Review of International Studies (2011).37.1313-1333 2010 British International Studies Association do元10.10171S026021051000080X First published online 26 Aug 2010 Same-sex marriage in China?The strategic promulgation of a progressive policy and its impact on LGBT activism TIMOTHY HILDEBRANDT* Abstract.Using the case of same-sex marriage in China,this article explores two fundamental questions:What motivates a non-democratic state to promulgate a progressive human rights policy?More importantly,when a non-democratic state adopts such policies, what is the impact on activism?I argue that same-sex marriage legislation could be used strategically to improve China's human rights reputation.While this would extend a pinnacle right to gays and lesbians,the benefits might not outweigh the costs:I show that when imposed from above,a same-sex marriage law would incur opportunity costs on activism;the passage of this progressive policy would eliminate an important issue around which the Lesbian,Gay,Bisexual and Trans-gender/-sexual (LGBT)community might develop.Moreover,even if such policy is promulgated,the right to marry will do little to challenge the larger social pressures that make life difficult for LGBT Chinese. Timothy Hildebrandt is a Postdoctoral Fellow at the US-China Institute at University of Southern California.His book manuscript examines the complex state-society relationship in China and shows how the emergence of Chinese nongovernmental organisations has strengthened,not weakened,the authoritarian state.Previously,he was Visiting Fellow at the Center for Asian Democracy at University of Louisville.Timothy can be contacted at: tim.hildebrandt@gmail.com. Introduction In 2003,amidst the push for same-sex marriage in many Western democracies, China,the world's most populous country -and presumably also home to the world's largest homosexual population-began its own flirtation with such a policy when Li Yinhe,a prominent sociologist,first submitted a proposal to legalise same-sex marriage at meetings of the National Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC)and National People's Congress (NPC).Although the effort failed to gain the necessary 30-member vote to move I gratefully acknowledge several individuals for their invaluable insights:Helen Kinsella.Edward Friedman,Melanie Manion,Cheng Li,Damien Lu,Courtney Hillebrecht,Peter Holm and two anonymous reviewers.Research was supported by a National Science Foundation Integrated Graduate Education and Research Traineeship at University of Wisconsin-Madison and the Center for Asian Democracy at University of Louisville.Earlier versions of this article were presented at the Wisconsin International Relations Colloquium and the Midwest Political Science Association Conference. Xinhua (16 March 2006). 1313
Same-sex marriage in China? The strategic promulgation of a progressive policy and its impact on LGBT activism TIMOTHY HILDEBRANDT* Abstract. Using the case of same-sex marriage in China, this article explores two fundamental questions: What motivates a non-democratic state to promulgate a progressive human rights policy? More importantly, when a non-democratic state adopts such policies, what is the impact on activism? I argue that same-sex marriage legislation could be used strategically to improve China’s human rights reputation. While this would extend a pinnacle right to gays and lesbians, the benefits might not outweigh the costs: I show that when imposed from above, a same-sex marriage law would incur opportunity costs on activism; the passage of this progressive policy would eliminate an important issue around which the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Trans-gender/-sexual (LGBT) community might develop. Moreover, even if such policy is promulgated, the right to marry will do little to challenge the larger social pressures that make life difficult for LGBT Chinese. Timothy Hildebrandt is a Postdoctoral Fellow at the US-China Institute at University of Southern California. His book manuscript examines the complex state-society relationship in China and shows how the emergence of Chinese nongovernmental organisations has strengthened, not weakened, the authoritarian state. Previously, he was Visiting Fellow at the Center for Asian Democracy at University of Louisville. Timothy can be contacted at: {tim.hildebrandt@gmail.com}. Introduction In 2003, amidst the push for same-sex marriage in many Western democracies, China, the world’s most populous country – and presumably also home to the world’s largest homosexual population – began its own flirtation with such a policy when Li Yinhe, a prominent sociologist, first submitted a proposal to legalise same-sex marriage at meetings of the National Committee of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC) and National People’s Congress (NPC).1 Although the effort failed to gain the necessary 30-member vote to move * I gratefully acknowledge several individuals for their invaluable insights: Helen Kinsella, Edward Friedman, Melanie Manion, Cheng Li, Damien Lu, Courtney Hillebrecht, Peter Holm and two anonymous reviewers. Research was supported by a National Science Foundation Integrated Graduate Education and Research Traineeship at University of Wisconsin-Madison and the Center for Asian Democracy at University of Louisville. Earlier versions of this article were presented at the Wisconsin International Relations Colloquium and the Midwest Political Science Association Conference. 1 Xinhua (16 March 2006). Review of International Studies (2011), 37, 1313–1333 2010 British International Studies Association doi:10.1017/S026021051000080X First published online 26 Aug 2010 1313
