human rights research problem

Programs submenu

Regions submenu, topics submenu, press briefing: kenyan state visit, the challenge of financing global health, operations in the red sea: lessons for surface warfare, cooperative approaches to counter-narcotics: perspectives from the director of national drug control policy.

• Abshire-Inamori Leadership Academy
• Aerospace Security Project
• Africa Program
• Americas Program
• Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy
• Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative
• Asia Program
• Australia Chair
• Brzezinski Chair in Global Security and Geostrategy
• Brzezinski Institute on Geostrategy
• Chair in U.S.-India Policy Studies
• China Power Project
• Chinese Business and Economics
• Defending Democratic Institutions
• Defense-Industrial Initiatives Group
• Defense 360
• Defense Budget Analysis
• Diversity and Leadership in International Affairs Project
• Economics Program
• Emeritus Chair in Strategy
• Energy Security and Climate Change Program
• Europe, Russia, and Eurasia Program
• Freeman Chair in China Studies
• Futures Lab
• Geoeconomic Council of Advisers
• Global Food and Water Security Program
• Global Health Policy Center
• Hess Center for New Frontiers

Human Rights Initiative

• Humanitarian Agenda
• Intelligence, National Security, and Technology Program
• International Security Program
• Japan Chair
• Kissinger Chair
• Korea Chair
• Langone Chair in American Leadership
• Middle East Program
• Missile Defense Project
• Project on Critical Minerals Security
• Project on Fragility and Mobility
• Project on Nuclear Issues
• Project on Prosperity and Development
• Project on Trade and Technology
• Renewing American Innovation Project
• Scholl Chair in International Business
• Smart Women, Smart Power
• Southeast Asia Program
• Stephenson Ocean Security Project
• Strategic Technologies Program
• Transnational Threats Project
• Wadhwani Center for AI and Advanced Technologies
• All Regions
• Australia, New Zealand & Pacific
• Middle East
• Russia and Eurasia
• American Innovation
• Civic Education
• Climate Change
• Cybersecurity
• Defense Budget and Acquisition
• Defense and Security
• Energy and Sustainability
• Food Security
• Gender and International Security
• Geopolitics
• Global Health

Human Rights

• Humanitarian Assistance
• Intelligence
• International Development
• Maritime Issues and Oceans
• Missile Defense
• Nuclear Issues
• Transnational Threats
• Water Security
• Human Security
• Transitional Justice

CSIS Human Rights Initiative undertakes research and analysis on the critical role that human rights and democratic values play in a comprehensive and sustainable foreign policy.

Photo: RODRIGO BUENDIA/AFP via Getty Images

In the Eye of the Storm: Ecuador’s Compounding Crises

Drawing on extensive fieldwork, CSIS Americas Program director Ryan C. Berg and Rubi Bledsoe examine the causes of Ecuador's security crisis.

Commentary by Ryan C. Berg and Rubi Bledsoe — April 24, 2024

Updates on the Release of the U.S. National Action Plan on Responsible Business Conduct

Critical Questions by Scott Busby and Lauren Burke — April 8, 2024

Launch of the United States Guidance for Online Platforms on Protecting Human Rights Defenders Online

Transcript — March 29, 2024

Advancing Decent Work and Labor Rights Globally

Transcript — February 21, 2024

Latest Podcasts

A Mezze: The Bonds of Marriage between Syria and Iraq

Podcast Episode by Josh Phillips — May 7, 2024

Analysis: Support for Refugees Erodes in the Middle East

Podcast Episode by Leah Hickert and Will Todman — April 10, 2024

Amb. David Satterfield: Humanitarian Aid in Gaza

Podcast Episode by Jon B. Alterman, Will Todman, and Leah Hickert — February 20, 2024

“Ukraine’s Rapid Digitalization: Human Rights Risks and Opportunities in a Postwar Environment”: Audio Brief with Lauren Burke

Podcast Episode by Lauren Burke — February 14, 2024

Past Events

The State of Governance and Rule of Law in Uganda

The Impossible State Live Podcast: Diplomacy or Crisis with DPRK in 2024?

