¹ Keck, M. and Sikkink, K., Activists Beyond Borders (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1998), p. 24Google Scholar; Hafner-Burton, E. M., ‘Sticks and Stones: Naming and Shaming the Human Rights Enforcement Problem’, International Organization, 62:4 (2008), pp. 689–716CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Busby, J. W., Moral Movements and Foreign Policy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sikkink, K., The Justice Cascade. How Human Rights Prosecutions are Changing World Politics (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2011)Google Scholar. More generally on the rise of accountability pressures, see Rosanvallon, P., Counter-Democracy. Politics in an Age of Distrust (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

² E. M. Hafner-Burton, ‘Sticks and Stones’, pp. 689–716; Hafner-Burton, E. M. and Ron, J., ‘Seeing Double. Human Rights Impact through Qualitative and Quantitative Eyes’, World Politics, 61:2 (2009), pp. 360–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³ E. M. Hafner-Burton, ‘Sticks and Stones’, pp. 691, 707–13.

⁴ Ibid., pp. 707–13.

⁵ Kinder, D. R. and Sanders, L. M., Divided By Color: Racial Politics and Democratic Ideals (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996), p. 164Google Scholar. See also Polletta, F. and Ho, M. K., ‘Frames and their Consequences’, in Goodin, R. E. and Tilly, C. (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Contextual Political Analysis (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), pp. 189–92Google Scholar; Chong, D., Druckman, J. M., ‘Framing Theory’, Annual Review of Political Science, 10 (2007), pp. 104–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar. I provide a full discussion of the notion of ambiguity below.

⁶ Maoz, Z., Defending the Holy Land: A Critical Analysis of Israel's Security and Foreign Policy (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2006), pp. 231–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Catignani, S., Israeli Counter-Insurgency and the Intifadahs: Dilemmas of a Conventional Army (London: Routlege, 2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁷ Shaw, M., The New Western Way of War. Risk-Transfer War and its Crisis in Iraq (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2005), pp. 60–1Google Scholar; Ram, U., The Globalization of Israel: McWorld in Tel Aviv, Jihad in Jerusalem (London: Routledge, 2007)Google Scholar; Aran, A., ‘Foreign Policy and Globalization Theory: The Case of Israel’, International Politics, 48 (2011), pp. 707–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁸ Barnett, M., ‘The Politics of Uniqueness: The Status of the Israeli Case’, in Barnett, Michael (ed.), Israel in Comparative Perspective: Challenging the Conventional Wisdom (Albany: SUNY Press, 1996), pp. 3–28Google Scholar; Merom, G., ‘Israel's National Security and the Myth of Exceptionalism’, Political Science Quarterly 114:3 (1999), pp. 409–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Smooha, S., ‘Is Israel Western?’, in Ben-Rafael, E. and Sternberg, Y. (eds), Comparing Modernities: Pluralism versus Homogeneity: Essays in Homage to Shmuel N. Eisenstadt. (Leiden-Boston: Brill Academic Publishers. 2005), pp. 413–42Google Scholar.

⁹ Hafner-Burton, ‘Sticks and Stones’; Lebovic, J. H., Voeten, E., ‘The Politics of Shame: The Condemnation of Country Human Rights Practices in the UNCHR’, International Studies Quarterly, 50:4 (2006), pp. 861–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Franklin, J. C., ‘Shame on You: The Impact of Human Rights Criticism on Political Repression in Latin America’, International Studies Quarterly, 52:1 (2008), pp. 187–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Murdie, A. M. and Davis, D. R., ‘Shaming and Blaming: Using Events Data to Assess the Impact of Human Rights INGOs’, International Studies Quarterly, 56:1 (2012), pp. 1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar; DeMeritt, J.H.R., ‘International Organizations and Government Killing: Does Naming and Shaming Save Lives?’, International Interactions, 38:5 (2012), pp. 597–621CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Krain, M., ‘J'accuse! Does Naming and Shaming Perpetrators Reduce the Severity of Genocides or Politicides?’, International Studies Quarterly, 56 (2012), pp. 574–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁰ On the theory of ambiguity, see in particular Best, J., The Limits of Transparency. Ambiguity and the History of International Finance (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2005)Google Scholar; Best, J., ‘Ambiguity, Uncertainty, and Risk: Rethinking Indeterminacy’, International Political Sociology, 2 (2008), pp. 355–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Rathbun, B. C., ‘Uncertain about Uncertainty: Understanding the Multiple Meanings of a Crucial Concept in International Relations Theory’, International Studies Quarterly, 51 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On constructivist realism, see Barkin, J. S., Realist Constructivism. Rethinking International Relations Theory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), pp. 4–8, 165–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹¹ Best, The Limits of Transparency, pp. 3–5, 14–21; Best, ‘Ambiguity, Uncertainty, and Risk’, pp. 355–74.

¹² International Humanitarian Law (IHL) is the branch of international law which seeks to limit the use of violence in armed conflicts by protecting those who do not, or no longer, directly participate in hostilities and limiting the violence to the amount necessary to achieve the aim of the conflict. IHL is largely codified in the four 1949 Geneva Conventions and the 1977 Additional Protocols. My focus here is on the jus in bello, that is, the law which applies once the decision to resort to force has been taken and fighting has started. While Israel, along with the US, Iran, Pakistan, India, the Philippines, Sri Lanka, and a number of other states, has not ratified Additional Protocol I, many of its provisions are considered part of customary international law. Sassoli, M. and Bouvier, A. A. (eds), How Does Law Protect in War? Cases, Documents, and Teaching Materials on Contemporary Practice in International Humanitarian Law (Geneva: International Committee of the Red Cross, 1999)Google Scholar; Sassoli, M., ‘Jus ad Bellum and Jus in Bello – The Separation between the Legality of the Use of Force and Humanitarian Rules to Be Respected in Warfare: Crucial or Outdated?’, in Schmitt, M. and Pejic, J. (eds), International Law and Armed Conflict: Exploring the Faultlines (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2007), pp. 242–44Google Scholar. My argument is not about IHL as such but about the ways in which activists and their target use that body of law as a framing device in rhetorical coercion.

