Taking On The World S Repressive Regimes

A study of the Ford Foundation's support and of funding of human rights projects and NGOs, illuminating its extraordinary role in helping undermine and destroy major world repressive authoritarian and totalitarian regimes during the latter part of the twentieth century.

"Identifies and characterizes the most repressive states and singles out which are aggressive. Defines the actions constituting repression and proposes a method of measuring human rights violations, presenting an index of nation-state repressiveness. Offers a way to decide which repressive and rogue states are most deserving of strong policy attention"--Provided by publisher.

A study of the Ford Foundation's support and of funding of human rights projects and NGOs, illuminating its extraordinary role in helping undermine and destroy major world repressive authoritarian and totalitarian regimes during the latter part of the twentieth century.

All over the world, the practice of peacebuilding is beset with common dilemmas: peace versus justice, religious versus secular approaches, individual versus structural justice, reconciliation versus retribution, and the harmonization of the sheer number of practices involved in repairing past harms. Progress towards resolving these dilemmas requires reforming institutions and practices but also clear thinking about basic questions: What is justice? And how is it related to the building of peace? The twin concepts of reconciliation and restorative justice, both involving the holistic restoration of right relationship, contain not only a compelling logic of justice but also great promise for resolving peacebuilding's tensions and for constructing and assessing its institutions and practices. This book furthers this potential by developing not only the core content of these concepts but also their implications for accountability, forgiveness, reparations, traditional practices, human rights, and international law.

Repressive regimes tyrannize their own citizens and threaten global stability and order. These repositories of evil systematically oppress their own people, deny human rights and civil liberties, severely truncate political freedom, and prevent meaningful individual economic opportunity. Worst of the Worst identifies and characterizes the world's most odious states and singles out which repressors are aggressive and, hence, can truly be called rogues. Previously, determinations have been based on inexact, impressionistic criteria. In this volume, Robert Rotberg and his colleagues define the actions that constitute repression and propose a method of measuring human rights violations. They offer an index of nation-state repressiveness, classifying "gross repressors," "high repressors," and "aggressive repressors" or "rogues" on a ten-point scale. Based on arms and drug trafficking, support of terror, possession of weapons of mass destruction, and crossborder attacks, this valuable diagnostic tool will guide the international community in crafting effective policies to deal with injustice in the developing world. The repressors and rogues profiled include Belarus, Burma, Equatorial Guinea, NorthKorea, Syria, Togo, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Zimbabwe. W orst of the Worst offers a transparent way to decide which repressive and rogue states are most deserving of strong policy attention. Explicitly measuring and labeling these highly repressive states is the first step toward improving the well-being of millions of the poorest and most abused peoples of the globe. Contributors include Margarita M. Balmaceda (Seton Hall University), Mary Caprioli (University of Minnesota Duluth), Priscilla A. Clapp (Safe Ports, LLC),Yi Feng (Claremont Graduate University), Gregory Gleason (University of New Mexico), John Heilbrunn (Colorado School of Mines), Clement M. Henry (University of Texas at Austin),David W. Lesch (Trinity University), Marcus Noland (Peterson Institute for International Economics and International Food Policy Research Institute), Martha Brill Olcott (Carnegie Endowment for International Peace), Saumik Paul (Claremont Graduate University), and Peter F. Trumbore (Oakland University).

The world seems to have reached agreement on a set of ideals regarding state human rights behavior and the appropriate institutions to promote and protect those ideals. The global script for state legitimacy calls for a written constitution or the equivalent with an embedded bill of rights, democratic processes and institutions, and increasingly, a judicial check on state power to protect human rights. While the progress toward universal formal adherence to this global model is remarkable, Linda Camp Keith argues that the substantive meaning of this progress is much less clear. In Political Repression, she seeks to answer two key questions: Why do states make formal commitments to democratic processes and human rights? What effect do these commitments have on actual state behavior, especially political repression? The book begins with a thorough exploration of a variety of tools of state repression and presents evidence for substantial formal acceptance of international human rights norms in constitutional documents as well as judicial independence. Keith finds that these institutions reflect the diffusion of global norms and standards, the role of transnational networks of nongovernmental organizations, and an electoral logic in which regimes seek to protect their future interests. Economic liberalism, on the other hand, decreases the likelihood that states adopt or maintain these provisions. She demonstrates that the level of judicial independence is influenced by constitutional structures and that levels of judicial independence subsequently achieved in turn diminish the probability of state repression of a variety of rights. She also finds strong evidence that rights provisions may indeed serve as a constraint on state repression, even when controlling for many other factors.

A new account of modern Iraqi politics that overturns the conventional wisdom about its sectarian divisions How did Iraq become one of the most repressive dictatorships of the late twentieth century? The conventional wisdom about Iraq's modern political history is that the country was doomed by its diverse social fabric. But in State of Repression, Lisa Blaydes challenges this belief by showing that the country's breakdown was far from inevitable. At the same time, she offers a new way of understanding the behavior of other authoritarian regimes and their populations. Drawing on archival material captured from the headquarters of Saddam Hussein's ruling Ba'th Party in the wake of the 2003 US invasion, Blaydes illuminates the complexities of political life in Iraq, including why certain Iraqis chose to collaborate with the regime while others worked to undermine it. She demonstrates that, despite the Ba'thist regime's pretensions to political hegemony, its frequent reliance on collective punishment of various groups reinforced and cemented identity divisions. In addition, a series of costly external shocks to the economy--resulting from fluctuations in oil prices and Iraq's war with Iran—weakened the capacity of the regime to monitor, co-opt, coerce, and control factions of Iraqi society. In addition to calling into question the common story of modern Iraqi politics, State of Repression offers a new explanation of why and how dictators repress their people in ways that can inadvertently strengthen regime opponents.

This original study examines the extent to which international labour issues have become issue of concern within the European Union, the ILO, the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development), and the WTO (World Trade Organization).