1314 Timothy Hildebrandt forward,she was not deterred.Li's same-sex marriage proposal has become an annual event,a singular effort to bring about legislation that could give gays and lesbians equal rights under a regime that has long-professed its commitment to egalitarianism in theory but often falls short in practice.2 Given growing support for same-sex marriage in other countries,as well as the tenacity of some activists like Li,what is the possibility of China promulgating a policy that would legalise same-sex marriage?What would the state to gain from doing so?And how would such a policy affect gay and lesbian citizens? Although there is no large Lesbian,Gay,Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) movement in China,'a recent case allows us to theorise about what effects might be felt in China if such a progressive policy were implemented.In the often divisive world of Chinese HIV/AIDS organisations,there has been much to fight over- resources and turf-and little to agree on.But in recent years,groups began to find common ground on a few issues.At a gathering in autumn 2007,several organisations began to coordinate efforts to oppose a government ban on HIV-positive individuals travelling into the country.Non-governmental organis- ation (NGO)leaders planned to present their argument at the annual meeting of the Global Fund (an inter-governmental organisation to combat HIV/AIDS, malaria,and tuberculosis),at which high-ranking Chinese government officials were expected to attend.But before they had time to present their case-and commencing an anticipated battle-the government announced,to great fanfare, that it would change the policy.Future meetings to coordinate opposition were cancelled.There was a noticeable bitter-sweet reaction among the activists.?A key interest of the groups was met,but the government's abrupt reversal also created a significant opportunity cost:the chance for social organisations to coalesce was also gone. China has no domestic campaigns to legalise same-sex marriage on the scale of those in the West.The nascent civil society sector representing the LGBT community has been most concerned with stopping the spread of HIV/AIDS;far less time is devoted to same-sex marriage.But despite the lack of a significant indigenous push for such a policy,legalised same-sex marriage is not improbable in China.In this article,I theorise that the impetus for such a policy is likely to come not from the grassroots but rather the political centre.Although this policy 2 In this article I use the term 'Same-sex marriage'rather than 'Same-sex union'simply because LGBT activists in China overwhelmingly use the term 'tongxing hunyin /same-sex marriage /' 3 Although some groups were LGBT in name,few were so in practice.The vast majority of informants for this research were leaders of organisations that represented self-identified gay men or lesbian women.For reasons I explore elsewhere (Forging a Harmonious Middle Path'The Rise of Social Organizations and the Persistance of the Authoritarian State in China,book manuscript,2010). there is limited networking between groups;organisations representing gay men and lesbian women have,in recent years,grown apart.As for bisexuals,one activist noted that the number of bisexual men in China is probably far higher than in the West,due to the frequency of homosexual men who marry straight women to avoid social or family pressure.There are no known groups working exclusively for the interests of transsexual/gendered persons.However,a handful of gay men's groups have reached out to this community,particularly in China's southwestern Yunnan province.With these qualifications in mind,I use LGBT throughout this article as shorthand for the universe of these types of activists,social organisations,and citizens. 4Although the government stated its intentions in 2007,the ban was not officially reversed until April 2010. 5 Participant observation,Kunming.China (11 November 2007)
forward, she was not deterred. Li’s same-sex marriage proposal has become an annual event, a singular effort to bring about legislation that could give gays and lesbians equal rights under a regime that has long-professed its commitment to egalitarianism in theory but often falls short in practice.2 Given growing support for same-sex marriage in other countries, as well as the tenacity of some activists like Li, what is the possibility of China promulgating a policy that would legalise same-sex marriage? What would the state to gain from doing so? And how would such a policy affect gay and lesbian citizens? Although there is no large Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) movement in China,3 a recent case allows us to theorise about what effects might be felt in China if such a progressive policy were implemented. In the often divisive world of Chinese