The transnational politics of warfare accountability

Human rights watch versus the Israel defense forces

Nikolas Rajkovic, Pascal Vennesson

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

    Abstract

    This journal is one of the Britain’s leading IR journals, edited by the UK’s most senior and—according to Professor Richard Falk of Princeton—esteemed IR scholar: Prof. Ken Booth. This article (9, 929 words) questions a dominant paradigm that NGOs speak to “truth to power”, and specifically that human rights NGOs, like Human Rights Watch, command the power of transnational legal advocacy. We explore how the IDF as an advanced military power had, over the course of the 2006 Lebanon and the 2009 Gaza Wars, developed capacities of transnational legal advocacy which pushed back public criticism by human rights NGOs, notably as HRW. Further, the article emphasizes how sophisticated states can radically adjust their public relations strategies in light of NGO critiques, and become supported by friendly NGOs, which together turn-the-table of critique upon the conduct of human rights NGOs themselves. A recent publication in Europe’s leading security studies journal, Security Dialogue, referred to the contribution of our article as follows: “(p. 106)…HRW’s attempt to make the IDF accountable for what it alleged to be violations of international humanitarian law during Operation Cast Lead takes place in a complex, discursive and institutional field involving Israeli political and military agencies, UN officials, human rights advocates, and a cluster of non-state organizations advocating in defence of Israel. Vennesson and Rajkovic (2012) have documented at length how this antagonistic transnational field acquired its present shape….” See: William Walters, “Drone strikes, dingpolitik and beyond: Furthering the debate on materiality and security”, 45 Security Dialogue 2 (2014): 101-118.
    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)409-429
    Number of pages21
    JournalInternational Relations
    Volume26
    Issue number4
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - Apr 2012

    Fingerprint

    warfare
    non-governmental organization
    Israel
    human rights
    responsibility
    politics
    dialogue
    Military
    Lebanon
    strike
    Israeli
    UNO
    criticism
    university teacher
    paradigm
    Law
    present

    Keywords

    • human rights, humanitarian intervention, international security, lawfare, Middle East, NGOs, transnational advocacy

    Cite this

    @article{574805f8427646128e5c7596f68918e8,
    title = "The transnational politics of warfare accountability: Human rights watch versus the Israel defense forces",
    abstract = "This journal is one of the Britain’s leading IR journals, edited by the UK’s most senior and—according to Professor Richard Falk of Princeton—esteemed IR scholar: Prof. Ken Booth. This article (9, 929 words) questions a dominant paradigm that NGOs speak to “truth to power”, and specifically that human rights NGOs, like Human Rights Watch, command the power of transnational legal advocacy. We explore how the IDF as an advanced military power had, over the course of the 2006 Lebanon and the 2009 Gaza Wars, developed capacities of transnational legal advocacy which pushed back public criticism by human rights NGOs, notably as HRW. Further, the article emphasizes how sophisticated states can radically adjust their public relations strategies in light of NGO critiques, and become supported by friendly NGOs, which together turn-the-table of critique upon the conduct of human rights NGOs themselves. A recent publication in Europe’s leading security studies journal, Security Dialogue, referred to the contribution of our article as follows: “(p. 106)…HRW’s attempt to make the IDF accountable for what it alleged to be violations of international humanitarian law during Operation Cast Lead takes place in a complex, discursive and institutional field involving Israeli political and military agencies, UN officials, human rights advocates, and a cluster of non-state organizations advocating in defence of Israel. Vennesson and Rajkovic (2012) have documented at length how this antagonistic transnational field acquired its present shape….” See: William Walters, “Drone strikes, dingpolitik and beyond: Furthering the debate on materiality and security”, 45 Security Dialogue 2 (2014): 101-118.",
    keywords = "human rights, humanitarian intervention, international security, lawfare, Middle East, NGOs, transnational advocacy",
    author = "Nikolas Rajkovic and Pascal Vennesson",
    year = "2012",
    month = "4",
    doi = "10.1177/0047117812445450",
    language = "English",
    volume = "26",
    pages = "409--429",
    journal = "International Relations",
    issn = "0047-1178",
    publisher = "Sage Publications Ltd",
    number = "4",

    }

    The transnational politics of warfare accountability : Human rights watch versus the Israel defense forces. / Rajkovic, Nikolas; Vennesson, Pascal.