A Human Rights Approach to Ukraine's Rapid Digitalization

Report Launch: China’s Role in Democratic Backsliding in Latin America and the Caribbean

Venezuela's Deteriorating Electoral Conditions: A Conversation with María Corina Machado

El Salvador’s 2024 Elections: Voting in a One-Party State?

Related programs.

Michelle Strucke

Benjamin Jensen

All human rights content, type open filter submenu.

• Article (338)
• Event (258)
• Expert/Staff (30)
• Podcast Episode (203)
• Podcast Series (1)
• Report (121)

Article Type open filter submenu

Report type open filter submenu, region open filter submenu.

• Afghanistan (40)
• Africa (181)
• Americas (249)
• Australia, New Zealand & Pacific (14)
• Caribbean Security (42)
• Central Asia (10)
• Eastern Europe (18)
• Egypt and the Levant (30)
• Europe (78)
• European Union (25)
• Middle East (139)
• North Africa (45)
• North Africa (10)
• North America (106)
• Pakistan (7)
• Russia (37)
• Russia and Eurasia (54)
• South America (89)
• Southeast Asia (74)
• Sub-Saharan Africa (97)
• The Gulf (21)
• The South Caucasus (2)
• Turkey (12)

Desperate for stability and lured by promises of a life of luxury, a Syrian widow accepted a marriage proposal from a member of an Iraqi militia. She did not know that she would become one of dozens of Syrian women to fall victim to Iraqi marriage exploitation in the past year alone. 

This week, Leah Hickert speaks with Will Todman, deputy director and senior fellow with the CSIS Middle East Program, about how displacement has become a flashpoint across the region and the innovative solutions necessary to mitigate these crises. A new Analysis from the CSIS Middle East Program.

The updated National Action Plan for Responsible Business Conduct aims to help the government and private sector positively impact the communities in which they operate and promote business practices that are transparent, accountable, and respecting of human rights.

Agather Atuhaire, one of Uganda’s most prominent investigative journalists, on the state of Ugandan politics today.

Event — April 3, 2024

Digital technologies are a vital resource for Human Rights Defenders (HRDs) and civic actors around the world.  Join the CSIS Human Rights Initiative as they host the U.S. Department of State's launch of their new Guidance for Online Platforms On Protecting Human Rights Defenders Online. 

Event — March 29, 2024

The   CSIS Human Rights Initiative hosted the U.S. Department of State's launch of their new Guidance for Online Platforms On Protecting Human Rights Defenders Online.

Please join the Impossible State podcast for a special discussion on DPRK.

Event — March 18, 2024

Join CSIS for an event on centering human rights values within Ukraine's post-war digitalization.

Event — February 22, 2024

Join the Human Rights Initiative for a discussion of the impact of the global labor rights movement on American workers, businesses, and consumers. 

Event — February 21, 2024

United Nations

Office on drugs and crime.

• Human rights
• Thematic areas

Research and Data Analysis

• Our approach
• Policy frameworks

The promotion of human rights requires documentation of their abuse. Through research, UNODC promotes human rights by collecting data on and analysing crimes with human rights implications. Biennially, it publishes the Global Report on Trafficking in Persons , which tracks violations of Article 4 (prohibition of slavery) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The Global Study on Smuggling of Migrants also documents crimes affecting thousands of the most vulnerable. Other work, such as the periodic Global Study on Homicide , reflects on the deprivation of life and violence against women and children. UNODC research on drug problems, such as the World Drug Report , highlights the human rights concerns in the areas of justice, security and health by presenting the vulnerabilities of different population groups that have been affected by the drug problem at different levels. In 2022, UNODC published a research brief to explore how the lived experience of incarcerated individuals can be better integrated into evidence-based policy to support rehabilitation.

Through its annual surveys, UNODC also collects data on criminal justice operations ( UN-CTS ) and the drug problem ( ARQ ) that directly impact human rights, including the rights to life, liberty, access to justice and due process. Analysing these data can help to shed light on human rights violations related to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Data are all sex and age disaggregated so that discrimination in the criminal justice system can be properly analysed. National and regional studies on the relationship between crime and development also reflect on the right of all human beings to reach their full potential.