HIV/AIDS organisations, there has been much to fight over – resources and turf – and little to agree on. But in recent years, groups began to find common ground on a few issues. At a gathering in autumn 2007, several organisations began to coordinate efforts to oppose a government ban on HIV-positive individuals travelling into the country. Non-governmental organisation (NGO) leaders planned to present their argument at the annual meeting of the Global Fund (an inter-governmental organisation to combat HIV/AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis), at which high-ranking Chinese government officials were expected to attend. But before they had time to present their case – and commencing an anticipated battle – the government announced, to great fanfare, that it would change the policy.4 Future meetings to coordinate opposition were cancelled. There was a noticeable bitter-sweet reaction among the activists.5 A key interest of the groups was met, but the government’s abrupt reversal also created a significant opportunity cost: the chance for social organisations to coalesce was also gone. China has no domestic campaigns to legalise same-sex marriage on the scale of those in the West. The nascent civil society sector representing the LGBT community has been most concerned with stopping the spread of HIV/AIDS; far less time is devoted to same-sex marriage. But despite the lack of a significant indigenous push for such a policy, legalised same-sex marriage is not improbable in China. In this article, I theorise that the impetus for such a policy is likely to come not from the grassroots but rather the political centre. Although this policy 2 In this article I use the term ‘Same-sex marriage’ rather than ‘Same-sex union’ simply because LGBT activists in China overwhelmingly use the term ‘tongxing hunyin [same-sex marriage]’. 3 Although some groups were LGBT in name, few were so in practice. The vast majority of informants for this research were leaders of organisations that represented self-identified gay men or lesbian women. For reasons I explore elsewhere (Forging a Harmonious Middle Path: The Rise of Social Organizations and the Persistance of the Authoritarian State in China, book manuscript, 2010), there is limited networking between groups; organisations representing gay men and lesbian women have, in recent years, grown apart. As for bisexuals, one activist noted that the number of bisexual men in China is probably far higher than in the West, due to the frequency of homosexual men who marry straight women to avoid social or family pressure. There are no known groups working exclusively for the interests of transsexual/gendered persons. However, a handful of gay men‘s groups have reached out to this community, particularly in China‘s southwestern Yunnan province. With these qualifications in mind, I use LGBT throughout this article as shorthand for the universe of these types of activists, social organisations, and citizens. 4 Although the government stated its intentions in 2007, the ban was not officially reversed until April 2010. 5 Participant observation, Kunming, China (11 November 2007). 1314 Timothy Hildebrandt
Same-sex marriage in China? 1315 would extend a significant right to gays and lesbians,the benefits might not outweigh the costs.As in the case of the travel ban reversal,a sudden policy change can have a potentially debilitating effect on a budding social movement. I begin this article by explaining why the Chinese government might promul- gate a same-sex marriage policy by examining the potential benefits it could provide the state.Borrowing from International Relations literature on the strategic use of norms,I argue that the key advantage of a same-sex marriage policy could be in using the progressive legislation to deflect criticism of China's human rights record.Next,I engage several counter-arguments,examining the potential costs of such a policy to the state.Because China lacks deeply rooted and institutionalised cultural injunctions against homosexuality,and since the public places decreasing value on marriage,the cultural costs of promulgating a same-sex marriage policy are relatively low.Political counter-arguments are also not entirely convincing:regime type is not necessarily an effective predictor of positive policies towards LGBT citizens in other political contexts.I also show that despite frequent criticism about its human rights record,China is not reluctant to engage in these debates,provided it has some latitude in defining and evaluating human rights practices. In the second section,I explore several possible effects of this policy change. The most obvious benefit is that such legislation could help improve sexual health and decrease discrimination.Nonetheless,drawing on insights from social move- ment literatures and recent empirical examples,I argue that the legislation could carry heavy costs that would outweigh these benefits.First,when imposed from above,a same-sex marriage law would incur opportunity costs on activism;the passage of this progressive policy would eliminate an important issue around which the nascent LGBT community might rally,build a base,and further develop.In other words,an immediate victory for gay rights,without a