Can International Advocacy Rally Public Support for Human Rights Sanctions? Experimental Evidence from the United States

Human rights organizations regularly publicize abuses and shame repressive regimes. But can such human rights messaging effectively mobilize public support for sanctions against these regimes? This study examines whether and under what conditions international advocacy influences citizens’ willingness to support sanctions. I hypothesize that advocacy effectiveness depends on who delivers the message, what type of violation is reported, and how the response is framed. I fielded a preregistered survey experiment with a sample of 2,204 Americans, varying the type of rights violation (physical integrity vs. empowerment rights), the advocacy messenger (UN Special Rapporteur vs. Human Rights Watch), and the sanctions framing (unilateral vs. multilateral). Results show that advocacy messages can increase public support for sanctions, but effects vary significantly across conditions. First, UN messaging produces robust effects, while Human Rights Watch messaging shows weaker and less consistent impacts. Second, messages describing physical integrity abuses generate strong support, while empowerment rights violations fail to mobilize public opinion. Contrary to expectations, multilateral framing does not significantly increase support. These findings advance our understanding of transnational advocacy by identifying the conditions under which international actors can effectively mobilize public backing for human rights enforcement and when advocacy efforts may fall short.