UNODC standards in the field of statistics promote the development of national crime statistical systems able to provide human-rights sensitive information. The International Classification of Crime for Statistical Purposes (ICCS), for example, promotes the classification of crime according to a number of disaggregating and qualifying variables, thereby facilitating the identification of vulnerable populations and typologies of crime relevant to understand human rights abuses.

Further examples of knowledge produced by UNODC research at national, regional or global level highlighting human rights concerns include:

• Killings of women and girls by their intimate partner or other family members.
• Gaps in accessibility or availability of drug treatment services for people who use drugs.
• Gender and corruption in Nigeria
• Access to and availability of services for prevention, treatment and care for people who use drugs living with HIV in the community and prisons.
• Monitoring SDG 16: Key figures and trends.
• Vulnerabilities of women, young people and older people with regard to drug use, its health and social consequences, as well as their vulnerabilities in drug cultivation, production, trafficking and in contact with the criminal justice system.
• Homicide by sex, age, and mechanisms, including family-related homicide of women and men.
• Extent of pre-trial detention.
• Fraud Alert
• Legal Notice

• Search Menu
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Open Access
• Why Publish
• About Human Rights Law Review
• Editorial Board
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Journals Career Network
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Dispatch Dates
• Terms and Conditions
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

• 1. INTRODUCTION
• 2. ROLE OF THE RESEARCHER: ACADEMIC NEUTRALITY VERSUS ACADEMICS AS AGENTS OF SOCIAL CHANGE
• 3. HISTORY OF DISABILITY RESEARCH: RECOGNISING MARGINALISATION AND REACTING
• 4. EVOLUTION OF DISABILITY RESEARCH: METHODOLOGIES TOWARDS SOCIAL CHANGE
• 5. HUMAN RIGHTS-BASED RESEARCH: A WAY FORWARD
• 6. IMPLEMENTING HUMAN RIGHTS-BASED RESEARCH: ADDRESSING THE CHALLENGES
• 7. CONCLUSION
• < Previous

Introducing a Human Rights-based Disability Research Methodology

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Anna Arstein-Kerslake, Yvette Maker, Eilionóir Flynn, Olympia Ward, Ruby Bell, Theresia Degener, Introducing a Human Rights-based Disability Research Methodology, Human Rights Law Review , Volume 20, Issue 3, September 2020, Pages 412–432, https://doi.org/10.1093/hrlr/ngaa021

• Permissions Icon Permissions

Research has the potential to be a powerful tool for the realisation of the rights of disabled people. However, antiquated research practices continue to marginalise disabled people by excluding them from research; inadequately remunerating them for participation in research; undertaking research that assumes difference; and not including their voice in the leadership design or implementation of research. This article builds on emancipatory, participatory and inclusive research methodologies to introduce a new human rights-based disability research methodology that presents a roadmap to overcome these problems and transform research into a means of rights realisation. It presents a protocol for the methodology that was created by the international Disability Human Rights Research Network. Finally, it explores many challenges that researchers may face when endeavouring to implement the methodology.

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• Recommend to your Library

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1744-1021
• Print ISSN 1461-7781
• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

• Tools and Resources
• Customer Services
• Conflict Studies
• Development
• Environment
• Foreign Policy
• Human Rights
• International Law
• Organization
• International Relations Theory
• Political Communication
• Political Economy
• Political Geography
• Political Sociology
• Politics and Sexuality and Gender
• Qualitative Political Methodology
• Quantitative Political Methodology
• Security Studies
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Article contents

Human rights: effectiveness of international and regional mechanisms.

