Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Abstract Why do human rights INGOs choose to work on some issues and not others? This article contends that, since the 1990s, the proliferation of issues within the remit of human rights INGOs has increased the moral opportunity costs of selection decisions. Growth in the number and diversity of issues has led to a “selection dilemma” where decision-makers face onerous ethical choices among a significant menu of options. To explain how decision-makers deal with this dilemma, the article builds on existing theoretical work on INGOs, primarily by constructivists, proposing that heuristic-led judgment on the part of key decision-makers is a central determinant in the (non-)adoption of issues. This explanation is examined empirically using a within-case paired analysis of decision-making in Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. The article’s findings provide preliminary evidence that heuristics shape selection outcomes in INGOs, adding further weight to IR scholarship, which stresses the influence of psychology and leaders in organizational and group decision-making.
Ross James Gildea (Tue,) studied this question.