1932

Abstract

Fifty years ago, the world had very few human rights laws and very little information on human rights violations. Today, the situation could not be more different. The world is awash in laws and indicators of legal violations, and two perspectives have developed to explain their relationship. The factualist approach measures whatever information is available, however imperfectly, and assumes that the resulting indicators are valid representations of the theoretical concepts of interest. The constructivist approach reminds us that these processes are not independent and that a science of law and human rights is fallible. Though the conclusions from these perspectives diverge radically, they agree on a central notion: that international human rights law has contributed very little to social progress. We disagree and offer an alternative, constitutive approach that both accepts the critique of indicators and offers a way forward that encourages scholars to treat measurement itself as an object of theorizing and inquiry.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-110316-113333
2017-10-13
2024-06-19
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/lawsocsci/13/1/annurev-lawsocsci-110316-113333.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-110316-113333&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Abouharb MR, Cingranelli DL, Fillipov M. 2015. Do non-human rights regimes undermine the achievement of economic and social rights?. Closing the Rights Gap: From Human Rights to Social Transformation L Haglund, R Stryker 29–44 Oakland: Univ. Calif. Press [Google Scholar]
  2. Achen CH. 2005. Let's put garbage-can regressions and garbage-can probits where they belong. Confl. Manag. Peace Sci. 22:4327–39 [Google Scholar]
  3. Adcock R, Collier D. 2001. Measurement validity: a shared standard for qualitative and quantitative research. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 95:3529–46 [Google Scholar]
  4. Anti-Apartheid Mov. 1966. Annual Report London: Anti-Apartheid Mov. [Google Scholar]
  5. Armstrong D, Davenport C. 2004. Democracy and the violation of human rights: a statistical analysis from 1976 to 1996. Am. J. Political Sci. 48:3538–54 [Google Scholar]
  6. Ball P. 2016. Violence in blue: police homicides in the United States. Granta March 4 [Google Scholar]
  7. Banks DL. 1986. The analysis of human rights data over time. Hum. Rights Q. 8:654–80 [Google Scholar]
  8. Barsh RL. 1993. Measuring human rights: problems of methodology and purpose. Hum. Rights Q. 15:187–121 [Google Scholar]
  9. Benenson P. 1961. The forgotten prisoners. London Observer May 28 [Google Scholar]
  10. Berman MR, Clark RS. 1982. State terrorism: disappearances. Rutgers Law J 13:3531–78 [Google Scholar]
  11. Bollen KA. 1986. Political rights and political liberties in nations: an evaluation of human rights measures, 1950 to 1984. Hum. Rights Q. 8:4567–91 [Google Scholar]
  12. Bradley CG. 2015. International organizations and the production of indicators: the case of Freedom House. The Quiet Power of Indicators: Measuring Governance, Corruption, and Rule of Law SE Merry, KE Davis, B Kingsbury 27–74 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  13. Brysk A. 1994. The Politics of Human Rights in Argentina: Protest, Change, and Democratization Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  14. Camp Keith L. 1999. The United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Does it make a difference in human rights behavior?. J. Peace Res. 36:195–118 [Google Scholar]
  15. Carey SC. 2009. Protest, Repression and Political Regimes: An Empirical Analysis of Latin America and Sub-Saharan Africa London/New York: Routledge [Google Scholar]
  16. Cingranelli DL. 1988. Human Rights: Theory and Measurement New York: St. Martin's [Google Scholar]
  17. Cingranelli DL, Pasquarello TE. 1985. Human rights practices and the distribution of U.S. foreign aid to Latin American countries. Am. J. Political Sci. 29:3539–63 [Google Scholar]
  18. Cingranelli DL, Richards DL. 1999a. Measuring the pattern, level, and sequence of government respect for human rights. Int. Stud. Q. 43:2407–17 [Google Scholar]
  19. Cingranelli DL, Richards DL. 1999b. Respect for human rights after the end of the Cold War. J. Peace Res. 36:511–34 [Google Scholar]