• Par Engstrom Par Engstrom Institutional Research Information Service, University College London
• https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190846626.013.214
• Published in print: 01 March 2010
• Published online: 22 December 2017

The issue of human rights presents a dilemma for the discipline of international relations (IR) in general and the literature on international institutions in particular. Since international human rights institutions are primarily, but not exclusively, concerned with how states treat their own citizens, they seek to empower individual citizens and groups vis-à-vis their own governments. A major concern is whether such institutions make a difference for the protection and promotion of human rights. This concern has spawned a series of research questions and some major lines of enquiry. The study of human rights regimes has developed at the interface between IR and international law, along with the norms and practices of global human rights institutions. In addition, human rights has been institutionalized globally through the United Nations system and the connections between the development over time of international human rights institutions on the one hand, and their relative effectiveness in shaping human rights behavior on the other. The development and impact of international human rights law and policy have also been influenced by regionalism. While the research on human rights regimes has provided important insights into the role of institutions in narrowing the gap between the rhetoric and practice of human rights, there are crucial areas that need further scholarly attention, such as the domestic actors and institutions that act and could potentially act as “compliance constituencies” and conduits of domestic implementation linking international human rights norms to domestic political and legal institutions and actors.

• human rights
• international relations
• international institutions
• human rights regimes
• international law
• United Nations
• human rights behavior
• international human rights law
• regionalism

Introduction

This essay examines the study of human rights regimes in the field of International Relations (IR). In particular, it explores the links between theories of regimes (how are the origins, development and effects of regimes on politics explained?) on the one hand, and the evolving norms and practices of human rights embedded within the institutions of international and global society, on the other. Despite the ubiquitous institutional presence of human rights in world politics, the subject of human rights regimes remains somewhat elusive. The first section therefore seeks to give a general overview of how the study of human rights regimes has developed at the interface between IR and international law with a view to outlining the subject of research; to survey the main approaches adopted; to give a sense of why regimes matter and to what extent they could be understood to be “effective.” In particular, the implications of the analytical shift from the inter-state dynamics of international society to its transnational dimensions for the study of human rights regimes are outlined. Building on this last point, the second section explores the ways in which the norms and practices of global human rights institutions have evolved since World War II and into the age of globalization. The focus here is on the institutionalization of human rights globally through the United Nations system and the connections between the development over time of international human rights institutions on the one hand and their relative effectiveness in shaping human rights behavior on the other. Against this global background, the third section examines the comparative development of regional human rights regimes. Particular emphasis is put on the role and influence of regionalism in shaping the development and impact of international human rights law and policy.

The Study of Human Rights Regimes

In recent decades the scholarship on international organizations, institutions, and regimes has burgeoned in response to the increasingly institutionalized character of world politics (Martin and Simmons 2001 ). In the early years of the post-war era, the term “international institution” generally referred to international organizations (IOs). Yet, over time the distinction has been established between “the role of institutions , defined […] as settled practices, and formal organizations that possess formal hierarchies of decision making and that are palpable entities, such as bureaucracies with headquarters that issue directives and might administer certain programs and activities” (Kratochwil and Mansfield 1994 : Preface). The perceived gap between the formal structures of IOs on the one hand and the actual processes of international politics on the other led in the 1970s to a move away from the study of formally established international organizations to that of “regimes” (Krasner 1983 ). The study of international regimes sought to supplement the technical aspects of formal IOs within an analytical framework that focused on the rules, norms, and principles governing state behavior. Regimes were specifically concerned with state cooperation in particular issue-areas, and on one influential account were defined as “persistent and connected sets of rules (formal and informal) that prescribe behavioral roles, constrain activity, and shape expectations” (Keohane 1988 ). However, as noted by Simmons and Martin ( 2002 :194), this definition of regimes makes it difficult to assess whether institutions affect behavior and shape expectation, that is, to evaluate institutions’ “effectiveness.” Other critiques of the early regime literature highlighted its relative neglect of international law, and broader institutional and normative dynamics of the international system in which regimes are embedded (Hurrell 1993 ). The term “international institution” now tends to coexist and is often equated with “international regime” (Hasenclever et al. 1997 ), and though institutions are generally considered to be specifically normative (i.e. they identify general standards of behavior, and define actors’ rights and obligations), for some, the definition does not insist that institutions are “effective,” that is, that they necessarily affect behavior (Levy et al. 1995 ). On this account, international institutions are broadly understood as sets of rules meant to govern international behavior in specific issue-areas, whilst rules in turn are seen as statements that forbid, require, or permit certain kinds of actions.

