How should aid donors respond to human rights violations in ‘recipient’ countries? Much of the literature on this topic focuses on whether donors use aid conditionality rather than the effectiveness of different donor responses in preventing rights abuses. This article argues that to better understand the effectiveness of conditionality, and donor responses to rights violations more generally, it is necessary to consider the role of domestic actors and processes in recipient and donor countries. Drawing on the concept of ‘two-level games’, it develops a framework for donor responses to rights abuses that incorporates international- and domestic-level processes. This article examines these dynamics with a case study of donor responses to the Anti-Homosexuality Bill/Act in Uganda between 2009 and 2014. The analysis shows how different donor responses impacted the struggle against the repressive legislation—positively and negatively—through their effects on domestic actors. More broadly, the article shows that engaging with domestic actors and processes can shed light on how aid donors can most effectively respond to human rights violations in different political contexts.

援助捐助者应如何应对“受援国”侵犯人权的行为？关于这一主题的许多文献都关注捐助者是否使用援助条件，而不是不同捐助者应对措施在防止权利滥用方面的有效性。本文认为，为了更好地理解附加条件的有效性，以及更广泛地捐助者对侵犯权利的反应，有必要考虑受援国和捐助国的国内行为者和过程的作用。借鉴“两级博弈”的概念，它为捐助者应对侵权行为制定了一个框架，该框架包含了国际和国内层面的过程。本文通过对 2009 年至 2014 年间捐赠者对乌干达反同性恋法案/法案的反应的案例研究来检验这些动态。分析表明，不同的捐助者反应如何通过其对国内行为者的影响，对反对压制性立法的斗争产生积极和消极的影响。更广泛地说，文章表明，与国内行为者和进程的接触可以阐明援助捐助者如何最有效地应对不同政治背景下的侵犯人权行为。