  20. Clark A. 2001. Diplomacy of Conscience: Amnesty International and Changing Human Rights Norms Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  21. Clark AM, Sikkink K. 2013. Information effects and human rights data: Is the good news about increased human rights information bad news for human rights measures?. Hum. Rights Q. 35:3539–68 [Google Scholar]
  22. Claude RP. 1976. Empirical comparative rights research: some preliminary tests of development hypothesis. Comparative Human Rights RP Claude 51–76 Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  23. Conrad CR. 2012. Divergent incentive for dictators: domestic institutions and (international promises not to) torture. J. Confl. Resolut. 56:51–34 [Google Scholar]
  24. Conrad CR, Ritter EH. 2013. Treaties, tenure, and torture: the conflicting domestic effects of international law. J. Politics 75:2397–410 [Google Scholar]
  25. Coppedge M, Gerring J, Lindberg SI, Teorell J, Pemstein D. et al. 2014. V-Dem: a new way to measure democracy. J. Democr. 25:3159–69 [Google Scholar]
  26. Crabtree CD, Fariss CJ. 2015. Uncovering patterns among latent variables: human rights and de facto judicial independence. Res. Politics 2:31–9 [Google Scholar]
  27. Creamer CD, Simmons BA. 2015. Ratification, reporting, and rights: quality of participation in the convention against torture. Hum. Rights Q. 37:3579–608 [Google Scholar]
  28. Dancy G, Fariss CJ. 2017. Rescuing human rights law from legalism and its critics. Hum. Rights Q. 39:1–36 [Google Scholar]
  29. Dancy G, Lessa F, Marchesi B, Payne LA, Pereira G, Sikkink K. 2014. The Transitional Justice Research Collaborative: Bridging the Qualitative-Quantitative Divide With New Data http://www.transitionaljusticedata.com [Google Scholar]
  30. Dancy G, Michel V. 2016. Human rights enforcement from below: private actors and prosecutorial momentum in Latin America and Europe. Int. Stud. Q. 60:1173–88 [Google Scholar]
  31. Dancy G, Montal F. 2017. Unintended positive complementarity: why international criminal court investigations increase domestic human rights prosecutions. Am. J. Int. Law. In press [Google Scholar]
  32. Dancy G, Sikkink K. 2012. Treaty ratification and human rights prosecutions: toward a transnational theory. NYU J. Law Int. Politics 44:3751–90 [Google Scholar]
  33. Davenport C. 1995. Multi-dimensional threat perception and state repression: an inquiry into why states apply negative sanctions. Am. J. Political Sci. 39:683–713 [Google Scholar]
  34. Davenport C. 1996. “Constitutional promises” and repressive reality: a cross-national time-series investigation of why political and civil liberties are suppressed. J. Politics 58:627–54 [Google Scholar]
  35. Davenport C. 2007. State Repression and the Domestic Democratic Peace Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  36. Davis KE, Kingsbury B, Merry SE. 2015. The local-global life of indicators: law, power, and resistance. The Quiet Power of Indicators: Measuring Governance, Corruption, and Rule of Law KE Davis, B Kingsbury, SE Merry1–24 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  37. De Neufville JI. 1986. Human rights reporting as a policy tool: an examination of the State Department Country Reports. Hum. Rights Q. 8:4681–99 [Google Scholar]
  38. DeMars WE. 2005. NGOs and Transnational Networks: Wild Cards in World Politics London: Pluto [Google Scholar]
  39. Dezalay Y, Garth BG. 2002. Legitimating the new legal orthodoxy. Global Prescriptions: The Production, Exportation, and Importation of a New Legal Orthodoxy Y Dezalay, BG Garth 306–34 Ann Arbor: Univ. Mich. Press [Google Scholar]
  40. Diamond L. 2011. Why democracies survive. J. Democr. 22:117–30 [Google Scholar]
  41. Donnelly J, Howard RE. 1988. Assessing national human rights performance: a theoretical framework. Hum. Rights Q. 10:2214–48 [Google Scholar]
  42. Elliott MA. 2011. The institutional expansion of human rights, 1863–2003: a comprehensive dataset of international instruments. J. Peace Res. 48:4537–46 [Google Scholar]
  43. Fariss CJ. 2014. Respect for human rights has improved over time: modeling the changing standard of accountability. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 108:2297–318 [Google Scholar]
  44. Fariss CJ. 2017. The changing standard of accountability and the positive relationship between human rights treaty ratification and compliance. Br. J. Political Sci. In press [Google Scholar]
