How Do Nationalist Leaders Respond to International Human Rights Criticisms?

ABSTRACT Nationalist leaders are believed to reject international human rights criticisms in a blanket fashion. However, I argue that they are likely to be highly selective in accommodating or dismissing such criticisms based on the kind of human rights issue on the table. Nationalist leaders refuse to yield to the pressure of international human rights organizations in the name of national sovereignty. However, they may be incentivized to entertain human rights recommendations on issues that are relatively inconsequential to their political survival. They may be even more receptive to international pressure on matters such as human rights education and training, perceiving opportunities to score points with the international community while furthering their domestic political agenda. To test these arguments, I gather data from the Universal Periodic Review and two human rights cases (Sri Lanka and Finland). The findings of this study provide an important clue about which specific human rights areas the international community should focus on when nationalist leaders are transgressors.