UC San Diego

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 Médecins Sans Frontières. Finally, I conclude with an analysis of state behavior as an indicator of international norms, using economic sanctions data from the 20th century