § u a > B

£ o 3 ■? 1 S < X £ e£ — 3 13 Q Cu — VI rt _ _J

ullyylll

CO

This content downloaded from 194.170.173.251 on Thu, 26 Apr 2018 09:49:18 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

108 journal of Peace Research 51(1)

This said, there is also substantial evidence for the populous countries are less likely to support international hypothesis that sexual equality is helpful for outcomes with human rights initiatives. Resource intensity plays a little value that is specific to women as an interest group, negligible role. The KOF social globalization index pro suggesting a values socialization effect (H4). Restricting motes support for freedom from state violence, but not

attention to the she outcomes that fit this description: oppo- much else. A history of political terror is positively

sition to the death penalty (Table 1) and five measures related with support for antidiscrimination measures and involving gay rights (items 4—8 in Table III), we find that those promoting freedom from violence. Trade depen out of the 18 resulting regressions, sexual equality is signif- dence is associated with reduced support for interna icantin 13 regressions in autocracies, 10 in anocracies, and donal initiatives, perhaps because such initiatives carry 12 in democracies. All five gay rights initiatives received sig- greater commercial costs for more trade dependent coun

nificandy greater support for countries with high PSOW tries. Consistent with previous literature, democracy, in a

and low IFL (online supplement E). This suggests that sex- country of average sexual equality, seems to be helpful ual equality operates through both political mechanisms for human rights promotion. and socialization. Regression results obtained using a subset of countries

Follow-up A asks which types of outcomes are influ- that excludes the members of the Western European and enced by sexual equality. Comparing the numbers of Others Group are included as an online supplement, part statistically significant (and 'correctly' signed) results across D. The general relationship between sexual equality and

the three tables suggests that sexual equality may matter support for human rights survives the exclusion of this core

most for tolerance, which is associated more with gendered group of liberal democratic Western powers, which suggests

experience than gendered thinking, but still plays an the effects are not proxies for modernization or Western val

important role across the board. This impression is strongly ues. We also note that widespread domestic women's confirmed by the results on PSOW (online supplement E). empowerment began in the 1970s with the second wave However, we are reluctant to draw conclusions from differ- feminist movement and post-industrial modernization, but

ences that are this subtle, given that the regressions many aspects of humanitarian foreign policy did not expand

included in each table are variable in terms of their sample gready until the 1990s. The spread of women's empower

sizes and dependent variable types, and that the number of ment and humanitarian policy are therefore unlikely to be

dependent variables in each group, while large for a study reflections of the same phenomenon. Rather, we posit that

like ours, is rather small for drawing inferences. women's empowerment appears to be an enabling condition Finally, we look at politically cosdy international com- for global good citizenship,

mitments (Follow-up B). Out of the 21 regressions run on

our seven clearly politically costly outcomes (three measures of support for the ICC, pro-development trade

policies, and sanctions against Iran, Myanmar, and North In sum, states with empowered women do make better glo

Korea), sexual equality only matters for anocracies in four, bal citizens in certain critical areas. More sex-equitable

It matters for only one out of 18 regressions that include countries are more likely to support international commit

an interaction between polity and sexual equality in auto- ments against state violence against individuals, even when

cracies, but matters for seven in democracies. On the other most of the victims are male. States with more empowered

hand, polity scores are strongly supportive of human women also provide more and at least nominally higher rights initiatives in all these cases. This suggests that sexual quality development assistance and more reliably defend

equality alone is not especially effective in pushing support children's rights to not be sexually exploited, demonstrat

over the top for more cosdy and contentious commit- ing an ethic of care. In addition, a higher level of sexual ments, unless it is combined with democracy. Results equality raises countries' support for international antidis using the PSOW and IFL indexes similarly show very lit- crimination measures on both sex and sexual orientation,

de effect of sexual equality on support for these particular Democracy appears to be an enabling factor. However, our

commitments. results suggest that sexual equality does not have much The control variables generally have the effects we leverage on international positions that are politically costly

anticipated. Per capita GDP enters most regressions unless it is accompanied by overt democracy. The pattern negatively when it is significant, perhaps reflecting a of our findings also seems to demonstrate that sexual equal

lower willingness by the powerful to cede sovereignty, ity plays a role that goes beyond mere participation of The exception here is aid (Table II) - richer countries women in politics and suggests that we pay greater atten give more and nominally better aid. In addition, more tion to socialization.

Conclusion

This content downloaded from 194.170.173.251 on Thu, 26 Apr 2018 09:49:18 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Brysk & Mehta 109

What does this mean for human rights promotion pol icy? Empowerment of women worldwide has the potential

to strengthen the level and quality of global human rights

policy. Thus, human rights promotion should include tar

geted efforts to improve gender equity in lagging developed

democracies, such as Japan, which may improve their glo

bal citizenship. Conversely, foundering global humanitar

ian efforts should reach beyond the customary developed

democracies to engage and empower the most gender friendly emerging nations, such as recently female-headed

Brazil, Chile, and Argentina. Finally, we see that strength

ening sexual equality may bolster the protection of all peo

ple who are vulnerable to state violence, extreme poverty, child abuse, and discrimination, as feminist socialization

improves states' efforts to protect all citizens. As the United

Nations 1993 Vienna Conference on Human Rights con cluded, human rights are interdependent and indivisible -

and women's rights are human rights.