The particular issue-area of human rights raises a puzzle for the discipline of IR in general and the literature on international institutions in particular. As Moravcsik notes, unlike other forms of institutionalized cooperation that are designed to manage international concerns – trade, monetary, environmental, or security policy for example – international human rights seek to monitor and regulate essentially domestic political activities. Moreover, “[i]n contrast to most international regimes […] human rights regimes are not generally enforced by interstate action” (Moravcsik 2000 :217). Instead, since international human rights institutions are primarily, but not exclusively, concerned with how states treat their own citizens, these institutions seek to empower individual citizens and groups vis-à-vis their own governments. From this perspective, states are the source of the international human rights system and the principal contemporary mechanisms for implementing and enforcing rights (Henkin 1989 :25). Yet, the expansion of human rights norms during the second half of the twentieth century and in recent decades in particular has increasingly blurred the boundaries and highlighted the multiple linkages between the national and the international. It is through these broader concerns with international regimes, transnational dynamics, and the role of norms in international life that human rights institutions now have entered mainstream IR scholarship.

Compliance, Enforcement, and Effectiveness

The creation and evolution of human rights as embodied in international human rights law and its associated institutions and mechanisms is a very significant feature of the legal and normative changes that international society has undergone since the end of World War II. Human rights scholarship has traditionally focused on the emergence of particular human rights claims and their incorporation through international legal processes into binding legal norms. Significant attention has also been given to the development of the international legal and institutional machinery that is designed to monitor human rights and pursue strategies for greater recognition and implementation of human rights. While this scholarship has overall generated significant insights into the conditions under which international institutions are created and why states “design” them the way they do, relatively little consideration has been given to questions of how human rights institutions actually work, and why and when they “matter.” Hence, the general development of human rights scholarship toward a focus on institutional impact and effectiveness has led scholars to turn from questions of why international institutions exist to how they significantly affect state behavior and outcomes, that is, issues of compliance, enforcement and effectiveness specifically (Schmitz and Sikkink 2002 ).

As questions surrounding state compliance with international legal norms have entered mainstream IR scholarship, the scope for increasingly fruitful engagement with international law scholarship has significantly widened, particularly in relation to the role of legal rules in shaping behavior. Raustiala and Slaughter ( 2002 :539) argue in a recent review of the literature that “most theories of compliance with international law are at bottom theories of behavioural influence of legal rules” and they define compliance as “a state of conformity or identity between an actor’s behavior and a specified rule.” On this understanding, compliance is distinct from (although related to) questions of effectiveness. For example, international rules as embedded in regimes can be effective even if compliance is low as “high levels of compliance can indicate low, readily met and ineffective standards” and regimes with “significant non-compliance can still be effective if they induce changes in behavior.” For Levy et al. ( 1995 :292) in contrast, international regimes generally emerge in response to problems, and “[e]ffective regimes cause changes in the behaviour of actors and in patterns of interaction among them in ways that contribute to the management of targeted problems.” From this perspective, assessments of regime effectiveness focus on the capacity of regimes to generate specific policies and the extent to which these are implemented through the passage of legislation, the creation or reform of domestic institutions that prove effective in attaining regime objectives. On this account, the emphasis lies on observable behavior and effectiveness is evaluated on the basis of the degree to which a regime ameliorates the problem that prompted its creation in the first place. In much international law scholarship, understandings of effectiveness tend to focus on the degree to which a particular issue or problem give rise to contractual obligations, become regulated by law, and the extent to which the legal rules are complied with. From this perspective, the question of effectiveness is understood to relate to whether international law and institutions make a difference to how states and domestic actors behave.

