FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W33767667> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W33767667 startingPage "99" @default.
• W33767667 abstract "In his recent Review Essay, Synthesis v. Purity and Large-N Studies: How Might We Assess the Gap between Promise and Performance?, Will Moore explores the large issues concerning the gap between the promise and performance of international human rights norms and institutions, the trade-offs between theoretical synthesis and purity, and the utility of large-N statistical analysis. I am naturally flattered and honored that my new book, Protecting Human Rights (2005a), features as a lens through which Moore centers his examination. And, I am in agreement with most of what Moore has to say with direct reference to the book. Indeed, who could possibly object to having his or her book described as a landmark study, as having high quality statistical work that sets a new standard, and as having a model specification that cannot be ignored in future research in this field? Moore also appears convinced by the general inference that international human rights instruments have a significant but limited impact on the actual human rights practices of states--a finding which is conditioned by larger processes of democratization, development, and global interdependence. Where Moore and I do differ, however, is on the degree to which different theories at the domestic and international level can be synthesized and on the overall utility of large-N statistical analysis for establishing substantive inferences that may be useful for policy advice and action to be taken by human rights practitioners. My brief response to Moore's essay addresses these two concerns in turn. My own intellectual formation was borne of a quest to move beyond what Gabriel Almond (1990) called the separate tables of political science and to confront political puzzles using the insights provided by different theories. I have thus been heavily influenced by Mark Lichbach's (1997) attempt to unify rational, structural, and cultural perspectives at the domestic level through Talcott Parson's idea of the socially unit act, where any understanding of individual choice must take into account the social structures and ideational environment in which individuals make such choices. Having been engaged in comparative research for many years, Protecting Human Rights provided an extra theoretical challenge in looking at state action in a similar fashion. Indeed, it seemed largely unhelpful to view state action in some kind of vacuum, where ideas and structures had no bearing. In this way, Wendt's (1999) attempt to unify the material and ideational theories of international relations and Ruggie's (1982) notion of embedded liberalism proved particularly attractive in trying to explain the overall growth and effectiveness of the international human rights regime. The international human rights regime presents a significant puzzle for political science, since the human rights community has constructed the regime through the vehicle of inter-state treaty instruments in order to constrain the actions of states towards their own citizens (Donnelly 1999). This notion of constrained state action applies to the international and national levels of analysis since norms articulated at the international level and their accompanying (albeit weak) structures for enforcement are meant to limit state action at the domestic level. Moore claims that my attempt to synthesize large theoretical literatures from comparative politics, international relations, and international law to address this puzzle ultimately fails to specify the causal mechanisms at work that may explain the exact ways in which state action is constrained. He claims further that, at best, my attempt is a useful insight for why we might expect the international human rights regime to matter for the actual protection of human rights. He is correct in identifying the absence of causal mechanisms, which in part is a function of the nature of the analysis (and the way in which I circumscribe the study so as to make it manageable). …" @default.
• W33767667 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W33767667 creator A5012724403 @default.
• W33767667 date "2006-01-01" @default.
• W33767667 modified "2023-09-27" @default.
• W33767667 title "Addressing the Gaps-Promise and Performance, Synthesis and Purity, Large-N and Small-N: A Response to Moore" @default.
• W33767667 cites W149816874 @default.
• W33767667 cites W1565882144 @default.
• W33767667 cites W1575069772 @default.
• W33767667 cites W1978918752 @default.
• W33767667 cites W198359419 @default.
• W33767667 cites W1990992364 @default.
• W33767667 cites W1992680417 @default.
• W33767667 cites W2051733957 @default.
• W33767667 cites W2067322686 @default.
• W33767667 cites W2086978636 @default.
• W33767667 cites W2094736317 @default.
• W33767667 cites W2129342810 @default.
• W33767667 cites W2142532379 @default.
• W33767667 cites W2167217348 @default.
• W33767667 cites W2168871266 @default.
• W33767667 cites W3214022895 @default.
• W33767667 cites W33624587 @default.
• W33767667 cites W570593056 @default.
• W33767667 cites W625502647 @default.
• W33767667 cites W659330557 @default.
• W33767667 hasPublicationYear "2006" @default.
• W33767667 type Work @default.
• W33767667 sameAs 33767667 @default.
• W33767667 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W33767667 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W33767667 hasAuthorship W33767667A5012724403 @default.
• W33767667 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W33767667 hasConcept C118084267 @default.
• W33767667 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W33767667 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W33767667 hasConcept C162324750 @default.
• W33767667 hasConcept C169437150 @default.
• W33767667 hasConcept C17058734 @default.
• W33767667 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W33767667 hasConcept C190253527 @default.
• W33767667 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W33767667 hasConcept C2779530757 @default.
• W33767667 hasConcept C555826173 @default.
• W33767667 hasConcept C94625758 @default.
• W33767667 hasConceptScore W33767667C111472728 @default.
• W33767667 hasConceptScore W33767667C118084267 @default.
• W33767667 hasConceptScore W33767667C138885662 @default.
• W33767667 hasConceptScore W33767667C144024400 @default.
• W33767667 hasConceptScore W33767667C162324750 @default.
• W33767667 hasConceptScore W33767667C169437150 @default.
• W33767667 hasConceptScore W33767667C17058734 @default.
• W33767667 hasConceptScore W33767667C17744445 @default.
• W33767667 hasConceptScore W33767667C190253527 @default.
• W33767667 hasConceptScore W33767667C199539241 @default.
• W33767667 hasConceptScore W33767667C2779530757 @default.
• W33767667 hasConceptScore W33767667C555826173 @default.
• W33767667 hasConceptScore W33767667C94625758 @default.
• W33767667 hasLocation W337676671 @default.
• W33767667 hasOpenAccess W33767667 @default.
• W33767667 hasPrimaryLocation W337676671 @default.
• W33767667 hasRelatedWork W1483690501 @default.
• W33767667 hasRelatedWork W1488560208 @default.
• W33767667 hasRelatedWork W1526143991 @default.
• W33767667 hasRelatedWork W1608937792 @default.
• W33767667 hasRelatedWork W161069662 @default.
• W33767667 hasRelatedWork W1976506170 @default.
• W33767667 hasRelatedWork W2057709203 @default.
• W33767667 hasRelatedWork W2059592089 @default.
• W33767667 hasRelatedWork W2194224720 @default.
• W33767667 hasRelatedWork W2260107442 @default.
• W33767667 hasRelatedWork W2594919465 @default.
• W33767667 hasRelatedWork W2623938205 @default.
• W33767667 hasRelatedWork W2737925459 @default.
• W33767667 hasRelatedWork W3121341801 @default.
• W33767667 hasRelatedWork W3123596890 @default.
• W33767667 hasRelatedWork W3167366232 @default.
• W33767667 hasRelatedWork W3209537999 @default.
• W33767667 hasRelatedWork W47230648 @default.
• W33767667 hasRelatedWork W776365143 @default.
• W33767667 hasRelatedWork W276424470 @default.
• W33767667 hasVolume "6" @default.
• W33767667 isParatext "false" @default.
• W33767667 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W33767667 magId "33767667" @default.
• W33767667 workType "article" @default.