¹³ Collier, D., Brady, H. E., and Seawright, J., ‘Introduction to the Second Edition: A Sea Change in Political Methodology’, in Brady, H. E. and Collier, D., Rethinking Social Inquiry. Diverse Tools, Shared Standards (2nd edn, Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2010), p. 10Google Scholar.

¹⁴ Brady, H. E., Collier, D., and Seawright, J., ‘Refocusing the Discussion of Methodology’, in Brady, H. E. and Collier, D., Rethinking Social Inquiry. Diverse Tools, Shared Standards (2nd edn, Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2010), pp. 24–6Google Scholar.

¹⁵ Collier, D., Brady, H. E., and Seawright, J., ‘Sources of Leverage in Causal Inference: Toward an Alternative View of Methodology’, in Brady, H. E. and Collier, D. (eds), Rethinking Social Inquiry. Diverse Tools, Shared Standards (2nd edn, Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2010), pp. 184, 184–91Google Scholar. See also Della Porta, Donatella and Keating, Michael (eds), Approaches and Methodologies in the Social Sciences: A Pluralist Perspective (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), pp. 19–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Mahoney, J., ‘After KKV. The New Methodology of Qualitative Research’, World Politics, 62:1 (2010), pp. 123–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Collier, D., Brady, H. E., and Seawright, J, ‘Outdated Views of Qualitative Methods: Time to Move On’, Political Analysis, 18:4 (2010), pp. 506–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Goertz, G. and Mahoney, J., A Tale of Two Cultures: Qualitative and Quantitative Research in the Social Sciences (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2012), pp. 87–99, 100–14Google Scholar.

¹⁶ Steinberg, P. F., ‘Causal Assessment in Small-N Policy Studies’, The Policy Studies Journal, 35:2 (2007), p. 193CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Dessler, D., ‘Constructivism within a Positivist Social Science’, Review of International Studies, 25:1 (1999), pp. 129–30, 135–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar; George, A. L. and Bennett, A., Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2005), pp. 205–32Google Scholar; Kurki, M., Causation in International Relations. Reclaiming Causal Analysis (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), pp. 218–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Falleti, T. and Lynch, J. F., ‘Context and Causal Mechanisms in Political Analysis’, Comparative Political Studies, 42:9 (2009), pp. 1143–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar. While selecting on the dependent variable can lead to biases in inferences when probabilisitc associations are of interest, this is not so for a within case analysis which focuses on causal-process observation and ‘does not depend on examining relationships among variables across cases’. Collier, D., Mahoney, J., and Seawright, J., ‘Claiming Too Much: Warnings about Selection Bias’, in Brady, H. E. and Collier, D. (eds), Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2004), pp. 96, 92–4, 95–7Google Scholar.

¹⁷ Schimmelfennig, F., ‘The Community Trap: Liberal Norms, Rhetorical Action, and the Eastern Enlargement of the European Union’, International Organization, 55:1 (2001), pp. 47–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bially Mattern, J., ‘Why “Soft Power” Isn't So Soft: Representational Force and the Sociolinguistic Construction of Attraction in World Politics’, Millenium, 33 (2005), pp. 583–612CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lyall, J., ‘Pocket Protests: Rhetorical Coercion and the Micropolitics of Collective Action in Semiauthoritarian Regimes’, World Politics, 58:3 (2006), pp. 378–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Cardenas, S., ‘Violators' Accounts: Hypocrisy and Human Rights Rhetoric in the Southern Cone’, Journal of Human Rights, 5 (2006), pp. 439–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Krebs, R. R. and Jackson, P. T., ‘Twisting Tongues and Twisting Arms: The Power of Political Rhetoric’, European Journal of International Relations, 13:1 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Greenhill, K. M., Weapons of Mass Migration: Force Displacement, Coercion, and Foreign Policy (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On the theoretical foundations of the notion of coercion, see Schelling, T. C., The Strategy of Conflict (Cambridge, Mass.Harvard University Press, 1980 [orig. pub. 1960])Google Scholar; Schelling, T. C., Arms and Influence (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1966)Google Scholar; O'Neill, B., Honor, Symbols and War (Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 2001 [orig. pub. 1999])Google Scholar.

