This paper examines how HRO activities influence human rights conditions. It explores two models: boomerang (where third-party pressure indirectly drives improvements) and spiral (where such pressure can worsen conditions). Using a causal mediation model, it investigates whether the effects of HRO campaigns stem from direct targeting or through induced costs by powerful actors like other states or international organizations via sanctions or military interventions. The findings reveal that while HROs have an overall positive effect on human rights, third-party pressure partially offsets this improvement.

New Analysis Shows:

• How NGOs use 'name and shame' tactics to influence state behavior

• Whether direct targeting by activists leads to policy changes • Or if the pressure from other powerful actors mediates these effects

Key Findings:

• HRO campaigns generally improve human rights conditions • But negative third-party reactions somewhat diminish this positive effect