NRA and Right-Wing Social Movements

I'm the last person to get excited about constitutional rights, law, and the 2nd Amendment. But this was just hands-down one of the most fascinating articles I've read about the making (or re-making) of gun rights in America.

The 2nd Amendment states, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." As with the Supreme Court 30 years ago, I take this to mean that individuals have the right to carry guns only to the extent that the state needs citizens to have guns to maintain a militia. Hence the right to bear arms is a collective right of the state rather than an individual right

Yet as this article states, the NRA started supporting research, scholarships, and seminars beginning in the 1970s. After a few years, the number of academic articles interpreting the 2nd Amendment in favor of individual rights began to increase. Over time, the number of publications favoring individual gun rights began outnumbering those interpreting the amendment as one about state needs to maintain a militia. In a 30 year span, then, the NRA helped reshape the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, culminating in District of Columbia v. Heller in which the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of individual having the right to bear arms (the case was directed against the DC ban on guns). Here's a CRS overview of gun ownership and the Supreme Court.

Clifford Bob may have already raised this issue in his book The Global Right and the Clash of World Politics, but this is a fascinating case study of framing and norms construction. How activists (or in this case a powerful lobby) quietly work to reinterpret laws which wind up having huge implications for politics. The irony in all this is that no one even cared about the 2nd Amendment prior to the NRA's advocacy.

An excellent counterpoint to this study is what is currently happening to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Here the shift is even more astounding. The figure below tracks attitudes towards gay marriage in a span of 20 years.


From Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Clint Eastwood, Robert Porter, to President Obama, Hillary Clinton, and a slew of other recent converts, it seems like support for gay marriage is spreading fast. Obama himself saw that the fight for gay marriage would take place at the state level producing a cascade-effect which would shore up a case for federal support for gay marriage in the future. Here's a PBS News Hour transcript outlining this trend. I am not a supporter of gay marriage (my reason is simple, but the rationale is complicated) but in thinking about other rights movements (civil rights in particular) we do seem to have reached some type of tipping point.

Amanda Murdie on Human Rights Treaties and Virginity Pledges

Amanda Murdie had a terrific post titled Human Rights Treaties Are Like Virginity Pledges. The basic gist is that states signing human rights treaties has little effect in improving human rights practices because 1) Enforcement mechanisms are weak; 2) States sign for reasons that have nothing to do with commitment to change behavior (i.e. don't want to be stigmatized for not signing; signing gets you some immediate benefit in return with no cost to comply). The debates outlined here raises excellent issues about compliance in international politics. It also challenges constructivist notions of human rights change (i.e. Risse, Ropp, Sikkinnk) which sees treaties as an early stage of normative change.

I posted the blog entry though, mainly for it's teaching value. Can't wait to hear how my Intro to IR students respond next fall.

North Korean Human Rights II: UN Human Rights Inquiry

Calling for an "international inquiry" into North Korean human rights abuses, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has stepped up pressure on the international community to address deplorable conditions and practices in North Korea. For years, the UN Human Rights Council has assigned a special rapporteur to North Korea, but Navi Pillay, the High Commissioner seems to be ramping up efforts herself. Here's a post from HRNK on how the UN has dealt with NK human rights the past few years and why the inquiry is significant.

The U.S. has already expressed support for the inquiry. However, there was much more suspense to whether South Korea would agree to the inquiry given that the new president had pledged to improve North-South relations. Addressing human rights  at the start of her tenure would surely not be well-received by Pyeongyang, jeopardizing the opportunity to improve relations. However, not supporting the investigation would weaken the legitimacy and credibility of the UN investigation.

However, South Korea decided to support the inquiry yesterday. This is a good decision. Why turn a blind eye to North Korean human rights abuses when it clearly exists? There's no guarantee that the North will follow-up on negotiations even if Seoul defers its support.  Also, there's no reason to write off the possibility of engaging the North, even as Seoul acknowledges human rights abuses. At least Seoul would be on higher moral ground if the Park government makes an initial gesture to provide aid and the North rejected it because of South Korea's support for the UN inquiry.

Update #1: Roberta Cohen weighs in on events leading to the adoption resolution to hold a  UN commission of inquiry into abuses in North Korea.

Update #2: Steph Haggard also discusses the UN Commission of Inquiry and tags documentation. He notes  four advantages of moving ahead with the inquiry.

First, we found it interesting that the North Koreans felt compelled to respond, even if they claimed that the resolution was not worthy of response. Somewhere, someone in North Korea is reading a statement by the Foreign Ministry saying that North Korea does not have a human rights problem. As cynicism rises, such statements are rightly interpreted as implying the opposite. .

Second, the commission will galvanize organizations working on the issue, and give their activities a boost, including with respect to refugees.

Third, the action has diplomatic effect. Its hard for the DPRK to say that a resolution passed with Venezuelan support is a cabal of the imperialists; North Korea is increasingly identified with other states and conflicts with commissions of inquiry, such as Syria or Darfur.

Finally, if we are going to have international crimes as we now do under the Rome Statute it is important that allegations of them be investigated and treated with the seriousness they deserve. Building international law is a function of practice, and commissions of inquiry can contribute to that practice.

In other news: Dennis Rodman meets Kim Jong-Un on basketball diplomacy. Crazy PR stunt or an updated version of ping-pong diplomacy? NPR has a good story on this.