  45. Fein H. 1995. More murder in the middle: life-integrity violations and democracy in the world, 1987. Hum. Rights Q. 17:1170–91 [Google Scholar]
  46. Finnemore M, Toope SJ. 2001. Alternatives to “legalization”: richer views of law and politics. Int. Organ. 55:3743–58 [Google Scholar]
  47. Foucault M. 1980. Truth and power. Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972–1977 C Gordon 109–33 New York: Pantheon [Google Scholar]
  48. Fukuyama F. 2006. The End of History and the Last Man New York: Simon & Schuster [Google Scholar]
  49. Gastil R. 1980. Freedom in the World: Political Rights and Civil Liberties, 1980 New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books [Google Scholar]
  50. Giannone D. 2010. Political and ideological aspects in measurement of democracy: the Freedom House case. Democratization 17:168–97 [Google Scholar]
  51. Goldstein JS. 2012. Winning the War on War: The Decline of Armed Conflict Worldwide New York: Dutton [Google Scholar]
  52. Goldstein RJ. 1986. The limitations of using quantitative data in studying human rights abuses. Hum. Rights Q. 8:4607–27 [Google Scholar]
  53. Grant S. 2011. Amnesty's achievements: some reflections on the early years. 50 Years of Amnesty International: Reflections and Perspectives W de Jonge, B McGonigle Leyh, A Mihr, L van Troost 11–21 Utrecht, Neth.: SIM [Google Scholar]
  54. Green M. 2001. What we talk about when we talk about indicators: current approaches to human rights measurement. Hum. Rights Q. 23:41062–97 [Google Scholar]
  55. Greenhill B. 2010. The company you keep: international socialization and the diffusion of human rights norms. Int. Stud. Q. 54:1127–45 [Google Scholar]
  56. Gurr TR, Scarritt JR. 1989. Minorities rights at risk: a global survey. Hum. Rights Q. 11:3375–405 [Google Scholar]
  57. Hafner-Burton EM. 2014. A social science of human rights. J. Peace Res. 51:2273–86 [Google Scholar]
  58. Hafner-Burton EM, Ron J. 2009. Seeing double: human rights impact through qualitative and quantitative eyes. World Politics 61:2360–401 [Google Scholar]
  59. Hafner-Burton EM, Tsutsui K. 2005. Human rights in a globalizing world: the paradox of empty promises. Am. J. Sociol. 110:51373–411 [Google Scholar]
  60. Hafner-Burton EM, Tsutsui K. 2007. Justice lost! The failure of international human rights law to matter where needed most. J. Peace Res. 44:4407–25 [Google Scholar]
  61. Harff B, Gurr TR. 1988. Toward empirical theory of genocides and politicides: identification and measurement of cases since 1945. Int. Stud. Q. 32:3359–71 [Google Scholar]
  62. Hathaway OA. 2002. Do human rights treaties make a difference. Yale Law J 11:81935–2042 [Google Scholar]
  63. Henderson C. 1982. Military regimes and rights in developing countries: a comparative perspective. Hum. Rights Q. 4:110–23 [Google Scholar]
  64. Hibbs DA Jr.. 1973. Mass Political Violence: A Cross-National Causal Analysis New York: Wiley [Google Scholar]
  65. Hill DW Jr.. 2010. Estimating the effects of human rights treaties on state behavior. J. Politics 72:41161–74 [Google Scholar]
  66. Hollyer JR, Rosendorff BP. 2012. Do human rights agreements prolong the tenure of autocratic ratifiers?. NYU J. Int. Law Politics 44:3791–811 [Google Scholar]
  67. Hopgood S. 2013. The Endtimes of Human Rights Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  68. Howard R. 1983. The full-belly thesis: should economic rights take priority over civil and political rights? Evidence from sub-Saharan Africa. Hum. Rights Q. 5:4467–90 [Google Scholar]
  69. Howse R, Teitel R. 2010. Beyond compliance: rethinking why international law really matters. Glob. Policy 1:2127–36 [Google Scholar]
  70. Humana C. 1983. World Human Rights Guide London: Hutchinson [Google Scholar]
  71. Kalantry S, Getgen JE, Koh SA. 2010. Enhancing enforcement of economic, social, and cultural rights using indicators: a focus on the right to education in the ICESCR. Hum. Rights Q. 32:253–310 [Google Scholar]
  72. Kapiszewski D, Taylor MM. 2013. Compliance: conceptualizing, measuring, and explaining adherence to judicial rulings. Law Soc. Inq. 38:4803–35 [Google Scholar]
  73. Keck ME, Sikkink K. 1998. Activists beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  74. Keith LC. 2012. Political Repression Philadelphia: Univ. Pa. Press [Google Scholar]