significant struggle, might mean a long-term loss for China's fledgling civil society.Second,even if a same-sex marriage policy is promulgated,in part because of limited resonance of marriage in Chinese society,the right to marry among homosexual citizens will do little to challenge the larger social pressures that make life difficult for LGBT Chinese. Same-sex marriage as a (strategic)human right Same-sex marriage policies are often the culmination of significant pressure from the grassroots elsewhere.But in China,a same-sex marriage law is unlikely to come about on account of domestic non-governmental pressure.Although Chinese LGBT activism has grown significantly in recent years-facilitated by Internet- based networking and increased political space granted to NGOs that address the HIV/AIDS crisis-organisations remain few in number and weak in capacity.? 6 Kelly Kollman.Same-Sex Unions:The Globalization of an Idea'.International Studies Quarterly, 51(2007).pp.329-57. 7 Because few of these groups are legally registered,the exact number of gay and lesbian groups is impossible to ascertain.However,insiders believe China is home to roughly 200 groups that primarily work for the interests of gay men,and less than fifteen for lesbian women.This imbalance
would extend a significant right to gays and lesbians, the benefits might not outweigh the costs. As in the case of the travel ban reversal, a sudden policy change can have a potentially debilitating effect on a budding social movement. I begin this article by explaining why the Chinese government might promulgate a same-sex marriage policy by examining the potential benefits it could provide the state. Borrowing from International Relations literature on the strategic use of norms, I argue that the key advantage of a same-sex marriage policy could be in using the progressive legislation to deflect criticism of China’s human rights record. Next, I engage several counter-arguments, examining the potential costs of such a policy to the state. Because China lacks deeply rooted and institutionalised cultural injunctions against homosexuality, and since the public places decreasing value on marriage, the cultural costs of promulgating a same-sex marriage policy are relatively low. Political counter-arguments are also not entirely convincing: regime type is not necessarily an effective predictor of positive policies towards LGBT citizens in other political contexts. I also show that despite frequent criticism about its human rights record, China is not reluctant to engage in these debates, provided it has some latitude in defining and evaluating human rights practices. In the second section, I explore several possible effects of this policy change. The most obvious benefit is that such legislation could help improve sexual health and decrease discrimination. Nonetheless, drawing on insights from social movement literatures and recent empirical examples, I argue that the legislation could carry heavy costs that would outweigh these benefits. First, when imposed from above, a same-sex marriage law would incur opportunity costs on activism; the passage of this progressive policy would eliminate an important issue around which the nascent LGBT community might rally, build a base, and further develop. In other words, an immediate victory for gay rights, without a significant struggle, might mean a long-term loss for China’s fledgling civil society. Second, even if a same-sex marriage policy is promulgated, in part because of limited resonance of marriage in Chinese society, the right to marry among homosexual citizens will do little to challenge the larger social pressures that make life difficult for LGBT Chinese. Same-sex marriage as a (strategic) human right Same-sex marriage policies are often the culmination of significant pressure from the grassroots elsewhere.6 But in China, a same-sex marriage law is unlikely to come about on account of domestic non-governmental pressure. Although Chinese LGBT activism has grown significantly in recent years – facilitated by Internetbased networking and increased political space granted to NGOs that address the HIV/AIDS crisis – organisations remain few in number and weak in capacity.7 6 Kelly Kollman, ‘Same-Sex Unions: The Globalization of an Idea’, International Studies Quarterly, 51 (2007), pp. 329–57. 7 Because few of these groups are legally registered, the exact number of gay and lesbian groups is impossible to ascertain. However, insiders believe China is home to roughly 200 groups that primarily work for the interests of gay men, and less than fifteen for lesbian women. This imbalance Same-sex marriage in China? 1315