In the area of international human rights, the specific question of regime effectiveness has been the focus of much recent quantitative research on the relationship between international human rights law and actual protection of human rights, and whether human rights institutions are effective in affecting behavior. This framing of the research problem of institutional effectiveness has generated an important methodological diversity in the study of human rights regimes. However, this research also tends to underplay the long-term evolution of human rights norms and institutions. Schmitz and Sikkink ( 2002 :525–6) emphasize that the “initial recognition of a norm or even binding conventions have often highlighted, rather than immediately narrowed, the gap between rhetoric and practice.” Young ( 1992 :160) notes that regime effects – variably understood in the literature in terms of regime consequences, impact and effectiveness – are difficult to separate from broader questions concerned with regime origins and evolution. In other words, although questions of regime effectiveness focus on the role of institutions in shaping human rights behavior (institutions as independent variables), the importance of thinking about these institutions as dependent variables whose character is shaped by a variety of factors is frequently emphasized in the literature. For example, Levy et al. ( 1995 ) argue that the nature and course of the evolution of international institutions can indicate the extent of autonomy, robustness, and authority these entities develop over time; factors that are commonly considered to shape institutional impact. Also, in a recent review of the literature Hafner-Burton and Ron ( 2009 ) argue that scholarly assessments of the role of law and institutions in protecting human rights tend to be significantly shaped by choice of research method. Whilst statistically inclined research generally attributes very little impact, if any, to international human rights institutions, qualitative case studies tend to find often significant influence of international law and institutions on political behavior. Such divergent assessments may, they note, be grounded in often-irreconcilable epistemological positions with many qualitative scholars rejecting the utilitarian groundings of research into questions of “effectiveness.” These methodological divisions are partly reflected in the IR literature in relation to understandings of human rights compliance, enforcement and regime effectiveness.

How Human Rights Regimes Affect Behavior

For some, human rights only come to matter when powerful states take them up and seek to use their own power to enforce human rights standards. On this view, human rights institutions are of only marginal importance, as “[m]ost human rights practices are explained by coercion or coincidence of interest” (Goldsmith and Posner 2005 :134). Thus, governments will only dispense political capital to enforce international human rights when it serves their political interests, and, moreover, states sometimes cynically use human rights to justify certain acts of foreign policy. From this perspective, the question of why and when states comply with human rights regimes “is a function of the extent to which more powerful states in the system are willing to enforce the principles and norms of the regime” (Krasner 1993 :140–1). Moreover, as argued by Downs et al. ( 1996 ) in relation to state cooperation in general, the realist insistence on the strategic dimensions of cooperation emphasizes the role of enforcement and contends that the deeper the agreements (the more ambitious and intrusive the human rights norms, for example), the increasing need for more severe punishments to deter non-compliance. Reliance on enforcement as the route to compliance raises, however, important questions of legitimacy both in terms of what is likely to be the selective enforcement of human rights norms and the more long-term costs of the use of coercive measures. Along these lines, hegemonic stability theorists, for example, have argued that although hegemonic power facilitates regime creation, it is more problematic when it comes to effective and legitimate implementation over time.

Although the realist tradition offers important insights into the role of power asymmetries in shaping enforcement and state compliance, explanations along realist lines have difficulties, as Sikkink ( 2004 ) argues, to account for why states are willing to pursue human rights norms in the first place, and why powerful countries that were not previously concerned with human rights adopt policies espousing these norms when they do. Moreover, most realist accounts do not answer the question why states agree to expend resources to set up human rights institutions and commit to and be constrained, however minimally, by their rules and norms.

For others, states set up international institutions and give them certain functions in order to overcome problems of inter-state collaboration and coordination. The focus here is on the effects on state behavior as institutions alter incentives thereby making it rational for states to cooperate (Koremenos et al. 2004 ). Institutions affect actor strategies – but not their underlying preferences – by reducing transaction costs, by identifying focal points for coordinated behavior, and by providing frameworks for action on a wide range of issues (Keohane 1982 ). In this literature international agreements are generally thought to be “self-enforcing” in that they rely on the interests of states themselves to comply with the terms of the agreement, even in the absence of an external enforcement mechanism. Overall, on these accounts, human rights institutions matter but primarily because of what they can do to shift the incentives facing member states – by generating publicity, by naming and shaming, and by creating positive or negative linkages with other issues (Hafner-Burton 2008 ).

