By Noah Barnhart
Definition
What is Child Labor? “Child labor trafficking includes exploitative employment below the legal age, unpaid hazardous work, and involvement of illicit activities” (Rundlett et al) (Global Right Project). Other aspects of child labor also refer to children who have jobs that interfere with their education or their development. In the ILO Convention No. 182 this requires Nations to take immediate action to prohibit the worst forms of child labor for anyone under 18 years old such as slavery, trafficking, forced labor, and hazardous work.
Distinction
Child Labor is not teens working, as not all work done by minors is illegal and or harmful. There is a distinction between raking leaves to make some money for a game and being forced to work in a mine, digging for long hours and getting paid nothing. Working in safe environments that are regulated and do in fact not bring any harm to the teen are permitted. Light and age appropriate work does not endanger children, it is the hazardous conditions such as mining for little to no pay is what interferes with the child's well being. All in all, small jobs or helping around the house are not in any violation of child labor laws as it is not dangerous and non exploitative.
Significance
Within Human Rights, there are many organizations, such as The Global Rights Project, that address child labor, which happens in various countries across the globe. Child labor is more “prominent in regions such as Central Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa, and the Middle East” (Rundlett et al). This occurs in mining and farm work, which exploits these children, as other governments view children as “cheap labor” and businesses view this as an advantage for them to make more profit. Ways to prevent this would include international pressure, such as boycotts, or, as we discussed in class, naming and shaming. It is important for businesses and Countries that are against the use of child labor to boycott and or not build factories in those places. Having higher levels of child labor often tends to show the lasting effects on the child, whether that would be education or other factors. All in all, the use of child labor is mostly seen in underdeveloped countries or other countries whose human rights scores are low.
Example
An example I found in The New York Times would be how authorities in western India discovered that in the sugar cane farms, there were several child labor violations. The issue is that Coca-Cola sources its sugar from this farm. There is some debt forgiveness, as young children are in arranged marriages due to these sugar cane farms. Yet there is no government involvement on either side regarding how to fix this or attempting to stop this from continuing.
By Albert Bernhardt
Definition
Torture can be defined as the willful and explicit application of physical or mental pain to a person for the purposes of coercion, interrogation, deterrence or other reasons. Though torture is largely taboo in most republican/democratic nations (nominal ones notwithstanding), the practice is frequently used by state actors in the modern day, both overtly and covertly. Torture is explicitly prohibited under Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as well as the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which states that torture is defines as "...when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity." (Article 1).
Distinction
However, torture is not to be confused with interrogation as a whole, which can proceed within legal channels using methods that uphold human rights. In addition, although all torture is considered Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment (CIDT), which is classified as a separate body of activities in the Convention.
Significance
This concept is important to political science because, as aforementioned, torture is still prevalent in modern statecraft despite its being largely tabooed. Numerous authoritarian or otherwise repressive regimes and organizations use torture both explicitly and implicitly in an attempt to either gain information or to repress populations through the use of terror. However, this also returns to the Dictator’s Dilemma, in which heavy repression of the populace leads to highly distorted information about public discontent. This could leave incumbent regimes ill-equipped to prevent coups, revolutions, or terrorism. This is exacerbated by Christian Davenport's Law of Coercive Responsiveness, which states that incumbent regimes use repression and coercion when they perceive rising political threats, thereby creating a feedback loop with the Dictator's Dilemma.
Example
An example of torture occurred on a particularly grotesque scale during the Nanjing Massacre, which happened during the early stage of World War II. The invading Imperial Japanese Army invaded and subsequently annexed the Chinese city of Nanjing, leading to a campaign of mass terror in the aftermath to break the local population. Cases of sexual violence, mass murder and deliberate destruction of civilian infrastructure, as well as numerous bouts of torture, were documented during and after the city’s fall. Examples of torture during the Nanjing Massacre included the immolation of live civilians and live burials. This was documented by the International Committee for the Nanking Safety Zone from 1937 to 1938, which documented rapes, killings, blatant torture and arson carried out by IJA troops. This testimony was later collected in the Documents of the Nanking Safety Zone (1939), which was used during the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal.
By Daniel M. Edwards
Definition
The right of not being subject to torture is the freedom of being subjected to torture methods or other cruel punishments by the government, a right that is outlined under Article 5 in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states in Article 2 that all persons are entitled to this right, with no discrimination or distinction of any kind.
Distinction
This right is relatively distinct and not often confused with others within the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, however, it is worth noting it should not be confused with Article 4: the freedom from being enslaved and forced into servitude, which may include being tortured whilst in forced servitude. Furthermore, freedom from torture only applies to physical or mental harm and treatment that is cruel and unnecessary to a person while imprisoned by the government.
Significance
Freedom from torture falls under “physical integrity rights” in the CIRIGHTS framework. The use of torture can be understood through the Rational Choice perspective. Oftentimes, torture is used against prisoners of countries that pose a harm to the Sovereignty of a nation. For example, the prisoner may be unwilling to give vital information that could be important for the national security of a nation at war with another. If the security of a nation is at risk, torture may be used to force the prisoner to yield such information. However, through the lens of the Dictator’s Dilemma, torture could also be used against political opposition leaders that threaten the Sovereignty of an autocratic leader’s control in a country, such as forcing the opposition leader to capitulate to the autocracy as a way to quietly shut down political opposition.
Example
Many American prisoners of war captured by the North Vietnamese forces were forced to endure brutal torture for years. The North Vietnamese forces required military information and tactics from the American prisoners, using torture to acquire the information.
By Ethan Gonzales
Definition
Violent Repression: The act of using physical force, brutality, or coercion by authorities to silence, subdue, or eliminate dissent, political opposition, or social movements. Typically used to maintain control and prevent challenges to the authority. For example, in State Repression and the Tyrannical Peace, it states “This encompasses a wide variety of activities including domestic spying (e.g. physical and electronic surveillance as well as agents provocateurs), verbal and physical harassment, arrests, political banning (e.g. outlawing a party, type of action or belief), establishing curfews, acts of censorship (e.g. closing a newspaper), torture, disappearances, and mass killing.” (Davenport, Pg. 487).
Distinction
Violent repression is not a subtle act of repression; it involves harm to those who challenge the authority and can often end in the death of those who do oppose the authority. It is very intense and a very clear violation of human rights in any scenario. When it comes to the distinction between violent and nonviolent repression; nonviolent repression uses nonphysical means to silence dissent. This would include surveillance, harassment, and intimidation to prevent people from opposing the state.
Significance
The significance behind violent repression is that it is a direct violation of universal human rights to self-expression via political involvement and life. If a state uses violent repression to silence dissent, it demeans the usage of political freedom and expression. Davenport claims that, “Considering benefits such as political order (the elimination of domestic challenge) and coercive habituation (the continuation of repressive practices and norms related to this behavior), costs such as political legitimacy (the reduction of support for government leaders, policies, and institutions) and resource deletion (the expense for repressive agents, equipment, training, and the like),3 the existence of alternatives (e.g. normative as well as material influence), and the likelihood of success (e.g. past effectiveness and organizational preparedness)…” ((Davenport, Pg. 488). The usage of violent repression shows a fear of opposition from a governing body and the weakness they have when it comes to resolving disagreement. When violent repression is used, it exposes the government to is misuses of power and can bring in high amounts of shame from other countries/states.
