0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Measuring the Impact of Human Rights: Conceptual and Methodological Debates

      1 , 2
      Annual Review of Law and Social Science
      Annual Reviews

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisher
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          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.

          Related collections

          Most cited references115

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Repression of Human Rights to Personal Integrity in the 1980s: A Global Analysis.

          This crossnational study seeks to explain variations in governmental repression of human rights to personal integrity (state terrorism) in a 153-country sample during the eighties. We outline theoretical perspectives on this topic and subject them to empirical tests using a technique appropriate for our pooled cross-sectional time-series design, namely, ordinary least squares with robust standard errors and a lagged dependent variable. We find democracy and participation in civil or international war to have substantively important and statistically significant effects on repression. The effects of economic development and population size are more modest. The hypothesis linking leftist regime types to abuse of personal integrity rights receives some support. We find no reliable evidence that population growth, British cultural influence, military control, or economic growth affect levels of repression. We conclude by considering the implications of our findings for scholars and practitioners concerned with the prevention of personal integrity abuse.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Measurement Validity: A Shared Standard for Qualitative and Quantitative Research

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Repression of the Human Right to Personal Integrity Revisited: A Global Cross-National Study Covering the Years 1976-1993

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Annual Review of Law and Social Science
                Annu. Rev. Law. Soc. Sci.
                Annual Reviews
                1550-3585
                1550-3631
                October 13 2017
                October 13 2017
                : 13
                : 1
                : 273-294
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Political Science, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109;
                [2 ]Department of Political Science, Tulane University, New Orleans, Louisiana 70118;
                Article
                10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-110316-113333
                e7b1996d-dc37-4871-9768-2a323a4bf24f
                © 2017

                http://www.annualreviews.org/licenses/tdm

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article