Human rights advocates, particularly intergovernmental organizations (IGO), consider donors’ interests when conducting human rights shaming. Allies of donors receive preferential treatment from IGOs. Do IGOs automatically treat allies of donors more leniently or do they consider the donors’ interests in the specific area being reviewed? This article argues that donor interest considerations are policy-area-specific. I substantiate this argument by analysing the association between shaming and partnership with the US, using a new dataset which measures shaming under the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). I use several analysis methods and data matching. The results indicate that having a trade agreement with the US is associated with receiving more criticism under the ICESCR. Rather than giving automatic preferential treatment to allies and partners of the UN’s main donor, the ICESCR committee adjusts its shaming to the US’s interest vis-à-vis its partners in the policy-areas affected by the treaty.

中文翻译：

---

将捐助者的利益情境化：联合国对美国贸易伙伴的羞辱

人权倡导者，特别是政府间组织 (IGO)，在进行人权羞辱时会考虑捐助者的利益。捐助者的盟友从 IGO 获得优惠待遇。IGO 是否会自动更宽松地对待捐助者的盟友，还是会考虑捐助者在正在审查的特定领域的利益？本文认为，捐助者的利益考虑是特定于政策领域的。我通过分析羞辱和与美国的伙伴关系之间的关联来证实这一论点，使用一个新的数据集来衡量经济社会和文化权利国际公约 (ICESCR) 下的羞辱。我使用了几种分析方法和数据匹配。结果表明，与美国签订贸易协定与在 ICESCR 下受到更多批评有关。与受条约影响的政策领域的合作伙伴。