  75. Keys B. 2010. Congress, Kissinger, and the origins of human rights diplomacy. Dipl. Hist. 34:5823–51 [Google Scholar]
  76. Landman T. 2004. Measuring human rights: principle, practice and policy. Hum. Rights Q. 26:4906–31 [Google Scholar]
  77. Landman T, Carvalho E. 2009. Measuring Human Rights New York: Routledge [Google Scholar]
  78. Linzer DA, Staton JK. 2015. A global measure of judicial independence, 1948–2012. J. Law Courts 3:2223–56 [Google Scholar]
  79. Lippman M. 1979. The protection of universal human rights: the problem of torture. Hum. Rights Q. 1:425–55 [Google Scholar]
  80. Lupu Y. 2013a. Best evidence: the role of information in domestic judicial enforcement of international human rights agreements. Int. Organ. 67:3469–503 [Google Scholar]
  81. Lupu Y. 2013b. The informative power of treaty commitment: using the spatial model to address selection effects. Am. J. Political Sci. 57:4912–25 [Google Scholar]
  82. Lupu Y. 2015. Legislative veto players and the effects of international human rights agreements. Am. J. Political Sci. 59:578–94 [Google Scholar]
  83. Mason TD, Krane DA. 1989. The political economy of death squads: toward a theory of the impact of state-sanctioned terror. Int. Stud. Q. 33:2175–98 [Google Scholar]
  84. McKinlay RD, Cohan AS. 1976. Performance and instability in military and nonmilitary regime systems. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 70:3850–64 [Google Scholar]
  85. McNitt AD. 1988. Some thoughts on the systematic measurement of the abuse of human rights. Human Rights: Theory and Measurement DL Cingranelli 89–103 London: Macmillan [Google Scholar]
  86. Mitchell NJ, McCormick JM. 1988. Economic and political explanations of human rights violations. World Politics 40:4476–98 [Google Scholar]
  87. Munck GL, Verkuilen J. 2002. Conceptualizing and measuring democracy: evaluating alternative indices. Comp. Political Stud. 35:15–34 [Google Scholar]
  88. Murdie A, Bhasin T. 2011. Aiding and abetting: human rights INGOs and domestic protest. J. Confl. Resolut. 55:2163–91 [Google Scholar]
  89. Nelsen D. 2015. Conclusion: contesting global indicators. The Quiet Power of Indicators: Measuring Governance, Corruption, and Rule of Law KE Davis, B Kingsbury, SE Merry 317–33 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  90. Neumayer E. 2005. Do international human rights treaties improve respect for human rights?. J. Confl. Resolut. 49:6925–53 [Google Scholar]
  91. Neyer J, Wolf D. 2005. The analysis of compliance with international rules: definitions, variables and methodology. Law and Governance in Postnational Europe M Zürn, C Joerges 40–64 New York: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  92. Norden E. 1966. American Atrocities in Vietnam New York: Liberation [Google Scholar]
  93. Park H. 1987. Correlates of human rights: global tendencies. Hum. Rights Q. 9:405–13 [Google Scholar]
  94. Pemstein D, Tzelgov E, Wang YT. 2015. Evaluating and improving item response theory models for cross-national expert surveys Work. Pap. Var. Democr. Inst. Gothenburg, Swed.: [Google Scholar]
  95. Pinker S. 2011. The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined New York: Penguin [Google Scholar]
  96. Poe SC. 1990. Human rights and US foreign aid: a review of quantitative studies and suggestions for future research. Hum. Rights Q. 12:4499–512 [Google Scholar]
  97. Poe SC, Carey SC, Vasquez TC. 2001. How are these pictures different? A quantitative comparison of the US State Department and Amnesty International Human Rights Reports, 1976–1995. Hum. Rights Q. 23:3650–77 [Google Scholar]
  98. Poe SC, Tate NC. 1994. Repression of human rights to personal integrity in the 1980s: a global analysis. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 88:853–900 [Google Scholar]
  99. Poe SC, Tate NC, Keith LC. 1999. Repression of the human right to personal integrity revisited: a global crossnational study covering the years 1976–1993. Int. Stud. Q. 43:2291–315 [Google Scholar]
  100. Posner EA. 2014. The Twilight of Human Rights Law Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  101. Powell EJ, Staton JK. 2009. Domestic judicial institutions and human rights treaty violation. Int. Stud. Q. 53:1149–74 [Google Scholar]
  102. Raustalia K, Slaughter A-M. 2002. International law, international relations and compliance. Handbook of International Relations W Carlnaes 538–58 Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage [Google Scholar]
