Why have transnational advocacy networks (TANs) in the "human security" area mobilized around some issues (such as HIV-AIDS, landmines, genocide prevention, child soldiering, and violence against women) but not others (such as type 1 diabetes, gangs, forced conscription, stigma against children born of war rape, or autonomous weapons)?

With the support of the National Science Foundation and the Qualitative Data Analysis Program, we studied the human security network, documented the existing human security agenda, and explored reasons for variation in issue advocacy through dialogues with practitioners. Findings from this research have been published in Human Rights Quarterly and International Organization. They will also result in a book to be published by Cornell University Press.