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 theout 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