1316 Timothy Hildebrandt Moreover,interest in securing marriage rights is relatively low among activists.To capture attitudes toward same-sex marriage,my nationwide surveys asked leaders from LGBT NGOs to rank six common issues addressed by their groups (same-sex marriage,HIV/AIDS,social pressure,family pressure,discrimination,and human rights)by time spent.Anticipating that a group might spend little time on an issue that they would prefer to address if given the choice,respondents were asked to then rank each issue by interest.The vast majority of respondents reported that among all the issues,they spent the least amount of time on same-sex marriage;it also ranked lowest in importance.Of the sixty respondents,same-sex marriage was never ranked first in time spent,and only 26 per cent placed it as second or third. Same-sex marriage was ranked as an issue of most interest by only nine per cent of survey respondents.The survey found no significant variation in time spent and interest.Same-sex marriage is simply not yet of great interest to LGBT leaders. While important,domestic civil society actors do not always affect policy change alone.Transnational advocacy networks can be crucial for pressuring authoritarian governments to adopt policies and norms that they might otherwise be reluctant to.Early studies of same-sex marriage have identified transnational activists,in concert with local players,as key for promoting the norm shift necessary to promulgate such policies.1 In China,however,these networks are unlikely to have much impact on same-sex marriage,just as they have been somewhat ineffective on HIV/AIDS and environmental issues:international organi- sations have been reluctant to pressure the government;1 international NGOs have usually maintained a non-antagonistic attitude toward the state to ensure that they can continue legally operating in the country;and domestic NGOs have found that working with international networks can damage their government relations,which are crucial for existence in the authoritarian polity.2 Despite a weak domestic civil society and unreliable international partners, same-sex marriage could still become a reality in China-if it comes from the top-down.(After all,in authoritarian polities,policymaking is rarely,if ever,an authentically bottom-up process.)But the state is unlikely to promulgate the policy is best explained by the political and economic opportunities afforded to gay men due to HIV/AIDS; lesbian women are not identified as a high-risk group for HIV/AIDS and therefore have a more difficult time securing funding and government sponsors(Hildebrandt.Forging). s The data presented in this article are derived from 25 in-depth anonymous interviews of gay and lesbian activists in China,conducted from June 2007 to April 2008.as well as a survey of nearly 50 LGBT social organisation leaders administered in March 2008.Data were collected as part of a larger project examining the relationship of Chinese social organisations and the state.Hildebrandt. Forging. Margaret Keck and Kathryn Sikkink,Activists Beyond Borders (Ithaca:Cornell University Press, (1998). 1o Kollman,Same-sex'. At a meeting of the Global Fund,the leader of a domestic NGO implored the Global Fund to pressure the government to include more truly independent NGOs in its HIV/AIDS work.The Chair of the Fund promptly replied that while he was sympathetic to the issue raised by the activist. because the Global Fund is 'country-led'and relies on a strong partnership with governments in the countries it operates,it will not pressure these governments to do one thing or another.He was emphatic in noting that the Fund must work within the framework of existing national laws and not oppose them (Participant observation,Kunming.China(11 November 2007). 12 Timothy Hildebrandt and John A.Zinda.The False Promise of TNAs in China',working paper (University of Wisconsin-Madison,2009):Fengshi Wu,Double-mobilization:Transnational Advo- cacy Networks for China's Environment and Public Health',unpublished dissertation(University of Maryland,2005)
Moreover, interest in securing marriage rights is relatively low among activists. To capture attitudes toward same-sex marriage, my nationwide survey8 asked leaders from LGBT NGOs to rank six common issues addressed by their groups (same-sex marriage, HIV/AIDS, social pressure, family pressure, discrimination, and human rights) by time spent. Anticipating that a group might spend little time on an issue that they would prefer to address if given the choice, respondents were asked to then rank each issue by interest. The vast majority of respondents reported that among all the issues, they spent the least amount of time on same-sex marriage; it also ranked lowest in importance. Of the sixty respondents, same-sex marriage was never ranked first in time spent, and only 26 per cent placed it as second or third. Same-sex marriage was ranked as an issue of most interest by only nine per cent of survey respondents. The survey found no significant variation in time spent and interest. Same-sex marriage is simply not yet of great interest to LGBT leaders. While important, domestic civil society actors do not always affect policy change alone. Transnational advocacy networks can be crucial for pressuring authoritarian governments to adopt policies and norms that they might otherwise be reluctant to.9 Early studies of same-sex marriage have identified transnational activists, in concert with local players, as key for promoting the norm shift necessary to promulgate such policies.10 In China, however, these networks are unlikely to have much impact on same-sex marriage, just as they have been somewhat ineffective on HIV/AIDS and environmental issues: international organisations have been reluctant to pressure the government;11 international NGOs have usually maintained a