¹⁸ Risse, T., Ropp, S. C., and Sikkink, K. (eds), The Power of Human Rights: International Norms and Domestic Change (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sikkink, K., ‘Transnational Advocacy Networks and the Social Construction of Legal Rules’, in Dezalay, Y. and Garth, B. G. (eds), Global Prescriptions. The Production, Exportation, and Importation of a New Legal Orthodoxy (Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 2002), pp. 37–64Google Scholar; Reus-Smit, C. (ed.), The Politics of International Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kinsella, H., ‘Discourses of difference: civilians, combatants, and compliance with the laws of war’, Review of International Studies, 31 (2005), pp. 163–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁹ Ron, J., ‘Varying Methods of State Violence’, International Organization, 51:2 (1997), pp. 275–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Cortright, D. and Pagnucco, R., ‘Limits to Transnationalism: the 1980s Freeze Campaign’, in Smith, J., Chatfield, C., and Pagnucco, R. (eds), Transnational Social Movements and Global Politics: Solidarity beyond the State (Syracuse, NY, 1997), pp. 159–74Google Scholar; Mendelson, S. E. and Glenn, J. K. (eds), The Power and Limits of NGOs: A Critical Look at Building Democracy in Eastern Europe and Eurasia (New York: Columbia University Press, 2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Davies, T. R., The Possibilities of Transnational Activism: The Campaign for Disarmament between the Two World Wars (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2007)Google Scholar; Snyder, J. L. and Vinjamuri, L., ‘Trials and Errors: Principle and Pragmatism in Strategies of International Justice’, International Security, 28:3 (2003–4), pp. 5–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Cardenas, S., Conflict and Compliance: State Responses to International Human Rights Pressure (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²⁰ Johnston, Alistair I., ‘Treating International Institutions as Social Environments’, International Studies Quarterly, 45 (2001), pp. 499–506CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Schimmelfennig, ‘The Community Trap’, pp. 62–6; Krebs and Jackson, ‘Twisting Tongues and Twisting Arms’, pp. 43–4; Greenhill, Weapons of Mass Migration, pp. 52–60. For simplicity here I refer to the target as a state, but a campaign of naming and shaming may equally well be aimed at an international organisation, like the World Bank, or a non-state actor, like a multinational corporation.

²¹ The goal of the article is not to explore the conditions under which a rhetorical coercer adopt one frame over another. My focus is on the outcomes of rhetorical coercion, that is, what happens when the selected frame is actually put to the task to name and shame a target. Still, in the conclusion I address the counterfactual question of what could have happened if HRW had used another frame.

²² Schimmelfennig, ‘The Community Trap’, p. 64.

²³ On this aspect, my argument is consistent with the rationalist literature on the role of reputational costs in compliance with international law. See Simmons, B. A., ‘Compliance with International Agreements’, Annual Review of Political Science, 1:1 (1998), pp. 75–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Downs, G. and Jones, M. A., ‘Reputation, Compliance, and International Law’, Journal of Legal Studies, XXXI (2002), pp. S95–S114CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Guzman, A. T., ‘A Compliance-Based Theory of International Law’, California Law Review, 90 (2002), pp. 1823–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar; von Stein, J., ‘Do Treaties Constrain or Screen? Selection Bias and Treaty Compliance’, American Political Science Review, 99:4 (2005), pp. 611–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²⁴ Gamson, W. A., ‘Political Discourse and Collective Action’, in Klandermans, B., Kriesi, H., and Tarrow, S. (eds), From Structure to Action: Social Movement Participation Across Cultures (Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 1988), pp. 219–44Google Scholar; Benford, R. D. and Snow, D. A., ‘Framing Processes and Social Movements: An Overview and Assessment’, Annual Review of Sociology, 26 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Snow, D. A. and Benford, R. D., ‘Ideology, Frame Resonance, and Participant Mobilization’, in Klandermans, B., Kriesi, H., and Tarrow, S. (eds), From Structure to Action: Comparing Social Movement Research across Cultures (Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press, 1988), pp. 197–217Google Scholar; Polletta and Ho, ‘Frames and their Consequences’, pp. 189–92. See also Keck and Sikkink, Activists Beyond Borders, pp. 2–3; Barnett, M., ‘Culture, Strategy and Foreign Policy Change: Israel's Road to Oslo’, European Journal of International Relations, 5:1 (1999), pp. 5–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Payne, R. A., ‘Persuasion, Frames and Norm Construction’, European Journal of International Relations, 7:1 (2001), pp. 37–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²⁵ Krebs and Jackson, ‘Twisting Tongues and Twisting Arms’, pp. 43–4.

²⁶ Slightly modified from Krebs, Jackson, ‘Twisting Tongues and Twisting Arms’, p. 43.

²⁷ This is analogous to the ‘rule-consistent behavior’ phase in Thomas Risse and Kathryn Sikkink's ‘spiral model’. Risse, T. and Sikkink, K., ‘The socialization of international human rights norms into domestic practices: introduction’, in Risse, T., Ropp, S. C., and Sikkink, K. (eds), The Power of Human Rights. International Norms and Domestic Change (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), pp. 31–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²⁸ This situation is mostly consistent with the ‘tactical concessions’ phase and partially overlaps with the ‘prescriptive status’ phase. See T. Risse and K. Sikkink, ibid., pp. 25–8, 29–31.

²⁹ Krebs and Jackson, ‘Twisting Tongues and Twisting Arms’; Risse and Sikkink, ‘The socialization of international human rights norms’; Schimmelfennig, ‘The Community Trap’; Legro, J. W., Cooperation Under Fire: Anglo-German Restraint During World War II (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1995)Google Scholar; Greenhill, Weapons of Mass Migration.

³⁰ This combines Risse and Sikkink's ‘repression and activation of network’ and ‘denial’ phases. T. Risse and K. Sikkink, ‘The socialization of international human rights norms’, pp. 22, 22–4.

³¹ My focus on transnational actors should not be seen as implying that these organisations somewhat ‘represent’ global civil society against the interstate system. It is by now well established that states routinely support, fund, and encourage nonstate actors. Rather, the growing role of these nonstate actors is taken here as an expression of changes of relations of power, in the exercice of power, and in the practices of governing more generally. See Sending, O. J. and Neumann, I. B., ‘Governance to Governmentality: Analyzing NGOs, States, and Power’, International Studies Quarterly, 50 (2006), pp. 651–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³² Best, The Limits of Transparency, pp. 3–5, 14–21. While not unique to IHL as a frame, these three dimensions of ambiguity provide a fruitful way to disentangle the effects of ‘name and shame’-related framing and their consequences. Ambiguity and contestation are related but analytically distinct: a non-ambiguous frame can be contested, like the enlargement of the European Union as a pan-European community of liberal-democratic states or the non-use of nuclear weapons. See respectively: Schimmelfennig, ‘The Community Trap’; Tannenwald, N., The Nuclear Taboo. The United States and the Non-Use of Nuclear Weapons Since 1945 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³³ Sassoli, M., ‘The Implementation of International Humanitarian Law: Current and Inherent Challenges’, Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law, 10 (2007)Google Scholar.

