Occasional Papers, 2023-

Permanent URI for this collection

Occasional Papers explore salient topics related to the Indo-Pacific region through substantive analytical research that draws from and builds upon the findings from pertinent literature, interviews, and other relevant methodologies. This revamped series presents research findings on five broad themes: 1) Indo-Pacific strategic competition and international relations; 2) climate, energy, and environment; 3) emerging technology; 4) economic statecraft; and 5) international organization and multilateral diplomacy.


Recent Submissions

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
  • Item
    The West versus Beijing? : determinants of the UN Human Rights Council Vote (not) to debate human rights in Xinjiang
    (Honolulu, HI : East-West Center, 2023-09) Hendrix, Cullen S. ; Noland, Marcus ; East-West Center ; Peterson Institute for International Economics
    This paper addresses the factors shaping the vote of member states on the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) regarding whether to debate human rights conditions in the Xinjiang Autonomous Region of China. Explanations for the UNHRC’s decision not to debate human rights in Xinjiang fall into three categories: 1) democracy, development, and human rights performance; 2) demographic factors; and 3) security and economic ties to major powers, specifically the United States and China. Bayesian model averaging identifies three factors as robust covariates of the Xinjiang UNHRC vote: liberal democratic domestic institutions, NATO membership, and Chinese arms transfers. Countries with higher democracy scores and NATO member countries were more likely to vote yes, while recipients of Chinese arms transfers were more likely to vote no. In addition to its direct effect, liberal democracy exerts a significant indirect effect via its effect on Chinese arms transfers, with less democratic countries more likely to receive Chinese arms. Participation in the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is not a robust correlate when arms transfers are considered. Thus, our analysis lends support to interpreting the vote as a reflection of wider competition between the United States and China but rejects part of the conventional wisdom about how the two countries approach building and mobilizing coalitions in international institutions.