In this vein, a number of studies have sought to explain why countries ratify treaties and whether states’ treaty commitments actually change human rights behavior. Based on theories of delegation and agency, the core assumption of this literature is that states create institutions and delegate power to them in order to resolve collective-action problems (Hawkins et al. 2006 ). In part drawing from managerial models of compliance in international legal scholarship, this literature generally posits that states have an interest in compliance with rules, a propensity to comply with their international commitments, and therefore rejects sanctions and coercive enforcement in favor of collective management of (non)performance of treaty obligations, such as monitoring, non-confrontational, and facilitative measures. These general propositions have generated a burgeoning literature on quantitative measures of treaty participation. Generally skeptical of the impact of international human rights institutions, these statistical analyses of specific human rights treaties (drawing on standardized measures of the International Covenant for Political and Civil Rights and the Torture Convention in particular) have highlighted the limits of international law in ensuring the protection of human rights. In a recent review, Landman ( 2008 ) summarizes the general findings of the statistical studies on the impact of states’ human rights treaty commitments on rights protection. According to Landman, there is statistical evidence to suggest that international human rights treaties have at least a limited impact on actual state human rights behavior (for contrasting views see Camp Keith 1999 ; Hathaway 2002 ); domestic regime type matters; the gap between treaty ratification and human rights protection narrows over time; and membership in international governmental organizations and presence of international NGOs lead to higher state participation in human rights regimes. The positive and significant statistical relationship between treaty ratification and rights protection disappears however, Landman notes, when studies control for the other independent effects of democracy, wealth, conflict, and population.

However, such global comparisons do not capture what may be strong regional diversity in these relationships including the relative effectiveness of regional human rights regimes to which countries are a party, a point that will be returned to below. Also, this literature focuses exclusively on compliance with formal treaties, and largely ignores what may be the significant role of broader categories of rules and norms, including customary international law and jus cogens norms. Clearly treaty ratification does not necessarily set in motion an automatic process of domestic reform. Yet, as emphasized by Schmitz and Sikkink ( 2002 ), formal state ratification of a human rights treaty is often part of a prolonged and continuous process of political struggle about the domestic implementation of human rights norms. Schmitz and Sikkink therefore suggest that compliance with human rights treaty obligations is best understood along a continuum that includes ratification of human rights treaty; fulfillment of reporting and other requests by supervisory bodies; implementation of norms in domestic law; and rule-consistent behavior on the domestic level. This perspective also allows for consideration of what constitutes “partial compliance” which in the area of human rights is often the most frequent outcome. Hence, theories of self-enforcement and credible commitments that underpin much of the literature on treaty ratification, and in which efficiency arguments carry most of the analytical weight, may not be very persuasive in matters of human rights.

On an alternative account however, state decisions to create and join international human rights mechanisms are driven by domestic political calculations and domestic “compliance constituencies” (Dai 2007 ). On this view, the submission to an international regime constitutes an act of political delegation that could be used by governments to “lock in” and consolidate domestic policies, thereby enhancing their credibility and stability vis-à-vis domestic political opponents (Moravcsik 2000 ). In a similar vein some scholars have emphasized the role of domestic institutional and normative preferences to conform to rules denominated as law, and the ways in which domestic regime type may affect compliance with international commitments.

While most rationalist accounts of institutions assume largely invariable interests and constant state preferences, what may be best referred to as ideational perspectives emphasize the role of ideas in bringing about political and normative change. On this view, states are not seen to be rationally adapting, nor coercively compelled, but are motivated by a “logic of appropriateness” to adhere to human rights norms (Finnemore and Sikkink 1998 ). These perspectives emphasize the potential of institutions to shift actors’ understandings of problems either by providing the possibilities for cooperative outcomes or via processes of socialization by which norms and values are diffused (Goodman and Jinks 2004 ). The main thrust of sociological institutionalism, for example, lies in the claim that ideas have a strong and continuous influence on state policy as they become embodied in institutions and that institutions themselves can become autonomous and powerful political actors (Barnett and Finnemore 2004 ). This highlights the importance of social context, and how acting in ways perceived to be illegitimate by the collectivity concerned can significantly raise the material costs of the action. Yet, although this literature provides important insights into the processes of diffusion of norms and practices, and the constitutive and empowering potential of human rights discourse and institutions in general, it has difficulties in explaining why certain norms become institutionalized and not others. Moreover, it often neglects the more regulative and coercive dimensions of norms by which interests and power shape their creation, implementation, and enforcement.

