{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.023832221163012392, 'fraction_numerical': 0.001271051795360661, 'mean_word_length': 5.585774058577406, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Bringing Human Rights Home? The Promises and Pitfalls of Rights Strategies in American Social Justice Advocacy

In social justice advocacy in the United States today, activists often use international human rights rhetoric, methods, standards, and institutions. What are the scope, purposes, and effects of this strategy? Is this something new? If so, how and when did this trend begin? Definitive answers to these questions would require extensive empirical research which I do not undertake in these remarks. Instead, I discuss conceptual issues and suggest hypotheses researchers might use to explore the questions, all with the assumption that many injustices exist but that the resources to fight them are limited. First, it is important to differentiate two ways in which advocates use rights today, as legal and as political strategies. The former includes both references to international principles in U.S. court cases and litigation before international bodies. Given American judicial reluctance to enforce, apply, or, in some cases, even recognize foreign standards and institutions, this strategy is likely to serve only secondary purposes in litigation. These include supplementing core arguments grounded in U.S. law, providing background information on international dimensions or approaches to an issue, or acting as a last resort when domestic institutions fail. To the extent that advocates nonetheless use such strategies, they clearly believe that these secondary purposes are important, either because of their possible effects in the instant case or because of their potential to change judicial attitudes in the long run. Political strategies include using rights rhetoric and methodologies, building international support networks, and bringing symbolic, high-profile cases having little chance of success on the merits. These strategies hold benefits both internal and external to a social movement. Internally, labeling grievances as rights violations may galvanize movement constituents. Believing that' 'universal standards'' and the ' 'international community'' support one's cause can transform apathy into energy. As such, rights strategies can serve as potent mobilizing tools. Rights strategies may also serve external political purposes. Claims of rights violations may attract media coverage in ways that other assertions, such as unfairness or inequality, do not. They may motivate powerful third parties to support the aggrieved group, either directly with resources and funding or indirectly by pressuring the target of activism. And they may shame targets into upholding standards they have previously set for themselves. The latter may be particularly effective against corporations worried about brand reputation and consumer boycotts, but less so against government bureaucracies. What is driving the use of international rights by domestic advocates? Based on ideas developed in my recent book, The Marketing of Rebellion: Insurgents, Media, and International Activism (2005), I propose two hypotheses presented here as alternatives, although the mechanisms suggested in each may operate simultaneously.