Example
Iran “cracks down” on protests and turn to violence with heavy weaponry and large scale arrests of protesters starting in 2022. In the article Iran: Impunity Reigns 3 Years After Crackdown on Protests it states that, “The United Nations Fact-Finding Mission on the Islamic Republic of Iran, in its first report in March 2024, concluded that the Iranian authorities’ deadly crackdown on the protests resulted in serious human rights violations and crimes against humanity, including murder, torture, and rape.” (Human Rights Watch). This is a horrendous action that is a perfect example to what violent repression is. The state (Iran) used physical harm and killings to make an example out of those who opposed and challenged their rule.
The Right to Privacy
By Antonio Grandinetti
Definition
The right to privacy protects individuals from any interference by the government in their personal lives. It is written in Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It means the state cannot spy on your home, messages, or personal information without legal justification. The key idea is limiting state power. Governments must follow clear laws and cannot monitor citizens just because they want more control, this is very important in the current society as we know that information is one of the currencies the world trades on.
Distinction
The right to privacy is often confused with protection from private companies. However, human rights law mainly restricts governments, not businesses. When people agree to a company’s terms of service, they are sharing data under a contract. That is different from secret government surveillance. Privacy rights focus on preventing abuse of state authority. It also does not mean total secret, governments can access information legally in criminal investigations, but only under proper procedures and a lot of bureaucracy required.
Significance
Privacy matters because it protects citizens from excessive government control. If people believe they are constantly watched, they may stop speaking freely or criticizing leaders, interfering with other human rights. This connects to the some governments, as they will want information to stay in power, but too much surveillance can reduce trust and legitimacy. During national emergencies, states often expand surveillance powers. The challenge is balancing security with freedom. Without privacy protections, democracy weakens and citizens lose autonomy. This can be connected to Keck and Sikkink’s “Boomerang Model,” which explains how when governments violate rights like privacy, domestic activists may appeal to international actors to create pressure and public shaming. "In issue areas such as such as the environment and human rights, they also make international resources available to new actors in domestic political and social struggles. By thus blurring the boundaries between a state's relations with its own nationals and the recourse both citizens and states have to the international system advocacy networks are helping to transform the practice of national sovereignty."
Example
After the 9/11, the United States passed the USA PATRIOT Act. This law expanded government surveillance authority in the name of national security. Agencies were allowed broader access to phone records and communications. While officials argued it was necessary for safety, critics claimed it weakened privacy protections. This case shows how emergency powers can challenge the right to privacy and create long-term debates about how much surveillance is acceptable in a democratic society, and I believe this is still the case long after the example, it is very hard for the government to give back these rights as there is a lot of power within. In this article, we can see that even though the Patriot Act was passed after 9/11/2001 in 2013 the control seemed too good to give away and with the advances in technology the government clearly overstepped their right of privacy by doing surveillance without clear limits or citizen consent. It supports the idea that privacy protections are essential because unchecked state data collection threatens other rights like freedom of expression and personal autonomy.
By Connor Grimes
Definition
The right to a fair trial is a human right that guarantees that individuals accused of crimes are judged by an independent and impartial tribunal through a transparent legal process. It is protected under Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which requires equality before courts, the presumption of innocence, adequate time and facilities to prepare a defense, the right to legal counsel, the right to examine witnesses, and protections against self-incrimination (United Nations, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights). A fair trial is not just about the outcome of the case; it also concerns the integrity of the process itself. Even guilty defendants are entitled to due process.
Distinction
Fair trial rights can be confused with general “rule of law,” but they are more narrow and specific. Rule of law refers broadly to governance constrained by legal norms, whereas fair trial focuses primarily on judicial procedure in criminal and civil cases. Fair trial is also different from “electoral self-determination.” Although both involve fairness and legitimacy, one governs courtrooms and the other governs political competition.
Significance
Fair trial protections are important for sovereignty and regime legitimacy. From a Rational Choice perspective, governments may manipulate courts to neutralize political opponents through politically motivated prosecutions. This practice is common in personalist dictatorships, where judicial independence threatens executive control. As Christian Davenport explains, states often use repression strategically to maintain power and suppress dissent, particularly when leaders believe their authority is being challenged (Davenport 2007). Courts can therefore become a tool that governments use to legitimize repression through legal procedures.
At the same time, violating fair trial rights can produce international consequences. Margaret Keck and Kathryn Sikkink argue that transnational advocacy networks often pressure governments by exposing abuses and mobilizing outside actors through strategies such as “naming and shaming” (Keck and Sikkink 1999). When trials are widely viewed as unfair, they can damage a country’s international reputation and create pressure from human rights organizations and foreign governments. In this sense, fair trial rights constrain state power and signal whether a government respects basic human rights.
Example
The prosecution of Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny drew widespread criticism from international observers, who argued that the proceedings lacked judicial independence and were politically motivated. Human rights organizations cited violations of ICCPR Article 14, particularly the lack of an impartial tribunal and restrictions on Navalny’s legal defense. The case illustrates how fair trial violations can function as a form of political repression used to weaken opposition figures while maintaining a legal appearance of legitimacy. Amnesty International also criticized the trial, arguing that it failed to meet international fair trial standards and reflected politically motivated prosecution.
Fair Trial
By Albert H. Bernhardt, IV
Definition
In human rights contexts, a “fair trial” can be defined as a legal standard grounded in justice, due process and legal equality. On a global level, these rights are enumerated in Article 14 of the United Nations’ International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which explicitly lists them, as well as the right to an impartial tribunal, the right to be seen as innocent until proven guilty, and the right to interpreters and to witness examination.
Distinction
Even though the concept of a fair trial is tightly bound, one common source of confusion is the difference between a fair trial and due process. Due process is a part of a fair trial and can be defined as regulations that prevent a state from arbitrarily arresting, convicting, and punishing its citizens, while a fair trial is the process by which that is actualized.
Significance
Fair trials are important for political science because, typically in the West, they serve as the baseline against which everything else is measured. The definition of what constitutes a “fair” trial can vary widely across nations and jurisdictions, raising questions about the sovereignty of the state in the face of international frameworks. Fair trials can be related to the dictator’s dilemma as well, which states that repression keeps a regime in power but suppresses true public sentiment; a similar thing can also be applied to the justice process, where people do not know who is and isn’t truly guilty.
Example
An example of a fair trial is the 1963 Gideon v. Wainwright case, in which the defendant, Clarence Gideon, argued that he had the right to a lawyer despite being unable to afford one (he was charged with felony burglary). This led to a decisive ruling that the Sixth Amendment included the right to counsel and representation, and to a retrial in Gideon’s prior case, in which he was found guilty of burglary. Eventually, Gideon was acquitted.
