cultural heterogeneity of civil society, which typically includes forces unfriendly towards human rights” (Freeman, 2017). They argue that “[h]uman rights advocates assume a causal link between governmental action and human-rights protections: if a government does not control its territory and population, this link is broken; if a government can legitimise its human rights violations, for example by claiming that there are threats to the state and/or the nation, the causal link is maintained but the violations are legitimised” (ibid; Jetschke and Liese, 2013). With the studies mentioned above that have aimed at observing states behaviour when they ratify international human rights mechanisms, we are able to see how this causal link is not certain. The spiral model seems to only conceptualise a portion of the constitutive relationship between the state and international human rights norms. It, therefore, fails to explain why recalcitrant states such as China have had such a significant influence over the enforcement mechanisms on international human rights norms. Powerful economic states like China are able to reconstitute their own international normative structure, it is, therefore, important to examine whether world position makes a difference in human rights protections and whether this has an influence on the domestic impact of human rights norms (Landman, 2005). The spiral model is unable to acknowledge the impact of the economy, and how this can impact states behaviour and their hesitance from moving from stage four to stage five. This leads to other various criticisms of the spiral model as although it seeks to address the processes by which countries transition from denial of human rights abuses to transparency, commitment and compliance it does have limitations on its ability to effectively do so. It is questionable to suggest that target states generally go through these specific stages without highlighting possibilities of whether different paths are possible too. Marsh and Payne (2007) go further with this critic stating that “we may be able to place all countries in the world into one of these phases, the fact is that most states in phase five did not get there by progressing through earlier stages. Many countries have reached phase five through human rights movements from primarily domestic sources which evolved over centuries”. Thus, theories in political science must take into account the historical evolution of human rights when analysing state parties as this may be a better way of explaining some states responses to human rights. This is not to say one discipline is to have a hierarchal worth for its approach to human rights, it is that human rights are best understood by multiple perspectives as individual experiences are far more complex to only look at one approach. The human security approach, which arose from the ashes of the Cold War, has also becom>