Replication data The online appendix and replication data for the empiri

cal analysis in this article can be found at http:// www.prio.no/jpr/datasets.

Acknowledgements We thank Natasha Bennett, Quinn McCreight, and Aisa Villanueva for excellent research assistance, Aditee

Maskey, Wayne Sandholtz, Alejandro Anaya, and Rachel Cicchowski for very productive discussions, and four anon

ymous referees for many useful suggestions. All errors are our own.

References

Aggerstam, Lisbeth (2008) Ethical power Europe? Interna tional Affairs 84(1): 1-11.

Ai, Chunrong & Edward C Norton (2003) Interaction terms in

logit and probit models. Economics Letters 80(1): 123-129.

Alfredsson, LS (2009) Creating Human Rights: How Nonciti zens Made Sex Persecution Matter to the World. Philadelphia,

PA: Pennsylvania University Press.

Apodaca, Clair & Michael Stohl (1999) United States human rights policy and foreign assistance. International Studies

Quarterly 43(1): 185-198. Baer, Madeline & Alison Brysk (2009) New rights for private

wrongs: Female genital mutilation and global framing dialogues. In: Clifford Bob (ed.) The International Struggle

for New Human Rights. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 93-107.

Beasley, Ryan K; Juliet Kaarbo, Jeffrey S Lands & Michael T

Snarr, eds (2013) Foreign Policy in Comparative Perspective:

Domestic and International Influences on State Behavior. Washington, DC: CQ.

Brown, Heioise (2003) 'The Truest Form of Patriotism': Pacifist Feminism in Britain, 1870-1902. Manchester: Manchester

University Press.

Brysk, Alison (2009) Global Good Samaritans: Human Rights as Foreign Policy. New York: Oxford University Press.

Brysk, Alison (2013) Changing hearts and minds: Sexual pol

itics and human rights. In: Thomas Risse, Stephen C Ropp

& Kathryn Sikkink (eds) The Persistent Power of Human Rights: From Commitment to Compliance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Brysk, Alison & Austin Choi-Fitzpatrick, eds (2012) From Human Trafficking to Human Rights: Reframing Contempo

rary Slavery. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce & Alastair Smith (2009) A polit ical economy of aid. International Organization 63(2): 309-340.

Chodorow, Nancy (1978) The Reproduction of Mothering: Psychoanalysis and the Sociology of Gender. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Conover, Pamela Johnston & Virginia Sapiro (1993) Gender, feminist consciousness, and war. American Journal of Polit ical Science 37(4): 1079-1099.

Cooper, Andrew F; Richard A Higgott & Kim Richard Nossal (1993) Relocating Middle Powers: Australia and Canada in a

Changing World Order. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.

Doyle, Michael W (2005) Three pillars of the liberal peace. American Political Science Review 99(3): 463-466.

Dunne, Timothy (2008) Good citizen Europe. International Affairs 84(1): 1—11.

Easterly, William & Tobias Pfiitze (2008) Where does the money go? Best and worst practices in foreign aid. Journal

of Economic Perspectives 22(2): 29-52.

Enloe, Cynthia (2000) Bananas, Beaches, and Bases: Making Feminist Sense of International Politics. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Evans, Peter B; Harold Karan Jacobson & Robert D Putnam

(1993) Double-Edged Diplomacy: International Bargaining and

Domestic Politics. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Gilligan, Carol (1982) In a Different Voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Gizelis, Theodora-Ismene (2009) Gender empowerment and United Nations peace-building. Journal of Peace Research 46(4): 505-523.

Goldstein, Joshua (2001) Women and War. New York: Cam

bridge University Press. Hartz, Louis (1955) The Liberal Tradition in America. New

York: Harcourt, Brace & World.

Held, Virginia (2006) The Ethics of Care: Personal, Political, and Global. New York: Oxford University Press.

Hopf, Ted (2002) Social Construction oflnternational Politics: Iden

tities and Foreign Policies. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

This content downloaded from 194.170.173.251 on Thu, 26 Apr 2018 09:49:18 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

110 journal of Peace Research 51(1)

Htun, Mala & S Laurel Weldon (2012) The civic origins of progressive policy change: Combating violence against women in global perspective, 1975-2005. American Polit ical Science Review 106(3): 548-569.

Hudson, Valerie M; Bonnie Ballif-Spanvill & Mary Caprioli (2012)

Sex and World Peace. New York: Columbia University Press.