By Ethan Koeneman
Definition
Negativity bias means that individuals react more strongly to negative information than to positive information. Even when a positive and negative event are equal in size or importance, the negative event usually has a bigger impact on people’s thoughts and emotions (Federico, 2022). Dr. Federico explains this clearly in his article, “Negativity Bias in Politics.” In the class article “Misconceptions about Immigration” by Lutz and Bitschnau (2023), negativity bias is described as the directional nature of misconceptions. In other words, people’s wrong beliefs about immigration are not random. They are usually biased in a negative direction, making immigration seem more dangerous or costly than it really is. The authors explain that people often believe immigrants harm public services or receive too much welfare, even when research shows immigration has had a positive fiscal impact in places like the UK (Dustmann and Frattini 2014). This shows that negative perceptions often outweigh positive facts.
Distinction
Negativity bias is often confused with other forms of bias. It is not the same as general bias, which refers broadly to any prejudice or preference, positive or negative. In human rights or migration contexts, it can also be confused with Elite Discourse, which is the way media or political leaders frame issues. While elite discourse can spread negative messages, negativity bias explains why individuals give more weight to these negative messages than positive ones, meaning they are naturally more sensitive to threats or harms. Negativity bias is also the opposite of positivity bias. Positivity bias occurs when people emphasize positive information and overlook negative aspects. Understanding this distinction is important because mislabeling negativity bias can lead researchers or policymakers to underestimate the emotional influence of negative messaging in politics or migration debates.
Significance
Negativity bias is very important in political science because it shapes public opinion and political behavior. It connects to Rational Choice theory because people believe they are making logical decisions based on information. However, if the information they focus on is mostly negative, their “rational” decisions are influenced by emotional reactions rather than balanced facts. It also connects to the concept of Othering. When negative information about immigrants or refugees is repeated, people begin to see these groups as threats or outsiders. This strengthens stereotypes and increases fear. As Lutz and Bitschnau show, negativity bias helps explain why misperceptions about migrants are often exaggerated in harmful ways. Political campaigns often use negativity bias by attacking opponents instead of promoting their own positive policies. Media outlets may highlight crimes involving immigrants rather than reporting positive contributions. Because negative stories are more emotionally powerful, they receive more attention. This shapes how citizens think and vote. Understanding negativity bias helps us recognize how our emotions can influence our political judgments.
Example
Negativity bias is a fundamental psychological principle where bad is stronger than good, meaning that negative events like threats and losses have a much bigger impact on our thoughts and actions than positive events like gains or opportunities. This is a subconscious survival trait that makes us hyper-aware of danger, but it often leads to "threat sensitivity" in politics. For example, before the Iraq War, the U.S. government fixated on the perceived threat of weapons of mass destruction while largely ignoring information that might have suggested the threat was lower or that peace was possible (Tierney, 2019). This is shown in the paper, “Bad World: The Negativity bias in International Politics.” Once a conflict begins, loss aversion makes leaders willing to take risky gambles rather than admit defeat, such as when the U.S. military position in Iraq worsened and the government chose to escalate by sending more troops in a surge. This happens because the pain of losing something feels much more intense than the pleasure of gaining something of equal value. Failure salience ensures that we learn more from disasters than from successes. Because the Iraq War is remembered primarily as a costly failure, it created a lasting historical lesson that shapes how future leaders behave to avoid repeating those same mistakes.
By Machael McCarthy
Definition
Torture refers to any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether it be mental or physical, is intentionally inflicted upon a person for such purposes as attaining information, to punish someone for an act, to intimidate/coerse someone, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind. Torture is an attack on a person's human dignity. It is a grievous violation of human rights that can not be justified under any circumstances. (Association for the prevention of torture)
Distinction
Torture is not to be considered when pain or suffering arises from a lawful sanction. Such as a legitimate punishment for a crime adjudicated by a legitimate government. For example, if someone commits a murder crime in the United States and receives a prison sentence, in which they endure pain or suffering of some sort, this is not to be considered torture, because this person has committed a legitimate crime clearly forbidden in the legislature, and is receiving punishment from a legitimate political power, the United States.
Significance
This concept is important to political science and, more specifically, to human rights because the unfair treatment of individuals for the benefit of another entity is unjust. Moreover, cases of torture can cause political tension to rise due to torture's ability to cause individuals to give away valuable information in spite of protecting their own lives. Further, states using torture can do so because they lack internal pressure, due to the restriction of media or activism entirely. Considering this, the Boomerang Model is paramount in halting torture, because this is often the only method to bring attention toward the human rights violations going on in repressive states.
Example
An example that illustrates the problems that arise with torture is the case of Otto Warmbier. Otto was a 22-year-old kid arrested in North Korea for stealing a propaganda poster. After he was arrested by North Korean officials, Otto was systematically tortured by the North Korean Regime. This situation caused many human rights organizations and U.S. officials to fight for Otto’s life and bring justice to the North Korean Regime. Unfortunately, when Otto returned, he was in a vegetative state and was unable to communicate what happened to him. As a result, the U.S. Federal Court found North Korea liable for the death of Otto and awarded his parents over $500 million in damages.
By Rylan Perkins
Definition
The identifiable victim effect is a psychological idea where people tend to feel more empathy and offer more help to a specific, named individual with a personal story that is facing harm rather than to a large, anonymous group described statistically. The idea is from economist Thomas C. Schelling, from his 1968, “The Life You Save May Be Your Own,” published in the book Problems in Public Expenditure Programs. Schelling said, “a single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic.”
Distinction
The identifiable victim effect is sometimes confused with ‘compassion fade’, but the two are distinct. ‘Compassion fade’ is when people’s empathy decreases as the number of victims increases, meaning we feel less for large groups than for small ones. In contrast, the identifiable victim effect specifically highlights the stronger emotional and behavioral response to a single, clearly identified individual compared to anonymous or statistical victims, even if the total number of people in need is the same.
Significance
For our class, the identifiable victim effect matters because it helps explain how human rights crises sometimes get framed and acted on in the real world. A regime can suppress the human rights of thousands, and that statistic can just blur into the background, but one identifiable person with a name, face, and story can become a symbol that activates attention. We talked about this idea sort of last week, for the public masses, an identifiable victim is really important to spark action, donations, and protests. Yet for word leaders to take action, the statistics really matter more. So the identifiable victim effect is basically a reminder that public empathy is not distributed evenly. This concept can be tied to the boomerang model , the story of said ‘identifiable victim’ in an oppressive regime could be presented through mainstream media and social media to people outside the country (Keck & Sikkink).
Example
The current disappearance of Savannah Guthrie’s 84 year old mother, Nancy Guthrie, shows the identifiable victim effect in a real time national situation (Wolfe). Instead of a typical missing elderly person case, the public is confronted with a single named person, her face, her story, and the national recognition of her daughter and her family publicly pleading for help. So this story feels urgent and personal, and it has spread fast. With national attention, investigators have amplified officers assigned to the case, involvement of the FBI, and offered a public reward. All of which does not happen for an average abduction case. That attention stands out even more when you remember how common people go missing in the U.S. The FBI reports that there were 533,936 missing persons in 2024 alone, while the details on the numbers aren't made available, we could assume at least tens of thousands of those are elderly women, and out of those tens of thousands, at least hundreds involve foul play, (it’s also worth noting that the story gathered national attention before it was ever established that foul play was involved) meaning most cases never become a household story.