    In: International Relations, Vol. 26, No. 4, 04.2012, p. 409-429.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - The transnational politics of warfare accountability

    T2 - Human rights watch versus the Israel defense forces

    AU - Rajkovic, Nikolas

    AU - Vennesson, Pascal

    PY - 2012/4

    Y1 - 2012/4

    N2 - This journal is one of the Britain’s leading IR journals, edited by the UK’s most senior and—according to Professor Richard Falk of Princeton—esteemed IR scholar: Prof. Ken Booth. This article (9, 929 words) questions a dominant paradigm that NGOs speak to “truth to power”, and specifically that human rights NGOs, like Human Rights Watch, command the power of transnational legal advocacy. We explore how the IDF as an advanced military power had, over the course of the 2006 Lebanon and the 2009 Gaza Wars, developed capacities of transnational legal advocacy which pushed back public criticism by human rights NGOs, notably as HRW. Further, the article emphasizes how sophisticated states can radically adjust their public relations strategies in light of NGO critiques, and become supported by friendly NGOs, which together turn-the-table of critique upon the conduct of human rights NGOs themselves. A recent publication in Europe’s leading security studies journal, Security Dialogue, referred to the contribution of our article as follows: “(p. 106)…HRW’s attempt to make the IDF accountable for what it alleged to be violations of international humanitarian law during Operation Cast Lead takes place in a complex, discursive and institutional field involving Israeli political and military agencies, UN officials, human rights advocates, and a cluster of non-state organizations advocating in defence of Israel. Vennesson and Rajkovic (2012) have documented at length how this antagonistic transnational field acquired its present shape….” See: William Walters, “Drone strikes, dingpolitik and beyond: Furthering the debate on materiality and security”, 45 Security Dialogue 2 (2014): 101-118.

    AB - This journal is one of the Britain’s leading IR journals, edited by the UK’s most senior and—according to Professor Richard Falk of Princeton—esteemed IR scholar: Prof. Ken Booth. This article (9, 929 words) questions a dominant paradigm that NGOs speak to “truth to power”, and specifically that human rights NGOs, like Human Rights Watch, command the power of transnational legal advocacy. We explore how the IDF as an advanced military power had, over the course of the 2006 Lebanon and the 2009 Gaza Wars, developed capacities of transnational legal advocacy which pushed back public criticism by human rights NGOs, notably as HRW. Further, the article emphasizes how sophisticated states can radically adjust their public relations strategies in light of NGO critiques, and become supported by friendly NGOs, which together turn-the-table of critique upon the conduct of human rights NGOs themselves. A recent publication in Europe’s leading security studies journal, Security Dialogue, referred to the contribution of our article as follows: “(p. 106)…HRW’s attempt to make the IDF accountable for what it alleged to be violations of international humanitarian law during Operation Cast Lead takes place in a complex, discursive and institutional field involving Israeli political and military agencies, UN officials, human rights advocates, and a cluster of non-state organizations advocating in defence of Israel. Vennesson and Rajkovic (2012) have documented at length how this antagonistic transnational field acquired its present shape….” See: William Walters, “Drone strikes, dingpolitik and beyond: Furthering the debate on materiality and security”, 45 Security Dialogue 2 (2014): 101-118.

    KW - human rights, humanitarian intervention, international security, lawfare, Middle East, NGOs, transnational advocacy

    U2 - 10.1177/0047117812445450

    DO - 10.1177/0047117812445450

    M3 - Article

    VL - 26

    SP - 409

    EP - 429

    JO - International Relations

    JF - International Relations

    SN - 0047-1178

    IS - 4

    ER -