non-antagonistic attitude toward the state to ensure that they can continue legally operating in the country; and domestic NGOs have found that working with international networks can damage their government relations, which are crucial for existence in the authoritarian polity.12 Despite a weak domestic civil society and unreliable international partners, same-sex marriage could still become a reality in China – if it comes from the top-down. (After all, in authoritarian polities, policymaking is rarely, if ever, an authentically bottom-up process.) But the state is unlikely to promulgate the policy is best explained by the political and economic opportunities afforded to gay men due to HIV/AIDS; lesbian women are not identified as a high-risk group for HIV/AIDS and therefore have a more difficult time securing funding and government sponsors (Hildebrandt, Forging). 8 The data presented in this article are derived from 25 in-depth anonymous interviews of gay and lesbian activists in China, conducted from June 2007 to April 2008, as well as a survey of nearly 50 LGBT social organisation leaders administered in March 2008. Data were collected as part of a larger project examining the relationship of Chinese social organisations and the state. Hildebrandt, Forging. 9 Margaret Keck and Kathryn Sikkink, Activists Beyond Borders (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, (1998). 10 Kollman, ‘Same-sex’. 11 At a meeting of the Global Fund, the leader of a domestic NGO implored the Global Fund to pressure the government to include more truly independent NGOs in its HIV/AIDS work. The Chair of the Fund promptly replied that while he was sympathetic to the issue raised by the activist, because the Global Fund is ‘country-led’ and relies on a strong partnership with governments in the countries it operates, it will not pressure these governments to do one thing or another. He was emphatic in noting that the Fund must work within the framework of existing national laws and not oppose them (Participant observation, Kunming, China (11 November 2007). 12 Timothy Hildebrandt and John A. Zinda, ‘The False Promise of TNAs in China’, working paper (University of Wisconsin-Madison, 2009); Fengshi Wu, ‘Double-mobilization: Transnational Advocacy Networks for China‘s Environment and Public Health’, unpublished dissertation (University of Maryland, 2005). 1316 Timothy Hildebrandt
Same-sex marriage in China? 1317 out of altruism or in response to outside pressure.More likely,it would be done for an instrumental purpose:publicly extending marriage rights to same-sex couples could help China shed its reputation as a violator of human rights,thereby increasing its international legitimacy and also consolidating its rule at home,a task that is increasingly important as China's economic growth has slowed. International Relations scholars offer an instructive theoretical frame for this argument:non-democratic regimes often strategically use human rights norms to meet unrelated ends.In examining the ratification of human rights treaties, Hafner-Burton and Tsutsui argue that contrary to other claims,3 governments might ratify human rights treaties as 'window dressing'with no real intention of abiding by them.14 Subotic explains that such moves are intended to increase perceived legitimacy of a regime within the international community;these governments are 'instrumental norm adopters',who engage in role playing conformance'with their peers.5 Instrumental norm adoption is not dependent upon domestic pressure.In fact,these treaties are often ratified in countries where there is little desire for normative change;instrumental norm adoption most commonly occurs where there is weak demand for the law and limited threat from political spoilers.16 In drawing on these theoretical insights,I am borrowing the general logic that authoritarian regimes can adopt progressive positions to increase their resiliency. There are some key differences between the empirical cases that provoked these insights in international relations and that of same-sex marriage in China.These scholars focus their attention on pre-existing international norms and usually apply the argument to the ratification of treaties.There is neither an explicit treaty about LGBT rights nor any formal norm on 'relationship recognition.7 Moreover,the link between human rights and same-sex marriage is not unambiguous.For example,both supporters and opponents of same-sex marriage have used the UN Human Rights Declaration to strengthen their respective positions.Opponents argue that the Declaration's discussion of the importance in protecting the family is a tacit insistence that family,traditionally conceived,should be preserved and not adulterated by 'revisions'like same-sex marriage.s Supporters,on the other hand,use the Declaration to argue that same-sex marriage is the kind of fundamental human right it was intended to protect.Arguments for 'equal marriage'are most often rooted in a moral compulsion to do what is right for all. 13 Thomas Risse,Stephen Roppe,and Kathryn Sikkink.The Power of Human Rights (New York: Cambridge University Press,(1999):Ellen L.Lutz and Kathryn Sikkink,'International Human Rights Law and Practice in Latin America',International Organization,54:3 (2000),pp.633-59. 