By Zachary Schroeder
Definition
The non-refoulement principle is an international legal standard that prohibits a state from returning an individual to a country where there is reasonable fear of persecution, torture or serious violation of their human rights. It is enshrined in Article 33 of the 1951 Refugee Convention and has been reinforced by Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture which bars states from sending individuals back to countries where they may be subjected to torture. Non-refoulement applies regardless of whether the individual has been formally recognized as a refugee. In modern human rights law, non-refoulement is widely accepted as customary international law, therefore states must adhere to it regardless of whether they have signed the Refugee Convention.
Distinction
It is often confused with the right to migrate; non-refoulement does not give an individual the right to enter any country of their choice. States retain sovereign authority over immigration policy, and while the principle restricts removal of an individual when serious harm is likely, it does not grant the right to remain. Asylum is the formal legal status granted following an evaluation process, whereas non-refoulement applies immediately and prevents return until claims are assessed.
Significance
Non-refoulement sits at the intersection between sovereignty and human rights. States may wish to deport migrants as a deterrent to future arrivals, but doing so may trigger international condemnation and/or legal violations. As such, non-refoulement limits the absolute power of states over borders, and connects to the concept of the dictator's dilemma, whereby governments may justify restrictive border policies as protecting national stability, but violating non-refoulement can result in Naming and Shaming through transnational advocacy networks. It is a cornerstone of the global refugee protection regime.
Example
A recent example of how non-refoulement obligations have been violated was seen in Europe in relation to the returns of asylum seekers to Libya. Libya detention centers expose migrants to abuse and torture, and human rights organizations argued that these returns were a violation of non-refoulement obligations under both the Refugee Convention and the Convention Against Torture. This case illustrates how border enforcement policies can directly conflict with binding human rights commitments.
By Samuel Vallim
Definition
Non-refoulement is a principle of international refugee law that prohibits states from returning a refugee to a country where they face a real risk of persecution, torture, or death. Article 33 of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol states that “No Contracting State shall expel or return (‘refouler’) a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where their life or freedom would be threatened on account of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.” This protection also applies to asylum seekers whose claims are still under review, provided there is a real risk of serious harm. Non-refoulement is considered the cornerstone of international protection and is recognized as customary international law.
Distinction
Non-refoulement is often confused with general immigration control or deportation, but they are not the same. States can control borders and remove individuals without legal status, but this power has limits: a person cannot be sent back to serious danger. It is also different from granting asylum. A state may deny refugee status, but it still cannot return someone to a life-threatening situation. This shows how international obligations restrict state actions.
Significance
Non-refoulement highlights the tension between state sovereignty and human rights. Governments want to control migration, but international law limits this power: even if asylum is denied, people cannot be sent back to life-threatening situations. From a rational choice perspective, states weigh costs and benefits, sometimes limiting access to asylum to reduce political or financial burdens. Under the Dictator’s Dilemma, they face a trade-off: strict border controls may satisfy domestic constituencies, but violating non-refoulement risks international criticism, sanctions, and reputational damage. This demonstrates how the principle shapes state behavior, forcing governments to balance political survival against moral and legal obligations.
Example
Since 2015, European migration policies have raised concerns about violations of non-refoulement. In some cases, migrants and asylum seekers were pushed back at borders or stopped at sea without proper assessment of their claims. Critics, including Human Rights Watch, argue this sometimes returns people to dangerous conditions. This shows how states may prioritize border control while still facing pressure to follow international law.
By Matthew Skinner
Definition
A “Negative Right” is a right which defines itself in terms of restraint on the behalf of the second or third party. In the context of human rights, negative rights are those involving an individual’s freedom from interference. It’s important to note that negative rights are commonly viewed as more basally important than positive rights, including freedom from torture and kidnapping, although this is a point of contention in some cases.
Distinction
Although they are quite easy to confuse, it’s crucial when engaging in meaningful discussions relating to the topic of human rights to distinguish between “Positive Rights” and “Negative Rights”. While negative rights require abstention from the second or third party, positive rights require action from them to protect the first party’s freedoms.
Significance
Within the context of our Human Rights course, negative rights are an important discussion topic. Their presence is an effective tool in the evaluation of regimes the world over with respect to human rights. Modern autocracies lack much in the way of negative rights, such as right to freedom from torture, from abduction, and freedom of speech while modern democracies lack more in positive rights such as social welfare and universal healthcare. Dissent in China is viewed as a threat to the regime, so it is often a rational choice for them to sacrifice the physical integrity of one for the survival of the regime whereas citizens in the US experience a significantly smaller amount of repression. In this comparison, the US ranks higher than China in terms of human rights integrity, but this is not always the case with a negative and positive right imbalance (Rundlett et al., 2025).
Example
Although wrongful punishment from China’s government in response to its people’s dissenting speech and expression is common, specific examples of such aid one’s understanding of China’s situation holistically. In 2020, China detained five journalists during the month of December following their expression of dissent towards the regime (sometimes simply reporting on untoward facts), denying their negative right to freedom of speech (Eran, 2021).
By Nicholas Sommers
Definition
Leverage politics is one of the four main strategies used by Transnational Advocacy Networks (TANs). Additionally, information politics, symbolic politics, and accountability politics give many different avenues for change. Leverage politics happens when advocacy groups rely on more powerful outside actors, like foreign governments, international organizations, or major corporations to pressure a state into changing its behavior. Advocacy groups usually do not have direct political or economic power themselves which requires them to use these stronger allies to influence the target state. This pressure can be material as well. Economic sanctions, cutting off foreign aid, or trade restrictions can hurt a countries economy and force a change in behavior. It can be moral as well. Acts such as public condemnation that damage the state’s reputation. The goal of leverage politics is to increase the cost of repression so that continuing human rights violations becomes more costly than stopping them.
Distinction
Leverage politics is different from information politics because information politics focuses on collecting and spreading facts about human rights abuse. Information politics helps expose violations, but leverage politics actually uses that information to create consequences. It is also different from symbolic politics, which relies on emotional images or stories to gain attention and support. Symbolic politics helps people care, but leverage politics helps force action. Leverage politics is also not accountability politics, which focuses on holding states to promises they already made, like signing treaties. Instead, leverage politics uses outside pressure to influence state behavior, even when the state does not want to change.
Significance
Leverage politics is important because it explains how weaker groups can still influence powerful states. Many governments repress their citizens to maintain control and protect their power. From a rational perspective, leaders make decisions based on costs and benefits. If repression is cheap and has no consequences, then they will continue doing it. Leverage politics increases the costs of repression by threatening economic damage, loss of aid, or damage to reputation. This forces leaders to reconsider their actions. Leverage politics is a key part of the Boomerang Model, where domestic activists seek outside help when their own government refuses to listen.