³⁴ Berman, N., ‘Privileging Combat? Contemporary Conflict and the Legal Construction of War’, Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, 43:1 (2004–5)Google Scholar; Kennedy, D., Of War and Law (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2006), pp. 111–41Google Scholar.

³⁵ Koskeniemmi, M., From Apology to Utopia: The Structure of International Legal Argument (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005 [orig. pub. 1989])Google Scholar; Koskeniemmi, M., ‘International Law and Hegemony: A reconfiguration’, Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 17:2 (2004), pp. 197–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³⁶ Koskeniemmi, From Apology to Utopia, pp. 19, 59.

³⁷ Koskeniemmi, From Apology to Utopia, p. 591. See also pp. 19, 513–61, 589–615.

³⁸ Koskeniemmi, From Apology to Utopia, pp. 67, 600.

³⁹ Henkin, L., How Nations Behave. Law and Foreign Policy (2nd edn, New York: Columbia University Press, 1979), pp. 12–27, 88–98Google Scholar; Higgins, R., Problems and Process. International Law and How We Use It (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994), pp. 1–16Google Scholar. See also Koskeniemmi, From Apology to Utopia, pp. 562–617.

⁴⁰ N. Berman, ‘Privileging’; D. Kennedy, Of War and Law, pp. 99–172.

⁴¹ Turner Johnson, J., Morality and Contemporary Warfare (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1999), pp. 119–58Google Scholar; Rogers, A.P.V., Law on the Battlefield (2nd edn, Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2004)Google Scholar; Dinstein, Y., The Conduct of Hostilities Under the Law of International Armed Conflict (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), pp. 113–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Primoratz, I. (ed.), Civilian Immunity in War (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007)Google Scholar; Slim, H., Killing Civilians. Method, Madness and Morality in War (London: Hurst, 2007)Google Scholar.

⁴² M. Sassoli, ‘Jus ad Bellum and Jus in Bello’, pp. 50, 59; Hayashi, M. N., ‘The Martens Clause and Military Necessity’, in Hensel, H. M. (ed.), The Legitimate Use of Military Force (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2008), pp. 135–59Google Scholar. See also N. Berman, ‘Privileging’, pp. 4–8; Pfanner, T., ‘Asymmetrical warfare from the perspective of humanitarian law and humanitarian action’, International Review of the Red Cross, 87:859 (2005), pp. 161, 164CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Schmitt, M. N., ‘Precision attack and international humanitarian law’, International Review of the Red Cross, 87:859 (2005), pp. 455–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar; van Baarda, Th A., ‘Moral Ambiguities Underlying the Laws of Armed Conflict: A Perspective From Military Ethics’, Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law, 11 (2008), pp. 3–49Google Scholar. For critical views, see Normand, R., af Jochnick, C., ‘The Legitimation of Violence: A Critical History of the Laws of War’, Harvard International Law Journal, 35:1 (1994), pp. 49–95Google Scholar; Smith, T. W., ‘The New Law of War: Legitimizing Hi-Tech and Infrastructural Violence’, International Studies Quarterly, 46 (2002), pp. 355–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gross, M. L., Moral Dilemmas of Modern War (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), pp. 153–77, 253–63Google Scholar.

⁴³ Gardam, J., Necessity, Proportionality and the Use of Force by States (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; M. N. Hayashi, ‘The Martens Clause’, pp. 55–82; Sassoli, M., ‘Targeting: The Scope and Utility of the Concept of “Military Objectives” for the Protection of Civilians in Contemporary Armed Conflicts’, in Wippman, D. and Evangelista, M. (eds), New Wars, New Laws? Applying the Laws of War in 21st Century Conflicts (Ardsley, NY: Transnational Publishers, 2005), pp. 181–210Google Scholar.

⁴⁴ 1977 Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), Art. 57(2)(a)(iii) and Art. 51(5)(b). See also Art 8(2)(b)(iv) Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court 1998.

⁴⁵ This section builds upon and extends. Vennesson, P. and Rajkovic, N., ‘The Transnational Politics of Warfare Accountability: Human Rights Watch versus the Israel Defense Forces’, International Relations, 26:4 (2012), pp. 414–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁴⁶ For a similar treatment of comparable primary sources: Schimmelfennig, ‘The Community Trap’, pp. 65–6.

⁴⁷ HRW, ‘Lebanon/Israel: Do Not Attack Civilians’ (12 July 2006).

⁴⁸ ‘Lebanon/Israel’ (12 July 2006).

⁴⁹ HRW, ‘Israel: Investigate Attack on Civilians in Lebanon’ (16 July 2006).

⁵⁰ ‘Israel: Investigate’ (16 July 2006).

⁵¹ HRW, ‘Lebanon/Israel: Israel must provide Safe Passage to Relief Convoys’ (19 July 2006); HRW, ‘Lebanon/Israel: Israel Must Allow Civilians Safe Passage’ (20 July 2006).

⁵² N. Blanford, ‘Fleeing Lebanese dodge aerial fire’, Christian Science Monitor (24 July 2006), p. 10; S. Tavernise, ‘Night of Death and Terror for Lebanese Villagers’, New York Times (31 July 2006), p. 1; J. Bone, ‘War Crimes warning as civilian deaths increase’, The Times (25 July 2006), p. 29.

⁵³ S. Tavernise, S. Erlanger, and M. Noveck, ‘Civilians Lose as Fighters Slip into Fog of War’, New York Times (3 August 2006), p. 1; L. Doyle, ‘Civilian deaths “should be seen as war crime”’, The Independent (4 August 2006), p. 4; J. Pearlman and E. O'Loughlin, ‘We thought building was empty before strike: Israel’, The Age (4 August 2006), p. 1.

⁵⁴ HRW, ‘Questions and Answers on Hostilities Between Israel and Hezbollah’ (1 August 2006).

⁵⁵ HRW, ‘Israel/Lebanon: Israel Responsible for Qana Attack’ (29 July 2006).

⁵⁶ D. Izenberg, ‘Mother 2 daughters die as rocket lands in their garden: Human Rights Watch tells Hizbullah to stop firing’, Jerusalem Post (6 August 2006), p. 3; BBC Monitoring Middle East-Politica, ‘Human Rights Watch cancels Beirut conference in response to anger – Hezbollah TV’ (30 August 2007); A. Ibrahim, ‘Report Accuses Hezbollah of Indiscriminate Attacks on Civilians in ’06 War’, Washington Post (30 August 2007), p. A15; H. M. Fattah, ‘Rights Group Accuses Hezbollah of Indiscriminate Attacks on Civilians in Israel War’, New York Times (31 August 2007), p. 10.

⁵⁷ HRW, ‘White flags, not a legitimate target’ (30 July 2006); HRW, ‘Israel/Lebanon: Qana Death Toll at 28’ (1 August 2006).

⁵⁸ HRW, ‘Fatal Strikes: Israel's Indiscriminate Attacks Against Civilians in Lebanon’, 18:3 (3 August 2006), p. 3.

⁵⁹ UNHRC-United Nations Human Rights Council, ‘Report of the Commission of Inquiry on Lebanon Pursuant to Human Rights Council Resolution S-2/1, A/HRC/3/2 (23 November 2006), {http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/specialsession/A.HRC.3.2.pdf} accessed 29 January 2009.

⁶⁰ H. L. Krieger, ‘Rights group slams UN Body for anti-Israel bias’, Jerusalem Post (19 September 2006), p. 2; T. Butcher, ‘UN urged to act on Lebanon “war crimes”’, The Daily Telegraph (13 July 2008), p. 18.

⁶¹ HRW, ‘Civilians under Assault: Hezbollah's Rocket Attacks on Israel in the 2006 War’, 19:3 (August 2007), p. 9.

⁶² HRW, ‘Why they Died: Civilian Casualties on Lebanon during the 2006 War’, 19:5 (September 2007), p. 5.

⁶³ For a similar logic in the case of the occupied territories, see Kretzmer, David, The Occupation of Justice. The Supreme Court of Israel and the Occupied Territories (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2002)Google Scholar.

⁶⁴ MFA, ‘Special Cabinet Communique-Hizbullah’ (12 July 2006).

⁶⁵ W. Hoge, ‘U.N. Deplores Civilian Deaths, But Cease-Fire Call is Blocked’, New York Times (31 July 2006).

⁶⁶ MFA, ‘PM Olmert meets with US Secy of State Rice’ (25 July 2006). See also Kober, A., ‘The Israel Defense Forces in the Second Lebanon War: Why the Poor Performance?’, Journal of Strategic Studies 31:1 (2008), pp. 3–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁶⁷ MFA, ‘IDF response regarding convoy in southern Lebanon’ (28 July 2006).

⁶⁸ MFA, ‘Incident at Kafr Qana’ (30 July 2006); MFA, ‘Completion of Inquiry into July 30th incident in Qana’ (2 August 2006).

⁶⁹ MFA, ‘Incident at Kafr Qana’ (30 July 2006); MFA,‘Completion of Inquiry into July 30th incident in Qana’ (2 August 2006). See also G. Myre, ‘Offering Video, Israel Answers Critics on War’, New York Times (December 2006), p. 1.

⁷⁰ NGO-Monitor, ‘About NGO Monitor’, available at: {www.ngo-monitor.org/articles.php?type=about} accessed 26 January 2009.

⁷¹ G. M. Steinberg, ‘NGOs that take sides’, The Jerusalem Post (30 July 2006), p. 13. See also Steinberg, G. M., ‘Soft Powers Play Hardball: NGOs Wage War against Israel’, Israel Affairs, 12:4 (October 2006), pp. 748–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁷² NGO-Monitor, ‘NGO Monitor's 2007 Report on HRW: Bias and Double Standards Continue’ (29 April 2008), available at: {www.ngo-monitor.org/article.php?operation=print&id=1910} accessed 30 January 2009; NGO-Monitor ‘Watching the Watchers: The Politics and Credibility of Non-Governmental Organizations in the Arab-Israeli Conflict’, available at: {http://www.ngo-monitor.org/data/images/File/watchingthewatchers-small.pdf} accessed 28 January 2009. See also A. Dershowitz, ‘Amnesty International redefines “war crimes”’, Jerusalem Post (31 August 2006), p. 15; D. Izenberg, ‘Human Rights Watch, Foreign Ministry clash over Lebanon civilian deaths’, Jerusalem Post (7 September 2006), p. 3.

⁷³ G. M. Steinberg, ‘Ken Roth's blood libel’, The Jerusalem Post (27 August 2006), p. 14.

⁷⁴ K. Peratis, ‘Diversionary Strike On a Rights Group’, Washington Post (30 August 2006), p. A19; G. M. Steinberg, ‘Double Standard on Israel’, Washington Post (20 September 2006), p. A24.

⁷⁵ A. Dershowitz, ‘What is “Human Rights Watch” watching?’, Jerusalem Post (25 August 2006), p. 4; C. B. Glick, ‘Terrorist theatre tricks’, Jerusalem Post (29 August 2006), p. 15; G. M. Steinberg, ‘Human-rights falsehood: Israel tries to defend itself’, Washington Times (23 October 2006), p. A19; G. M. Steinberg, ‘Watching the watchdog’, The Courier Mail (29 May 2007), p. 18; S. Sockol, ‘Israel Faulted in Deaths of Civilians in Lebanon: Rights Groups Cites Failure to Distinguish Targets’, Washington Post (7 September 2007), p. A15; O. Ross, ‘Lebanon war rebuke “nonsense”, Israelis say’, The Toronto Star (7 September 2007), p. AA01;. D. Izenberg, ‘Hizbollah “did not use civilians as cover”’, The Independent (7 September 2007), p. 32; C. Wheeler, ‘Israeli air strikes killed civilians indiscriminately, rights group says: Hezbollah presence in villages exaggerated, Human Rights Watch report concludes’, The Globe and Mail (7 September 2007), p. A18; E. O'Loughlin, ‘Israel “broke laws of war” in Lebanon’, The Age (7 September 2007), p. 11; D. Frum, ‘Misinformation warfare’, National Post (2 February 2008), p. A23.

⁷⁶ G. M. Steinberg, ‘HRW's damage can't be undone’, Jerusalem Post (6 September 2007), p. 15; UN Watch, ‘The Ever-Predictable UN Human Rights Council’ (29 November 2006), available at: {www.unwatch.org/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c+bdKKISNqEM} 29 January 2009.

⁷⁷ HRW, ‘Israel/Hamas: Civilians Must Not be Targets’ (30 December 2008), available at: {http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2008/12/30/israelhamas-civilians-must-not-be-targets} accessed 24 January 2009.

⁷⁸ HRW, ‘Israel/Hamas’.

⁷⁹ HRW, ‘Israel: Gaza Ground Offensive Raises Laws of War Concerns’ (4 January 2009), available at: {http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/01/04/israel-gaza-ground-offensive-raises-laws-war-concerns} accessed 24 January 2009.

⁸⁰ HRW, ‘Israel: Gaza Ground Offensive’.

⁸¹ HRW, ‘Israel: Stop Unlawful Use of White Phosphorus in Gaza’ (10 January 2009), available at: {http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/01/10/israel-stop-unlawful-use-white-phosphorus-gaza} accessed 24 January 2009.

⁸² HRW, ‘Israel: Stop Unlawful Use’.

⁸³ Associated Press, ‘IDF: We're not using illegal weapons. Rights group: Israeli shells contain white phosphorus, which can cause serious burns’, Jerusalem Post (12 January 2009), p. 4; R. Marquand and N. Blanford, ‘Gaza: Israel under fire for alleged white phosphorus use’, Christian Science Monitor (14 January 2009), pp. 7, 19; I. Black, ‘International: Weaponry: Israel accused of war crimes over phosphorus use’, The Guardian (20 January 2009); J. Mitnick, ‘Gaza images raise cries of “war crimes”: Israeli assault toll tops 1,000’, Washington Times (15 Jan 2009), p. A01.

⁸⁴ HRW, ‘Israel: Stop Shelling Crowded Gaza City’ (16 January 2009), available at: {http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/01/16/israel-stop-shelling-crowded-gaza-city} accessed 29 January 2009.

⁸⁵ HRW, ‘The Incendiary IDF by Kenneth Roth’ (22 January 2009), available at: {http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/01/22/incendiary-idf-kenneth-roth} accessed 25 January 2009.

⁸⁶ HRW, ‘The Incendiary IDF’.

⁸⁷ P. Beaumont, ‘Israeli military says it will investigate claims of use of white phosphorus,’ The Irish Times (22 January 2009), p. 13; Irish Times, ‘Ban calls for full investigation into shelling of three UN sites’ (21 January 2009), p. 11; Y. Katz, ‘IDF smoking out the truth about alleged use of phosphorus shells. Amnesty Int'l claim “indisputable evidence” of use of ordinance in residential areas’, Jerusalem Post (20 January 2009), p. 2.

⁸⁸ HRW, ‘Israel/Gaza: International Investigation Essential’ (27 January 2009), available at: {http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/01/27/israelgaza-international-investigation-essential} accessed 28 January 2009.

⁸⁹ ‘A thousand tragedies. But is it a crime? Gaza and the laws of war’, The Economist (17 January 2009); R. Nordland, C. Dickey, and S. Grove, ‘Israel has fewer friends than ever, even in America’, Newsweek International (2 February 2009); R. McCarthy, ‘Gaza: Fatal burns never seen before Israel's war; Injuries consistent with use of phosphorus: Evidence suggests breach of international law’, The Guardian (21 January 2009), p. 24; A. Khalil, ‘U.N. chief tours Gaza, Israeli town; Ban calls destruction in Palestinian territory “shocking”. In Sderot, he called rocket attacks on civilians “appalling”’, Los Angeles Times (21 January 2009), p. 3.

⁹⁰ The UN fact-finding mission issued its report in September 2009 concluding that both Israel and Hamas appeared guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity. It specifically accused Israel of deliberately injuring civilians during the operation. However, in April 2011, Judge Goldstone publicly retracted this controversial assertion, while the three other members of the panel stood by the report's findings. Ethan Bronner and Isabel Kershner, ‘Inquiry chief retracts key finding of Gaza report’, International Herald Tribune (4 April 2011), p. 6.

⁹¹ M. Simons, ‘Palestinians Press International Court for Inquiry on Possible Gaza War Crimes’, New York Times (11 February 2009), p. 13; J. Dugard, ‘Make a case of it’, International Herald Tribune (23 July 2009), p. 6.

⁹² B. Sobelman, ‘Israeli Army clears itself in Gaza War’, Los Angeles Times (23 April 2009), p. 25; R. McCarthy, ‘International: Israel military inquiries dismiss claims of Gaza war crimes’, The Guardian (23 April 2009), p. 22; J. Mitnick, ‘Army admits to errors in Gaza Offensive’, Washington Times (23 April 2009), p. A10; I. Kershner, ‘Israeli Military Says Its Actions in Gaza War Did Not Violate International Law’, New York Times (23 April 2009), p. 10.

⁹³ HRW, ‘Rain of Fire’ (25 March 2009), available at: {http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/iopt0309web.pdf} accessed 16 July 2009; HRW, ‘Israel: Misuse of Drones killed civilians in Gaza’ (30 June 2009), available at: {http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/06/30/israel-misuse-drones-killed-civilians-gaza} accessed 18 July 2009; Amnesty International, ‘Israel/Gaza: 22 Days of Death and Destruction’ (2 July 2009), available at: {http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE15/015/2009/en/8f299083-9a74-4853-860f-0563725e633a/mde150152009en.pdf} accessed 31 July 2009; A. Cowell and I. Kershner, ‘Report Accuses Israel and Hamas of War Crimes in Gaza’, New York Times (3 July 2009), p. 6.

⁹⁴ Catignani, S., ‘Israel's operation cast lead and the Gaza strip missile conundrum’, RUSI Journal, 154:4 (2009), p. 71CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For a more critical assessment, see A. H. Cordesman, The ‘Gaza War’: A Strategic Analysis (Washington, DC: CSIS, 2009), pp. 31–3.

⁹⁵ MFA, ‘Responding to Hamas Attacks from Gaza – Issues of Proportionality Background Paper’ (December 2008), available at: {http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Government/Law/Legal+Issues+and+Rulings/Responding+to+Hamas+attacks+from+Gaza+-+Issues+of+Proportionality+-+March+2008.htm} accessed 26 January 2009.

⁹⁶ MFA, ‘FM Livni briefing in Sderot-Opening’ (28 Dec 2008), available at: {http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Government/Speeches+by+Israeli+leaders/2008/FM_Livni_briefing_Sderot_Opening_remarks_28-Dec-2008.htm} accessed 28 January 2009.

⁹⁷ IDF Spokesperson Unit, ‘Operation Cast Lead Newsletter’ (2009), available at: {http://dover.idf.il/NR/rdonlyres/BBAD9702-A783-43A7-97C2-1FCD95EF9813/0/newsletter104.pdf} accessed 27 January 2009; MFA, ‘Hamas Exploitation of Civilians as Human Shields’ (6 January 2009). It is important to emphasise that I only claim here that the IDF and Israeli authorities publicly claimed to accept the legal frame in the context of rhetorical coercion. This public acceptance is key for the unfolding of the rhetorical coercion process since transnational activist can then take state officials at their own word and identify potential discrepancies between what they claim and what they do. Whether or not the legal arguments made publicly showed a full acceptance of the legal frame within the IDF is a different question that cannot be fully address at this point due to lack of empirical evidence. There is some anecdotal evidence of conflicts and disagreements within the Israeli state and within the IDF on whether and to what extent the IDF should actually fully comply with IHL. I thank an anonymous reviewer for drawing my attention to this point.

⁹⁸ MFA, ‘Hamas Exploitation of Civilians as Human Shields’ (6 January 2009); Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center at the Israel Intelligence Heritage and Commemoration Center, ‘Hamas Exploitation of Civilians as Human Shields’ (January 2009).

⁹⁹ MFA, ‘FM Livni press conference on IDF operation in Gaza’ (31 December 2008), available at: {http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Government/Speeches+by+Israeli+leaders/2008/FM_Livni_press_conference_IDF_operation_Gaza_31-Dec-2008.htm} accessed 30 January 2009; MFA, ‘Israel strikes back against Hamas terror infrastructure in Gaza’ (21 January 2009).

¹⁰⁰ Kasher, Asa and Yadlin, Amos, ‘Military Ethics of Fighting Terror: An Israeli Perspective’, Journal of Military Ethics, 4:1 (2005), pp. 3–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Avishai Margalit and Michael Walzer, ‘Israel: Civilians and Combatants’, The New York Review of Books (14 May 2009), pp. 21–2; ‘Israel and the Rules of War: An Exchange’, The New York Review of Books (11 June 2009), p. 77.

¹⁰¹ MFA, ‘Behind the Headlines: The tragedy at the school in Jebaliya’ (6 January 2009), available at: {http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/About+the+Ministry/Behind+the+Headlines/Ttragedy_school_Jebaliya_6-Jan-2009.htm} accessed 29 January 2009.

¹⁰² Catignani, S., ‘Israel's operation cast lead and the Gaza strip missile conundrum’, RUSI Journal, 154:4 (2009), p. 71CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁰³ United Nations General Assembly, Human Rights Council, Human Rights in Palestine and Other Occupied Arab Territories – Report of the United Nations Fact-Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict. A/HRC/12/48 (25 September 2009), p. 130.

¹⁰⁴ S. Erlanger, ‘Both sides in Gaza use lethal new tricks: Traps and ruses mark bitter urban battle’, International Herald Tribune (12 January 2009), p. 6.

¹⁰⁵ Catignani, S., ‘Israel's operation cast lead and the Gaza strip missile conundrum’, RUSI Journal, 154:4 (2009), p. 71CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁰⁶ S. Erlanger, ‘Both sides in Gaza use lethal new tricks’; T. El-Khodary and S. Tavernise, ‘U.N. Warns of Refugee Crisis in Gaza Strip’, New York Times (13 January 2009), p. 5.

¹⁰⁷ MFA, ‘Behind the Headlines: The truth about Hamas crimes in Gaza’ (29 January 2009), available at: {http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/About+the+Ministry/Behind+the+Headlines/Hamas_crimes_in_Gaza_29-Jan-2009.htm} accessed 25 January 2009. See also MFA, ‘Israel's Operation against Hamas: Defeating Terror, Promoting Peace’ (2009), available at: {http://www.mfa.gov.il/NR/rdonlyres/100C3EB5-B451-452F-900F-221DB96D803A/0/MFAHamasOpPresentation.pdf} accessed 29 January 2009; MFA, ‘The Operation in Gaza: Factual and Legal Aspects, V. The Use of Force: IDF's Conduct of the Operation and Procedures to Ensure Compliance with International Law’ (29 July 2009), available at: {http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Hamas+war+against+Israel/Operation_Gaza_factual_and_legal_aspects_use_of_force_IDF_conduct_5_Aug_2009.htm} accessed 19 March 2010.

¹⁰⁸ NGO-Monitor, ‘The NGO Front in the Gaza War: Exploitation of International Law’ (21 January 2009), available at: {www.ngo-monitor.org/article.php?operation=print&id=2251} accessed 24 January 2009.

¹⁰⁹ G. M. Steinberg, ‘Can Israel win the “soft power” war in Gaza’, Jerusalem Post (29 December 2008), p. 13; G. M. Steinberg, ‘Human Rights Watch: White (phosphorous) lies’, Jerusalem Post (18 January 2009), p. 14; G. M. Steinberg, ‘For HRW, Israel is always guilty’, Jerusalem Post (26 January 2009), p. 15; R. A. Stoil, ‘Gaza war heads to the courts: Many overseas lawsuits simply aim for “attention”’, Jerusalem Post (19 January 2009), p. 6; A. Herzberg, ‘NGOs aid Hamas PR campaign’, Jerusalem Post (12 January 2009), p. 15; L. J. Davis, ‘Israel, Gaza and the double standard’, Washington Times (26 January 2009), p. A04.

¹¹⁰ Reut Institute, Building a Political Firewall Against Israel's Delegitimization. Conceptual Framework-Version A, The Reut Institute (March 2010); Steinberg, G., ‘From Durban to the Goldstone Report: The Centrality of Human Rights NGOs in the Political Dimension of the Arab-Israeli Conflict’, Israel Affairs, 18:3 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On ‘lawfare’, see Dunlap, C. J. Jr., ‘Lawfare Today: A Perspective’, Yale Journal of International Affairs, 3:1 (Winter 2008), p. 146Google Scholar; Scharf, M. P. and Pagano, S. (eds), ‘Lawfare!: Are America's Enemies Using the Law Against Us As a Weapon of War?’, Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, 43:1–2 (2011)Google Scholar.

¹¹¹ D. Taub, ‘Terror v. law’, International Herald Tribune (8 May 2009), p. 6.

¹¹² T. Risse and K. Sikkink, ‘The socialization of international human rights norms’, pp. 25–8, 29–31.

¹¹³ Ibid., p. 27.

¹¹⁴ Ibid., pp. 26–7.

¹¹⁵ On the strategies used by human rights groups in their appeals, Cohen, S., States of Denial: Knowing about atrocities and suffering (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2001)Google Scholar.

¹¹⁶ Schelling, T. C., The Strategy of Conflict (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1960), pp. 257–66Google Scholar; Schelling, T. C., Arms and Influence (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1966), pp. 131–41Google Scholar; Kier, E. and Mercer, J., ‘Setting Precedents in Anarchy: Military Intervention and Weapons of Mass Destruction’, International Security, 20:4 (1996), pp. 93–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar; F. Schimmelfennig, ‘The Community Trap’, p. 65; Schimmelfennig, F., ‘Entrapped again: The way to EU membership negotiations with Turkey’, International Politics, 46:4 (2009), p. 429CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On this debate see also Polletta, F., Ho, M. K., ‘Frames and their Consequences’, in Goodin, R. E. and Tilly, C. (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Contextual Political Analysis (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), pp. 199–201Google Scholar.

¹¹⁷ H. Lauterpacht, ‘The Problem of Revision of the Law of War’, British Yearbook of International Law, 29 (1952), p. 382. See also Henkin, Louis, How Nations Behave. Law and Foreign Policy (New York: Columbia University Press), 1979Google Scholar.

¹¹⁸ Koskenniemi, M., ‘What Is International Law For?’, in Evans, M. D. (ed.), International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006 [orig. pub. 2003])Google Scholar.

¹¹⁹ I thank an anonymous reviewer for suggesting this formulation.

¹²⁰ The argument that countries facing high levels of armed threats will typically resist international human rights pressures also finds support in the political repression literature. See Cardenas, S., Conflict and Compliance: State Responses to International Human Rights Pressure (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹²¹ Barkin, J. S., Realist Constructivism. Rethinking International Relations Theory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), pp. 85–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹²² Sagan, S. D., The Limits of Safety. Organizations, Accidents, and Nuclear Weapons (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993), pp. 207–10Google Scholar; Vaughan, D., The Challenger Launch Decision: Risky Technology, Culture and Deviance at NASA (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1996), pp. 62–8Google Scholar.