14 Emilie M.Hafner-Burton and Kiyoteru Tsutsui,'Human Rights in a Globalizing World:The Paradox of Empty Promises',American Journal of Sociology.110:5 (2005).pp.1373-411. is Jelena Subotic,Domestic Use of International Norms:Alternative Mechanisms for Compliance', Presented at Annual APSA Meeting (2007),p.16. 16Subotic,Domestic'. 17 Kollman,'Same-sex' s Scott T.FitzGibbon,The Formless City of Plato's Republic:How the Legal and Social Promotion of Divorce and Same-Sex Marriage Contravenes the Principles and Undermines the Projects of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights',Issues in Legal Scholarship,Article 5 (2005). 19 Celia Kitzinger and Sue Wilkinson,'Social Advocacy for Equal Marriage:The Politics of "Rights" and the Psychology of 'Mental Health',Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy,4:1 (2004). pp.173-94.Arendt notes that 'even political rights,like the right to vote,and nearly all other rights enumerated in the Constitution,are secondary to the inalienable human rights to "life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness"proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence,and to this category the
out of altruism or in response to outside pressure. More likely, it would be done for an instrumental purpose: publicly extending marriage rights to same-sex couples could help China shed its reputation as a violator of human rights, thereby increasing its international legitimacy and also consolidating its rule at home, a task that is increasingly important as China’s economic growth has slowed. International Relations scholars offer an instructive theoretical frame for this argument: non-democratic regimes often strategically use human rights norms to meet unrelated ends. In examining the ratification of human rights treaties, Hafner-Burton and Tsutsui argue that contrary to other claims,13 governments might ratify human rights treaties as ‘window dressing’ with no real intention of abiding by them.14 Subotic explains that such moves are intended to increase perceived legitimacy of a regime within the international community; these governments are ‘instrumental norm adopters’, who engage in ‘role playing conformance’ with their peers.15 Instrumental norm adoption is not dependent upon domestic pressure. In fact, these treaties are often ratified in countries where there is little desire for normative change; instrumental norm adoption most commonly occurs where there is weak demand for the law and limited threat from political spoilers.16 In drawing on these theoretical insights, I am borrowing the general logic that authoritarian regimes can adopt progressive positions to increase their resiliency. There are some key differences between the empirical cases that provoked these insights in international relations and that of same-sex marriage in China. These scholars focus their attention on pre-existing international norms and usually apply the argument to the ratification of treaties. There is neither an explicit treaty about LGBT rights nor any formal norm on ‘relationship recognition’.17 Moreover, the link between human rights and same-sex marriage is not unambiguous. For example, both supporters and opponents of same-sex marriage have used the UN Human Rights Declaration to strengthen their respective positions. Opponents argue that the Declaration’s discussion of the importance in protecting the family is a tacit insistence that family, traditionally conceived, should be preserved and not adulterated by ‘revisions’ like same-sex marriage.18 Supporters, on the other hand, use the Declaration to argue that same-sex marriage is the kind of fundamental human right it was intended to protect. Arguments for ‘equal marriage’ are most often rooted in a moral compulsion to do what is right for all.19 13 Thomas Risse, Stephen Roppe, and Kathryn Sikkink, The Power of Human Rights (New York: Cambridge University Press, (1999); Ellen L. Lutz and Kathryn Sikkink, ‘International Human Rights Law and Practice in Latin America’, International Organization, 54:3 (2000), pp. 633–59. 14 Emilie M. Hafner-Burton and Kiyoteru Tsutsui, ‘Human Rights in a Globalizing World: The Paradox of Empty Promises’, American Journal of Sociology, 110:5 (2005), pp. 1373–411. 15 Jelena Subotic, ‘Domestic Use of International Norms: Alternative Mechanisms for Compliance’, Presented at Annual APSA Meeting (2007), p. 16. 16 Subotic, ‘Domestic’. 17 Kollman, ‘Same-sex’. 18 Scott T. FitzGibbon, ‘The Formless City of Plato‘s Republic: How the Legal and Social Promotion of Divorce and Same-Sex Marriage Contravenes the Principles and Undermines the Projects of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights’, Issues in Legal Scholarship, Article 5 (2005). 19 Celia Kitzinger and Sue Wilkinson, ‘Social Advocacy for Equal Marriage: The Politics of “Rights” and the Psychology of ‘Mental Health’, Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 4:1 (2004), pp. 173–94. Arendt notes that ‘even political rights, like the right to vote, and nearly all other rights enumerated in the Constitution, are secondary to the inalienable human rights to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence, and to this category the Same-sex marriage in China? 1317