Example
A strong example of leverage politics is the international response to apartheid in South Africa. Domestic activists protested apartheid, but the government refused to change because it helped maintain their control. Advocacy networks then pushed foreign governments and international organizations to impose economic sanctions and trade restrictions on South Africa. These sanctions hurt the country’s economy and increased pressure on political leaders. Over time, the economic and political costs of apartheid became too high. The government then began negotiations that eventually ended apartheid. This shows how leverage politics allows advocacy networks to use powerful outside influence to pressure states into improving human rights.
By Tanner Turnpaugh
Definition
Rule of law is a principle under which all persons, institutions, and entities are accountable to laws that are publicly promulgated, equally enforced, independently adjudicated, and consistent with international rights principles. (US Courts). The idea is that rule of law is separate from the will of the people. This effectively places public power in a constraint that is equal to all people. The rule of law is also constraint to those in the government.
Distinction
Rule of Law is often misconstrued as rules by law. However, the two are fundamentally different. Rule by law is use of legal statues and systems to contain the citizens and repress opposition. This can be in the form of legislation that gives the people in charge more power or can restrain the freedoms of the nation’s citizens to control them. The presence of laws themselves does not constitute the Rule of Law, as what really matters is if those laws constrain the state as well as the citizens. Authoritarian governments may maintain courts and legal codes yet still violate human rights in many ways. This is an example of rule by law and not Rule of Law.
Significance
The Rule of Law is significant because it applies true constraints to the government. Nations with weak rule of law are often breeding grounds for physical integrity humans’ rights violations, such as torture or politically motivated killings. In nations devoid of Rule of Law there is no enforceable way to display rights, and they remain symbolic. Strong Rule of Law can cause huge issues for dictators. Rationally there would bd a dilemma because of the tradeoffs that come from courts and their close correlation with the Rule of Law. If a court is too politicized, then a leader risks international backlash but is stable domestically. In contrast, if the courts are independent with a strong Rule of Law, the leader risks losing control of their regime.
Example
Jeffrey Epstein was charged in 2019 with federal sex trafficking offenses and later died in jail while awaiting trial. His associate, Ghislaine Maxwell, was convicted in 2021 in federal court. The recent release of the “Epstein Files” has included many names of political elite many as patrons of Epstein. I would say that we are currently experiencing an example of the Rule of Law playing out in America. The release of the Epstein files has incriminated many political elites. The following period will truthfully speak to how America is situated with our Rule of Law. If the current administration uses these files for their agenda, after Trump called for the release, we would be seeing an example of rule by law. If the courts commit to bringing investigations into the names in the files, we would be living through a strong case of Rule of Law and it would show the institutions in place work well.
Immigration Misperception
By Noah Barnhart
Definition
What is Immigration Misperception? Immigration misperceptions are public thoughts and ideas that spread exaggerated beliefs about immigrants. Examples are “they are taking our jobs,” or “they commit several crimes,” and even “they are taking over.” This is the rhetoric that is spreading (Suárez-Orozco) (Stanford Report). Other ideas, such as “crimmigration,” meaning that because they are immigrants, they commit crimes, which is completely false (Flores & Schachter). The rhetoric that has been spread across groups of people causes immigration misperceptions and poor treatment of immigrants, as they are shaped by misinformation.
Distinction
Immigration misperceptions are not disagreements about immigration policy, as individuals are allowed to have opinions about those policies. The misperceptions occur when completely false ideas or misleading beliefs are broadcast to large audiences, and many individuals choose to believe them when a President or higher figure spreads this rhetoric. The false spreading of fake “facts” is what causes these misperceptions, which occur due to a lack of information and exposure. Misinformation spreads false information while misperceptions are shown through the incorrect beliefs as result to the misinformation. All in all, immigration misperceptions are separate from disagreements about immigration policy, border control, or refugee intake, as there is a clear distinction.
Significance
Immigration misperceptions are extremely important, as increased law enforcement scrutiny or increased reporting and even discrimination against immigrants arise through misinformation and lack of education on the subject (Flores & Schachter). It is also significant because these perceptions shape public opinion, which then turns into a political movement that influences policy. This allows leaders to campaign on immigration policy, swaying votes that may not align with economic or social environments. Ultimately, human rights protections of immigrants are lost, thus showing the restrictive measures countries take based on inaccurate beliefs.
Example
An example of where we actively see immigration misperception is in the United States, where current policies being enforced, such as ICE, are causing misperceptions. There are several polls or surveys that demonstrate this, such as what the Stanford Report found, which shows that the idea of “they are taking over” is completely false, as immigrants make up around 14% of the U.S. population. Another misperception that high officials have even stated is that “they are stealing work.” The Stanford Report also shows that immigrants are taking low and entry-level positions, as well as other jobs no one wants to do. Two myths have been uncovered, and the data show that immigration misperceptions arise from a lack of education on the subject. The larger issue at hand is high officials spreading false information to win elections which then directly impacts human rights outcomes
LGBT + Rights
By Andrew Cook
Definition
LGBT + rights are a set of basic and simple civil and political rights that people who are considered to be lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer people all fight for. These set of rights consist of the following: not being fired from your job just because of you are gay, having your personal relationship legally recognized through the government of your state, or being able to simply exist in public without being arrested or harassed. Scholars like Ayoub, Page, and Whitt (2021) point out that in a lot of countries outside of the United States, the LGBT+ people can’t just wait for the government to hand them the rights, they are having to go out in public and claim their rights through visible rhetoric such as protests, parades, and different activisms that show creative signs to get peoples’ attention. In addition, in a country like Bosnia, just by showing up to a Pride parade is determined to be a certain political act (Ayoub, Page, & Whitt, 2021).
Distinction
A common mishap and mix-up a lot of people get confused about is thinking LGBT+ rights and human rights are the same thing or consists of fighting for the same things. Human Rights itself are supposed to cover everyone automatically who lives here on Earth, while on the other hand, LGBT+ rights are only about the protections that get denied to people because of their gender identity or of their sexual beliefs (Ayoub, Page, & Whitt, 2021). Another common mistake people intend to make is that it’s easy to think LGBT+ rights just means marriage equality because it’s the most common thing it consist of in the news coverage, but it’s much broader and complex than just marriage equality.
Significance
LGBT+ rights matter, especially in our modern world because it creates and makes a real tension between a government wants to do internally and what the international community expects from it. By using the Rational Choice theory, it seems that we can see that the conservative governments practically do the math, and they ultimately decide by protecting LGBT+ people would cost them too many votes at home, so they don’t even bother to care about the LGBT+ rights (Ayoub, Page, & Whitt, 2021). However, their research shows that the activists who are fighting for the LGBT + rights also have found ways to fight back the government.
Example
A good example of this is going back to the country of Bosnia and how it’s playing out in our time right now. In 2019, Sarajevo, which is the capital of Bosnia, held its first ever Pride parade, as it was considered to be a big deal by considering how little protection the government tried to offer to its own citizens and especially the participants of the parade (Ayoub, Page, & Whitt, 2021). In addition, the same scholars created a survey for the people before and after the event occurred and they were able to find out that the people who were currently living by the parade actually became more supportive of LGBT= rights afterward.