  103. Regan PM, Henderson EA. 2002. Democracy, threats and political repression in developing countries: Are democracies internally less violent?. Third World Q 23:1119–36 [Google Scholar]
  104. Rejali D. 2007. Torture and Democracy Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  105. Rodley SN. 2011. Amnesty International's work on physical integrity—a personal reflection. 50 Years of Amnesty International: Reflections and Perspectives W de Jonge, B McGonigle Leyh, A Mihr, L van Troost 51–74 Utrecht, Neth.: SIM [Google Scholar]
  106. Ron J. 2000. Savage restraint: Israel, Palestine, and the dialectics of legal repression. Soc. Probl. 47:4445–72 [Google Scholar]
  107. Rosga A, Satterthwaite ML. 2009. The trust in indicators: measuring human rights. Berkley J. Int. Law 27:2253–315 [Google Scholar]
  108. Rubin BR, Newberg PR. 1980. Statistical analysis for implementing human rights policy. The Politics of Human Rights New York: NYU Press [Google Scholar]
  109. Rummel RJ. 1976. The Dimensionality of Nations Project Ann Arbor, MI: ICPSR Codebooks [Google Scholar]
  110. Satterthwaite ML. 2016. Coding personal integrity rights: assessing standards-based measures against human rights law and practice. NYU J. Int. Law Politics 48:513–79 [Google Scholar]
  111. Schnakenberg KE, Fariss CJ. 2014. Dynamic patterns of human rights practices. Political Sci. Res. Meth. 2:11–31 [Google Scholar]
  112. Schoultz L. 1981. U.S. foreign policy and human rights violations in Latin America: a comparative analysis of foreign aid distributions. Comp. Politics 13:2149–70 [Google Scholar]
  113. Schrodt PA. 2014. Seven deadly sins of contemporary quantitative political analysis. J. Peace Res. 51:287–300 [Google Scholar]
  114. Scoble H, Wiseberg L. 1981. Problems of comparative research in human rights. Global Human Rights: Public Policies, Comparative Measures and NGO Strategies V Nanda, JR Scarritt, G Shepherd 147–71 Boulder, CO: Westview [Google Scholar]
  115. Scott JC. 1998. Seeing like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  116. Sikkink K. 2011. The Justice Cascade: How Human Rights Prosecutions Are Changing World Politics New York: W.W. Norton [Google Scholar]
  117. Sikkink K. 2017. Evidence for hope: making human rights work in the 21st century. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  118. Simmons B. 2009. Mobilizing for Human Rights: International Law in Domestic Politics Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  119. Simmons BA, Danner A. 2010. Credible commitments and the International Criminal Court. Int. Organ. 64:2225–56 [Google Scholar]
  120. Spirer HF. 1990. Violations of human rights. How many? The statistical problems of measuring such infractions are tough, but statistical science is equal to it. Am. J. Econ. Sociol. 49:2199–210 [Google Scholar]
  121. Stohl M, Carleton D, Johnson SE. 1984. Human rights and U.S. foreign assistance from Nixon to Carter. J. Peace Res. 21:3215–25 [Google Scholar]
  122. Stohl M, Carleton D, Lopez G, Samuels S. 1986. State violation of human rights: issues and problems of measurement. Hum. Rights Q. 8:592–606 [Google Scholar]
  123. Stohl M, Lopez GA. 1986. Government Violence and Repression: An Agenda for Research New York: Greenwood [Google Scholar]
  124. Taylor C, Jodice D. 1983. World Handbook of Political and Social Indicators New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press, 3rd ed.. [Google Scholar]
  125. UN Gen. Assem. 1984. The Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment New York: UN Gen. Assem. [Google Scholar]
  126. Vreeland JR. 2008. Political institutions and human rights: why dictatorships enter into the United Nations Convention Against Torture. Int. Organ. 62:165–101 [Google Scholar]
  127. Wood R, Gibney M. 2010. The Political Terror Scale (PTS): a re-introduction and a comparison to CIRI. Hum. Rights Q. 32:2367–400 [Google Scholar]
  128. Zunino M. 2011. Releasing transitional justice from the technical asylum: judicial reform in Guatemala seen through Techne and Phronesis. Int. J. Transit. Justice 5:99–118 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-110316-113333
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-110316-113333
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error