Centralizing principles: How Amnesty International shaped human rights politics through its transnational network

International relations theory has posited that transnational advocacy networks (TANs) affect international human rights norms. Human rights norms are created through a political process that involves both state and non-state actors. I establish in this project the importance of network structure as a determinant for how well human rights principles advocated by transnational networks transition into international norms. Centralized network structure is a key factor in explaining TAN effectiveness over time. Using insights from social network analysis, I build a theory that argues centralization in networks leads to the ability for certain nodes to control the agenda and rule-making powers, allowing for a core set of principles to develop within a network, and making it more likely those principles can be advocated successfully in international politics.; In a historical overview of the post-World War II era, I demonstrate that although many principles of human rights existed in the middle of the 20th century, none held an internationally normative status. Even a document as vaunted as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights evinces the lack of agreement, rather than the consensus over which rights were mattered most. I then move to a network analysis of Amnesty International, from 1968-1980, demonstrating the power of centralization as the factor explaining its success in influencing international norms. I also show that Amnesty's network structure differed from its formal structure, affecting the flows of information within the network. I move to a comparison of other human rights-related TANs, the International Red Cross, Oxfam International, and Medecins Sans Frontieres. Finally, I conclude with an analysis of state behavior as an indicator of international norms, using economic sanctions data from the 20th century.