Right to Food and Water
By Nathan Criss
Definition
The right to Food and Water plays a big role in Human rights that must be affordable to every human, safe, and nutritious food, as well as drinking water for survival and overall health. This right is shown in The Nations Human Rights, “OHCHR,” and the right to food, which obligates the people and governments to ensure availability and access to food and water. The right to food and water is a positive right, meaning the government should take responsibility in some way for people to have at least some food and water to survive. According to Article 25 in the “UDHR”, everyone has the right to the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, water, clothing, and medical care.
Distinction
I believe the right to Food and Water is often confused with homeless people not being hungry or thirsty, but they are not the same because everyone has the human right to have food and water. Just because someone has food or water at a given moment does not mean their rights to food and water are being fulfilled. The right is about having food and water in the long run, not just something temporary. For example, the homeless person doesn’t have help and goes days without knowing where their next meal or drink may come from, and still does not have this right fully gained for themselves. Overall, the key is that the Right to Food and Water requires consistent accessibility by the state for every human, not just every now and then, to ensure survival.
Significance
The right to Food and Water matters significantly because it shows that the government or state is ensuring basic human survival for its citizens. In political terms, it connects to the idea of the “Dictator’s Dilemma.” States government must decide whether to look into public resources and public welfare to prioritize political control over food and water for our citizens. Therefore, failure to provide food and water can lead to riots, migration, and even failure of our state or government. In a rational way of looking at this matter, some governments may neglect this right if they believe it is hurting the costs and that they are getting too low, especially in regimes where people have limited ability to hold their own accountability. When using the Boomerang Model to show that governments from the outside, showing how this right is not just about survival, but also about power for your people and government, and the state’s behavior as a whole.
Example
For example, we see the rights to food and water being denied in health a pregnant woman is denied access to nutritious food. The policy of “NPO”, meaning a pregnant woman can’t eat or drink anything by mouth when giving birth. This is because the emergency C-section requires anesthesia, the mother could vomit, and that could pressure her lungs and her stomach, which could be fatal when there is another human inside of you. This example shows that the right to food and water should always come first for health and safety for our people, but we see in some cases where it can be denied legally through the government, as I gave the example of a woman giving birth to a child.
Religious Freedom
By William Cunningham
Definition
Religious Freedom is a fundamental human right that allows individuals to practice and express their own religion or beliefs, whether that be alone or in public. It is classified under Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which guarantees freedom of thought, conscience, and religion, including the freedom to practice said religion through worship, observance, practice, and teaching. The right of religious freedom is also affirmed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Distinction
Religious freedom is sometimes misunderstood as a right to impose religious beliefs on others, as well as a right to either discriminate against religion(s) or be free of criticism/debate regarding religion(s). The right of religious freedom is also not unlimited. While belief itself is fully protected, certain religious practices can be restricted if they violate the rights of others or pose a threat to them. This sets the precedent that individuals and/or institutions should be exempt from laws solely on the basis of religious grounds.
Significance
Religious freedom is a huge talking point in the debate of jurisdiction of sovereign states vs international human rights. Under international law, states are obligated to uphold freedom of religion as a universal right and not be influenced by cultural opinion. However, some governments may want to restrict religious practices to maintain political control or enforce nationalism. This tension is prominent when states claim these restrictions are necessary for security, unity, or tradition.
Example
In recent years, India has seen increased scrutiny and restrictions on religious minorities, especially Muslims. In 2023-24, several state governments enforced laws that restrict religious practices under the premise of "preventing forced conversions." During this time, reports from Al Jazeera documented demolitions of homes and places of worship belonging to Muslim followers due to community tensions. According to Al Jazeera and other human rights groups, these actions raised concerns about the violation of the fundamental right of religious freedom, as India disproportionately affected one religion compared to others. International organizations criticized India and these policies, illustrating the Boomerang Model, where domestic human rights issues draw global attention and pressure. This case in India demonstrates how religious freedom is not just about belief, but also whether states uphold equality for all citizens and religious groups.
Strategic Manipulation
By Ethan Gonzales
Definition
Strategic Manipulation: The calculated influence of people, decisions, and situations to create an expected outcome for the benefit our one’s own interest. In a survey experiment where our focus is, we manipulate information provided to create a treatment and isolate this information to a respondent’s information set. Researchers often create a treatment group by exposing their responders to information that will influence them later when it comes to responding to the question that is being researched (10 Things to Know about Survey Experiments).
Distinction
Strategic manipulation is not intended to be entirely ethical. The goal of it is to stray away from transparency, especially when it comes to the uses in a survey experiment. Strategic manipulation is meant to be misleading to those who are involved, you are not honest and open. It is not a mutually beneficial act; it does not provide an all around winning atmosphere.
Significance
Strategic manipulation is best used as an influence to guide a person’s beliefs based on providing them information that is leading to a specific response. Its significance is in the way that it proves the guidance of media and how it can influence a person to think a certain way based on what is presented as factual evidence. Context to a scenario is one of the key factors to understanding impact in a study. The public expression of opinion without the backing of evidence can be a leading factor in strategic manipulation. Those who can communicate well have a high chance of being listened to, this can sway another’s opinion of the topic at hand so that they agree with the person providing information. When we use strategic manipulation in a survey experiment setting, it allows the survey provider to sway the answers of their participants. Separating the survey into multiple groups can allow us to test the theory of strategic manipulation with the control group and the treatment group (being the manipulated people).
Example
The most basic example that I can provide is in the sense of our survey experiments that we have talked about and have begun to look over. We will have a treatment group who will receive information about the topic at hand, for example, they will receive a Fox News article about the negative impact of Immigrants in the US. This information has the opportunity, if believable enough, to shift a survey respondents answers or views of the topic. To be more concise, if I wanted my survey data to show a that US citizens are having larger issues with immigrants, I would provide links to data that shows a negative impact from immigrants. I would also target my respondent audience to states/counties that trend to have a more conservative, anti-immigrant viewpoint
Freedom of Religion
By Antonio Grandinetti
Definition
Freedom of religion means that people can believe in any religion they want or not believe without the government intervining. It comes from Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This also means people can practice their religion, like going to church and talk about their beliefs. The main idea is that the government should not control what people believe in their minds and try not to influence in any way from a power position.
Distinction
Freedom of religion is not the same as freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is about saying your opinions, while freedom of religion is about your beliefs and how you practice them. It is also not about private companies or random people only it mainly focuses on what the government can and cannot do. The government can still have some rules, but they cannot punish people just for their religion.
Significance
This right matters because it protects people from being controlled by the government. If people feel like they are always being watched or judged by their religion, they might be scared to speak or act freely. This can make a country less fair and less democratic. Governments sometimes try to control religion to stay in power, but that can make people lose trust in them.
Example
A real example is when US politicians say negative things about Muslims and act like they do not belong in the country. Even if it is not a law, it can still make people feel unsafe and not free to practice their religion. This can lead to discrimination and fear. It shows how freedom of religion can be weakened not just by laws, but also by political actions and words.
Social Illegality
By Ethan Koeneman
Definition
Social illegality is defined as a condition in which individuals are perceived and categorized as “illegal” or undocumented by the public or authorities based on shared stereotypes rather than their actual legal documentation, (Flores and Schachter, 2018). Unlike the formal legal status assigned by a nation-state, social illegality is a social construction where specific personal attributes like national origin, social class, and criminal background. These shape whether an individual is viewed as unauthorized. It represents the social assignment of a marginalized status upon certain bodies, regardless of their actual state-sanctioned legal standing.
Distinction
Social illegality must be distinguished from legal illegality. While legal illegality is a formal condition produced by the state through immigration laws, social illegality is a status produced by societal perception. Our class article, “Who are the Illegals,” by Flores and Schachter claim that “an individual can be “legally legal” (a citizen or authorized resident) but still experience “social illegality” if they fulfill an ethnic or occupational stereotype,” (Flores and Schachter, 2018). This is distinct from liminal legality, which refers to actual, state-authorized legal statuses that are temporary or uncertain, such as Temporary Protected Status (TPS). While liminality describes one's formal rights and legal “in-betweenness,” social illegality describes the subjective suspicions of observers.
Significance
This idea matters in political science because it shows a new way that ethnic inequality exists, even when people have the same legal rights. Perceived illegality can lead to severe repercussions like increased law enforcement hate and systematic discrimination by hiring managers, landlords, and teachers. It illustrates how elite political rhetoric and media narratives can create a “social profile” that effectively strips individuals of legal protection and create a racial divide within society and create hostility as we see from another class article, “Immigration, Crime, and (Mis)Perceptions,” (Ajzenman, Dominguez, and Undurraga, 2023).
Example
A real-world example we see today in the United States, where Syrian and Somali immigrants are frequently suspected of being undocumented by members of the public. These groups are primarily composed of legal refugees, yet they face high rates of social suspicion due to ethno-religious stereotypes. This example shows how social illegality can target legally present groups while leaving other undocumented populations, such as Canadians or Europeans, relatively “invisible” because they do not fit the shared stereotype. Mexican and Central American workers in the “Low-skilled” jobs often experience social illegality too, regardless of their actual documentation status, as their field of work has become a “sign” of unauthorized status to the public.
Freedom of Speech
By Michael McCarthy
Definition
Freedom of speech is the right to speak, write, and share ideas and opinions without facing punishment from the government. (Cornell Law School)
Distinction
Freedom of speech grants individuals the right to express whatever they wish, wherever they wish. The freedom of speech does not protect speech that incites people to break the law. Further, the freedom of speech does not protect “fighting words,” which are words that inflict injury and tend to incite an immediate breach of peace. Also, the freedom of speech does not protect “true threats,” which are used to express a serious intent to commit an unlawful act against a particular individual or group. Moreover, the freedom of speech does not protect obscenity, such as speech that appeals to the “prurient” interest in sex. Freedom of speech also does not protect against defamation, or a false statement about an individual that causes injury. Further, freedom of speech fails to protect harassment that is sufficiently severe, persistent, and pervasive to the extent that it affects an individual's life. (Iowa State University)
Significance
What makes freedom of speech so significant is its status as a basic human right, enabling individuals to protect their dignity, maintain self-autonomy, and advocate for their beliefs. From a political science perspective, freedom of speech is crucial in upholding the framework of a democracy. Without the ability to exercise one's freedom of speech, the framework of vesting power in the citizenry's voice effectively collapses. The violation of freedom of speech continues to be a major catalyst for international conflict, as seen with the recent war between Iran and the United States, with President Trump citing the violation of Iranian citizens' freedom of speech as one of the reasons for entering the conflict.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/read-trumps-full-statement-on-iran-attack
Example
An example of a protected freedom of speech case is the “Pentagon Papers Case.” In this case, the Nixon administration attempted to prevent the New York Times and Washington Post from publishing articles based on classified Defense Department studies regarding the United States' actions in Vietnam. The Nixon administration claimed that publishing such papers would prolong the war and undermine international policy. However, the courts ruled that the Nixon administration's claims were speculative, thus the restraint was unjustified, leading to the publication of the articles.
Asylum Seeker
By Hutcheson Norris
Definition
An asylum seeker is someone who has fled their home country and is seeking legal protection in another because of some persecution that they have faced. The 1951 UN Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol provide the international legal framework and definitions through which this system functions. “Asylum seeker” denotes where an immigrant is in the legal timeline of their immigration, waiting on trial while residing within the country of refuge.
Distinction
Asylum seekers are often conflated with refugees or economic migrants. A refugee is further along in the legal process of immigrating, having already been recognized by the court and obtained the right to reside in the country, whereas an asylum seeker can still be deported if their claim is denied. Economic migrants are not fleeing any persecution as is outlined in the 1951 Refugee Convention. They are simply seeking opportunities to improve their daily living conditions and make more money. Politicians will often conflate these three in order to create more stringent immigration policy within a country.
Significance
Asylum seekers are politically important as they represent an important conflict between domestic sovereignty and respect for international law. This conflict primarily arises because of the exception in the 1951 Convention that excludes asylum protection to those who “have committed a serious non-political crime outside their country of refuge prior to the admission to that country as a refugee.” This exception is far too broad, and allows for countries to more arbitrarily deny individuals their asylum.
Example
In the mid 2010s Syria faced a humanitarian crisis that created 5 million asylum seekers fleeing Syria. Several EU member states began taking domestic action in order to lower the total number of asylum seekers entering their country. A deal was negotiated with Turkey in order to limit the arrival of asylum seekers.
Collective Action
By Rylan Perkins
Definition
Collective action is when a group of people come together in a coordinated way to pursue a shared goal, usually in response to an injustice. The concept is associated with political economist Mancur Olson in his 1965 book The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups. Olson challenged the prior assumption that people with common interests will automatically act together, arguing instead that collective action often requires organization and incentives.
Distinction
Collective action is sometimes confused with ‘individual action’, but the two are distinct. ‘Individual action’ is when one person acts alone to express a belief or try to make change, while collective action involves coordination among multiple people who are acting toward a shared purpose. Collective action is not just random group behavior or a crowd gathering in one place. For something to count as collective action, there has to be some level of shared intention and organization.
Significance
For our class, collective action matters because it helps explain how human rights change and activism becomes possible. A single person can speak out, but it is usually collective action that gives a movement ability to pressure a power. When people act together they attract media attention and make it harder for those in power to ignore demands. We have talked about how power often looks overwhelming when it is concentrated in a state or government, and collective action shows that ordinary people can create power too when they organize together. This concept can also connect to the boomerang model, because domestic groups that are blocked by their own government often rely on coordinated action and outside allies to build pressure from beyond the state (Keck & Sikkink).
Example
The 2020 protests following the murder of George Floyd show collective action in a visible world way. While outrage over police violence had existed long before, Floyd’s death sparked mass demonstrations across the United States and in other countries. This was not just a series of isolated personal reactions, but a coordinated public response built around a shared demand for racial justice and police accountability. The significance of the protests came from the fact that so many people acted together at once, which made the issue harder for people to ignore
Extrajudicial Killing
By Zackary Schroeder
Definition
Extrajudicial killing means that government officials intentionally kill someone without providing the person with due process. This action violates Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which establishes that "no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life." These killings occur outside of the normal court system and are often justified by the government as a need to maintain peace and order or to suppress crime. Since they bypass courts and the rules and procedures established for fair trials, these killings violate international human rights.
