1932

Abstract

The human rights movement is increasingly using interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary, mixed-methods, and quantitative factfinding. There has been too little analysis of these shifts. This article examines some of the opportunities and challenges of these methods, focusing on the investigation of socio-economic human rights. By potentially expanding the amount and types of evidence available, factfinding's accuracy and persuasiveness can be strengthened, bolstering rights claims. However, such methods can also present significant challenges and may pose risks in individual cases and to the human rights movement generally. Interdisciplinary methods can be costly in human, financial, and technical resources; are sometimes challengingto implement; may divert limited resources from other work; can reify inequalities; may produce “expertise” that disempowers rightsholders; and could raise investigation standards to an infeasible or counterproductive level. This article includes lessons learned and questions to guide researchers and human rights advocates considering mixed-methods human rights factfinding.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-121620-081730
2021-10-13
2024-04-22
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/lawsocsci/17/1/annurev-lawsocsci-121620-081730.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-121620-081730&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Alston P, Knuckey S 2016a. The Transformation of Human Rights Fact-Finding Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  2. Alston P, Knuckey S 2016b. The transformation of human rights fact-finding: challenges and opportunities. See Alston & Knuckey 2016a 3–12
  3. Andreassen BA, Sano HO, McInerney-Lankford S 2017. Research Methods in Human Rights: A Handbook Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar
  4. Ball P. 2016. The bigness of big data: samples, models, and the facts we might find when looking at data. See Alston & Knuckey 2016a 425–38
  5. Chapman AR, Ball P. 2001. The truth of truth commissions: comparative lessons from Haiti, South Africa, and Guatemala. Hum. Rights Q. 23:1–44
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Combs NA. 2010. Fact-Finding Without Facts: Uncertain Evidentiary Foundations of International Criminal Convictions Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  7. Coomans F, Grünfeld F, Kamminga MT 2009. Methods of Human Rights Research Cambridge, UK: Intersentia
  8. Corkery A. 2016. Investigating economic, social, and cultural rights violations. See Alston & Knuckey 2016a 377–93
  9. Fondebrider L, Scheinsohn V 2015. Forensic archaeology: the Argentinian way. Forensic Archaeology: A Global Perspective WJM Groen, N Márquez-Grant, RC Janaway 369–78 Hoboken, NJ: Wiley
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Giffard C. 2000. The Torture Reporting Handbook. Colchester, UK: Univ. Essex
  11. Glob. Indig. Data Alliance 2019. CARE principles for indigenous data governance https://www.gida-global.org/care
  12. Groome D. 2011. The Handbook of Human Rights Investigation Scotts Valley, CA: CreateSpace, 2nd ed..
  13. Heller KJ. 2021. The UN International Commission of Inquiry (2011–2012) and international crimes in Libya. International Commissions: The Role Of Commissions of Inquiry in the Investigation of International Crimes J Meierhenrich Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press In press
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Hum. Rights Watch 2020. About our research https://www.hrw.org/about-our-research
  15. Int. Bar Assoc 2009. Guidelines on International Human Rights Fact-Finding Visits and Reports: The Lund-London Guidelines Chicago: Am. Bar Assoc.
  16. Kim HJ. 2016. The role of UN Commissions of Inquiry in developing global human rights: prospects and challenges. Korean J. Int. Stud. 14:2241–64
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Koettl C, Murray D, Dubberley S 2020. Open source investigation for human rights reporting: a brief history. Digital Witness: Using Open Source Information for Human Rights Investigation, Documentation, and Accountability S Dubberley, A Keonig, D Murray 12–31 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  18. McConnell L, Smith R 2018. Research Methods in Human Rights Abingdon, UK: Routledge
  19. Montgomery B. 2004. Fact-finding by human rights non-governmental organizations: challenges, strategies, and the shaping of archival evidence. Archivaria 58:29–30
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Mwatana Hum. Rights 2016. Chapters from hell: violations of the international humanitarian law in the armed ground conflict in Taiz Rep., Mwatana Hum. Rights, Sana'a Yemen:
  21. Nowak M. 2009. Fact-finding on torture and ill-treatment and conditions of detention. J. Hum. Rights Pract. 1:1101–19
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Orentlicher D. 1990. Bearing witness: the art and science of human rights fact-finding. Harvard Hum. Rights J. 3:83–135
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Price M. 2013. Convenience samples: what they are, and what they should (and should not) be used for. Human Rights Data Analysis Group April 5. https://hrdag.org/2013/04/05/convenience-samples-what-they-are/
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Satterthwaite M. 2021. The seductions of quantification rebuffed? The curious failure by the CESCR to engage water and sanitation data. Festschrift in Honor of Sally Engle Merry P Alston Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press. In press
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Satterthwaite M, Kacinski D. 2017. Quantitative methods in advocacy oriented human rights research. See Andreassen et al. 2017 pp. 282305
  26. Satterthwaite M, Simeone J. 2016. A conceptual roadmap for social science methods in human rights fact-finding. See Alston & Knuckey 2016a 321–54
  27. Seybolt TB, Aronson JD, Fischhoff B 2013. Introduction. Counting Civilian Casualties: Introduction to Recording and Estimating Nonmilitary Deaths in Conflict TB Seybolt, JD Aronson, B Fischhoff 3–14 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Steadman DW, Hagland WD. 2005. The scope of anthropological contributions to human rights investigations. J. Forensic Sci. 50:123–30
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Stokols D. 2006. Toward a science of transdisciplinary action research. Am. J. Community Psychol. 38:63–77
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Stokols D, Fuqua J, Gress J, Harvey R, Phillips K et al. 2003. Evaluating transdisciplinary science. Nicotine Tob. Res. 5:S21–S39
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Sunga LS. 2011. How can UN human rights special procedures sharpen ICC fact-finding?. Int. J. Hum. Rights 15:2187–205
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Thoolen H, Verstappen B. 1986. Human Rights Missions: A Study of the Fact-Finding Practice of Non-Governmental Organizations Leiden, Neth: Brill
  33. Wagner C, Roessner JD, Bobb K, Klein JT, Boyack KW et al. 2011. Approaches to understanding and measuring interdisciplinary scientific research (IDR): a review of the literature. J. Inf. 165:14–26
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Weissbrodt D, McCarthy J 1982. Fact-finding by nongovernmental organizations. International Law and Fact-Finding in the Field of Human Rights BG Ramcharan 173–219 Leiden, Neth: Brill
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-121620-081730
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