Global means, local ends? A case study of transnational human rights networks in Jordan

In the past few decades, small but critical groups of individuals and organizations around the world have joined with people beyond their national borders to promote political change. This dissertation examines the impact of such transnational networks in semi-authoritarian regimes through a study of changes in human rights policies in Jordan.; Based on an analysis of two transnational human rights campaigns in Jordan, this dissertation argues that the networks' impact on human rights policies will be determined by three factors (1) the regimes' practices, (2) the nature of the issue undertaken, and (3) the organizational structure of the network. The campaigns highlighted include a transnational struggle to address repressive press laws (1993-2004) and a campaign to protect women from gender-based violence (1993-2004). The press campaign constitutes a partnership between local activists and NGOs and external (or international) NGOs. The linkages between these non-state actors constitute a transnational network which strives to develop as a counterweight to the state. In contrast, the second campaign is an example of a transnational social movement around women's rights that has worked with the Jordanian state to implement new policies.; The present research project on human rights networks illuminates gaps in both the Middle East studies literature and in the scholarship on transnational politics by demonstrating that transnational political advocacy has not only arrived but has made an impact on human rights policies in the Middle East. In addition, the project adds to our knowledge of the way transnational networks navigate in regimes that are neither fully authoritarian nor democratic.; The Jordanian regime accepts democracy rhetorically but in fact restricts many of the freedoms usually enjoyed in such a system. Hence, the country is open enough for transnational networks to flourish. Yet human rights pressures in Jordan have led to mixed results.; The research shows that semi-authoritarian regimes have a distinct impact on the work of transnational advocacy networks, as the state alters laws and institutions according to its own interests. Thus, transnational networks have a greater impact on promoting change with respect to issues that empower the state, even ones that appear at first to have little grounding in local norms. Because the ruling regime is not interested in moving from one governing system to another, networks that challenge the state's autonomy will have less power in achieving their goals of creating institutions that limit the state.; In addition, research from the Jordanian cases demonstrates that the relationship between constituent actors within transnational networks is more important than previously thought. This study pays close attention to the effects of those relationships on human rights outcomes, specifically the establishment and maintenance of network linkages. By focusing on different types of networks, this dissertation shows that while transnational initiatives can be helpful, they are also potentially counterproductive.; Much of the prior work on transnational activism argued that a state's incremental concessions in the face of human rights pressures eventually led to changes in human rights practices. In contrast, this dissertation argues that hybrid regimes are adept at balancing such pressures in order to retain their control. In addition to the importance the study places on analyzing the issue-area and organizational structure of the network, this project contributes a new variable, that of transnational networks, to the emerging research agenda on the persistence of nondemocratic regimes since the third wave of democratization in the 1990s.