Distinction
In addition to being similar to lethal force used by police and military personnel, there is much confusion regarding what constitutes extrajudicial killings. Police and military personnel have the ability to use lethal force but this must be based upon two criteria: necessity and, proportionate response. There is no legal basis for extrajudicial killings and no oversight mechanism by either the courts or other governmental agencies. In contrast, capital punishment can only occur after a judicial process has taken place. Therefore, the most important distinction is that extrajudicial killings involve the absence of due process.
Significance
Extrajudicial killings are important to study within the field of political science because they demonstrate how governments will circumvent normal mechanisms of accountability when they believe their power is at risk. This behavior illustrates the dictator's dilemma where a leader wants citizens to participate openly in politics but needs to know about the level of opposition he faces. As a result, he uses coercion to get that information. Extrajudicial killings illustrate the Law of Coercive Responsiveness, where a government increases its use of force against dissidents. Even though increasing force can provide short-term control over populations, long-term effects include increased international criticism via name and shame campaigns, and decreased citizen confidence in state institutions.
Example
One of the best examples of this type of abuse occurred in the Philippines under president Rodrigo Duterte who implemented an anti-drug program that resulted in thousands of people being killed by police or those associated with police without going to trial. Many human rights groups felt that some of these killings could be classified as extrajudicial killings. An Example of how a government will justify extreme actions under the guise of maintaining public safety while violating fundamental human rights exists in this case.
LGBTQ+ Pride
By Matthew Cristopher Skinner
Definition
A ‘pride’ is a parade or march centered on the demonstration of the LGBTQ+ community, as defined in Ayoub, Page, and Whitt’s article (2021), “Pride amid Prejudice: The Influence of LGBTQ+ Rights Activism in a Socially Conservative Society.” They group Prides with ‘movement performances’; a category that they clarify also includes anti-LGBTQ+ protesting.
Distinction
An important detail to keep in mind is that prides are movement performances only in favor of the LGBTQ+ community, excluding those against or in opposition of it. The Western Balkans have experienced several anti-LGBTQ+ movements and parades in recent years, not included in the term ‘pride.’
Significance
Within the context of our human rights course, LGBTQ+ prides are a relatively new subject, the first one taking place only around fifty years ago in 1970. The concept of prides becomes more important as the issue of LGBTQ+ rights permeates more of the globe. Prides are, in fact, highly necessary for the social progress of countries without these rights. Ayoub et al. elucidate on the topic, asserting that prides in socially conservative countries resulted in a direct increase in positive opinion of the LGBTQ+ community in the area surrounding. However, this did not diffuse much beyond the area of direct exposure to the pride. This, among other findings within the paper, demonstrates that prides are effective at raising positive opinion based on decreasing unfamiliarity with the LGBTQ+ community (2021). The findings imply also that dissent (or conversely, assent) towards LGBTQ+ messaging and the community is a rational choice based on how familiar one is with people grouped into a demographic.
Example
A prime example is the 2021 Belgrade Pride that marked a significant turning point in the Western Balkans for LGBTQ+ rights and the rectification of the wrongs done to those persecuted for being LGBTQ+. A 2025 article recounts that, with the motto, “Love is the law,” the Pride resulted in laws regarding gender identity and same-sex marriages as well as the improvement of transgender healthcare, and local governments apologizing for LGBTQ+ persecution and making it right (Dimitrievski 2025).
Proximity Mechanisms
By Nick Sommers
Definition
Proximity mechanisms mean that people care more about human rights problems when the people affected feel close to them. This closeness can come from living nearby, sharing similar experiences, or simply seeing and hearing about someone often enough that they feel familiar. When people feel this kind of connection, the problem no longer feels distant or abstract. It feels real. In human rights, this sense of closeness is often created, not automatic. LGBTQ+ pride movements help do this by making people more visible and open about who they are. When people see that LGBTQ+ individuals are part of their everyday lives, it becomes easier to understand their struggles and take them seriously (ILGA World, 2023; Pew Research Center, 2023).
Distinction
Proximity mechanisms are not the same as psychic numbing. Psychic numbing happens when people hear about large numbers of victims and start to feel less emotional, not more, because the scale is too big to process. Proximity mechanisms explain the opposite. They explain why people sometimes do feel something and pay attention. This usually happens when the issue feels personal or familiar. LGBTQ+ pride is also not a proximity mechanism itself. It is something that helps create that sense of closeness by making people more visible and reducing the feeling that they are different or distant.
Significance
This idea matters because it helps explain why some human rights issues get attention while others are ignored. Governments often respond to public pressure. People are more likely to speak up when they feel connected to the issue. LGBTQ+ pride movements show how visibility can change opinions. When people realize someone they know is affected, the issue feels more important. This raises the cost for governments to ignore discrimination. It also connects to ideas like the Boomerang Model, where activists share stories and images to make problems feel closer to people around the world. At the same time, proximity can create unfair outcomes. Groups that feel more familiar often get more support than those who still feel distant.
Example
Changes in opinion about LGBTQ+ rights in the United States are a good example. According to Pew Research Center (2023), support for same sex marriage has increased a lot over time. One reason is that more people now say they personally know someone who is LGBTQ+. Pride events and media have made these identities more visible. This makes people feel closer to the issue. Reports from ILGA World (2023) show that in countries where LGBTQ+ people are less visible, there is often less pressure for change. This shows how feeling close to an issue can shape both opinions and policy
Refugee
By Tanner Turnpaugh
Definition
A refugee is defined as an individual who is unable or unwilling to return to their country of origin due to the fear of being persecuted because of race, religion, nationality, social status, or political group. The refugee status grants special rights and protections. The purpose of this is that refugee status is separate from those who move by choice for economic or personal reasons. Status provides an obligation to other nations to provide safety for those people.
Distinction
Refugees are often confused with asylum seekers, but the two are not the same thing. Asylum seekers are those who claim they have left for the same reasons as a refugee, but their claims have not been evaluated or validated. Asylum seekers do not have the official international protection of refugee status. The larger difference is found in the case of the U.S. In the U.S. an asylum seeker would request protection after arriving at the border, or while inside the country already. Refugees on the other hand are usually processed outside the U.S. and brought to the country after approval.
Significance
The term is extremely significant because it provides legal protection from being returned to a country in which you would face persecution. Unstable nations are usually where the most refugees come from, as they are often riddled with human rights abuses. It separates those who would abuse the rights by moving from personal reasons and provides guaranteed safety for those who are at risk of physical integrity rights violations. This status mandates that host countries give you a helping hand, and it is a great practice for human rights overall. The term also can play into the dictator’s dilemma. If a leader ignores refugee status, they will risk naming and shaming, but if they follow international law, they risk losing control of their population and strict borders.
Example
The ongoing displacement of millions due to the conflict on Ukraine is a fantastic modern example of refugees. Many of these individuals have fled to neighboring European nations to seek protection from the violence in their country. Their status as refugees has been recognized by the UN, and the recent boom in displaced people has included many families.