Joachim, Jutta (2003) Framing issues and seizing opportuni ties: The UN, NGOs, and women's rights. International Studies Quarterly 47(2): 247-274.

Kaldor, Mary (2007) Deepening democracy. In: David Held & David Mepham (eds) Progressive Foreign Policy. Cam bridge: Polity, 36-54.

Kaufman, Joyce P & Kristen P Williams (2007) Women, the State, and War: A Comparative Perspective on Citizenship and Nationalism. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Keck, Margaret & Kathryn Sikkink (1998) Activists Beyond Borders. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

King, Elizabeth M & Andrew D Mason (2001) Engendering Development: Through Gender Equality in Rights, Resources,

and Voice. Washington, DC: World Bank. Manners, Ian (2008) Norm power Europe. International Affairs 84(1): 1-11.

Maoz, Zeev & Bruce Russett (1993) Normative and structural

causes of democratic peace, 1946-1986. American Political Science Review 87(3): 624—638.

Melander, Erik (2005) Political gender equality and state human

rights abuse. Journal of Peace Research 42(2): 149-166.

Meyer, Mary & Elizabeth Prugl, eds (1999) Gender Politics in Global Governance. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Norris, Pippa & Ronald Inglehart (2003) Rising Tide: Gender

Equality and Cultural Change Around the World. Cam bridge: Cambridge University Press.

Peters, Julie & Andrea Wolper, eds (1995) Women's Rights,

Human Rights. New York: Routledge. Peterson, Spike V & Anne Sisson Runyan (2010) Global Gen der Issues in the New Millenium. Boulder, CO: Westfield.

Pettman, Jan Jindy (1996) Worlding Women: A Feminist Inter

national Politics. New York: Routledge. Poe, Steven C; C Neal Tate & Linda Camp Keith (1999) Repression of the human right to personal integrity revisited:

A global cross-national study covering the years 1976-1993.

International Studies Quarterly 43(2): 291-313.

Ray, James Lee (2008) Democracy and International Conflict:

An Evaluation of the Democratic Peace Proposition. Colum

bia, SC: University of South Carolina Press. Robinson, Fiona (2011) The Ethics of Care: A Feminist Approach to Human Security. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

Ruddick, Sara (1989) Maternal Thinking. Boston: Beacon. Savery, Lynn (2007) Engendering the State: The International

Diffusion of Women s Human Rights. Abingdon & New York: Routledge.

Sen, Amartya (1999) Development as Freedom. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Simmons, Beth (2010) Mobilizing for Human Rights: Interna tional Law in Domestic Politics. New York: Cambridge Uni

versity Press.

Smith, Jackie; Charles Chatfield & Ron Pagnucco, eds (1997) Transnational Social Movements and Global Poli

tics: Solidarity Beyond the State. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.

Smith, Steve (2001) Foreign policy is what states make of it.

In: Vendulka Kubâlkovâ (ed.) Foreign Policy in a Con structed World. Armonk, NY: ME Sharpe.

Spees, Pam (2008) Women's advocacy in the creation of the international criminal court: Changing the landscapes of justice and power. In: Karen Anderson & Mary Hawkes worth (eds) War and Terror: Feminist Perspectives. Chicago,

IL: University of Chicago Press. Steans, Jill (2006) Gender and International Relations: Issues,

Debates and Future Directions. Boston, MA: Polity. Stienstra, Deborah (1994) Women's Movement and Interna

tional Organizations. Basingstoke: Macmillan. Tessler, Mark & Ina Warriner (1997) Gender, feminism, and

attitudes toward international conflict: Exploring relation

ships with survey data from the Middle East. World Politics 49(2): 250-281.

Tickner, J Ann, (2001) Gendering World Politics. New York: Columbia University Press.

Togeby, Lise (1994) The gender gap in foreign policy atti tudes. Journal of Peace Research 31(4): 375-392.

Towns, Ann E (2010) Women and States: Norms and Hier

archies in International Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Turpin, Jennifer & Lois Ann Lorentzen, eds (1996) The Gen dered New World Order. New York: Routledge.

Weldon, S Laurel, (2006) Inclusion, solidarity, and social movements: The global movement against gender violence.

Perspectives on Politics 4(1): 55—74. Younas, Javed (2008) Motivation for bilateral aid allocation:

Altruism or trade benefits. European Journal of Political Economy 24(3): 661-674.

ALISON BRYSK, b. 1960, PhD in Political Science

(Stanford University, 1990); Mellichamp Professor in

Global Governance, University of California, Santa Barbara

(2010- ); main interest: human rights; most recent book:

Speaking Rights to Power (Oxford University Press, 2013).

AASHISH MEHTA, b. 1974, PhD in Agricultural and Applied Economics (University of Wisconsin-Madison, 2004); Assistant Professor, Global Studies, University of

California, Santa Barbara (2007- ); main interest: political

economy of development.

This content downloaded from 194.170.173.251 on Thu, 26 Apr 2018 09:49:18 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms