Rights-Protection Lawyers in China: A Behavioral and Rational Choice Analysis of Lawyers in an Authoritarian State
Human rights literature has generally assumed a rational choice framework when analyzing a state’s failure to comply with human rights norms. The major principle of rational choice theory is that an actor will pursue activities that she expects will maximize her utility. Some recent scholarship has applied social science research calling this principle into question, often referred to as behavioral research, in the context of human rights. Even though much of the current literature treats these two frameworks as competitors, this Note explores how both rational choice theory and behavioral research offer insights into different aspects of a state’s decision to deviate from human rights norms. After outlining the two frameworks in Part I, Part II provides background on the development of China’s legal system and the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) recent decision to detain over 200 rights-protection lawyers. Part III utilizes both rational choice and behavioral research in order to explain why the CCP tolerated the emergence of rights-protection lawyers and why it seemingly reverted to the expected authoritarian position by cracking down on these lawyers. This Note concludes with a discussion of the distinct but complimentary strategies that rational choice and behavioral research suggest that could improve compliance with human rights norms.