Transnational Human Rights

Although the IR literature on international institutions generally focuses on efforts of states to provide international collective and redistributive goods, international human rights norms and institutions have increasingly come to affect many of the social, political, and economic problems traditionally seen to be within the exclusive jurisdiction of the state. Therefore, a narrow focus on the dynamics of interstate interactions does not fully capture the ways in which international human rights institutions may be effective. Recent scholarship has emphasized the transnational character of human rights institutions in terms of the emergence of a transnational legal and political space and ongoing challenges to state sovereignty; in terms of how this affects political actors and notions of the state as a unified actor in world politics; and in terms of how a transnational perspective shapes conceptual understandings of “compliance” and “enforcement.”

First, the consolidation of human rights institutions raises questions regarding the legitimate form and scope of international intervention in the domestic affairs of sovereign states. The establishment of supranational jurisdiction over fundamental political choices and decisions underscores the extent to which current trends in global governance have led to the emergence of a transnational political space in the field of human rights and emphasizes the depth of interaction between international human rights developments and national-level political and legal debates. Hence, on this account, the expansion and institutionalization of human rights highlights the reality of constant renegotiations of state sovereignty in matters of human rights, and the extent to which sovereignty in the sense of power of the state over its nationals has been eroded by human rights law, the increased use of international human rights norms in national courts, and the increased availability of a variety of international tribunals. These trends also invoke understandings of sovereignty not as entitlement but as status, understandings of what it means to be a legitimate member of an international society, and the capacity to engage in increasingly complex transactions with other members of the system.

Second, as the density and complexity of international institutions grow, and as new channels of transnational political action open up, so the process of norm creation becomes more complex, more contested, and harder even for powerful states to control. Although non-state actors remain excluded from the formal negotiations of international human rights instruments and decision-making fora, a considerable body of research indicates that they have gained significant informal influence through their agenda-setting activities and expertise in the context of evolving and increasingly complex global governance structures (Price 2003 ). From this perspective, international human rights institutions have provided the platforms upon which the struggle over human rights between and among activists and states has played out (Keck and Sikkink 1998 ). For some, this process has not only resulted in the construction of a normative framework but also a globalizing process that is driven by the struggles of transnational actors and social movements (Goodale and Engle Merry 2007 ). Hence, viewing international human rights institutions in transnational terms highlights a number of important ways in which these institutions affect domestic political actors. The role of civil society organizations in mobilizing domestically for reform and effective implementation of human rights legislation while linking their demands with the state’s international commitments has attracted growing scholarly attention (Neumayer 2005 ).

Beyond civil society activism, a growing literature emphasizes the extent to which international human rights norms are incorporated into domestic legal systems and how these legal processes of internalization affect political actors (Koh 1997 ). This perspective on the role of international human rights law in shaping domestic policies and legal developments highlights on the one hand the multiple linkages that exist between the domestic and the international, and the importance of disaggregating the state (Slaughter 2004 ) on the other. On this view, the political costs of violating international rules are domestic as, for example, they provide focal points around which domestic opposition is able to mobilize (Simmons 2009 ). It is also important to consider how far interaction with international human rights institutions may affect the relative power of sections of the state bureaucracy dealing with human rights; or may lead to processes of socialization on the part of those state officials involved.

Similarly, it is also important to see domestic judiciaries as political actors. There is widespread variation not just in the effective enforcement of human rights within domestic legal systems but also in the capacity and willingness of judges to engage in the transnational legal culture of human rights and to take advantage of the potential legal and argumentative resources available. Understanding the sources of this variation in terms of judicial independence but also in terms of divergent national legal traditions, patterns of legal education, and engagement with the transnational legal community, forms an important part of understanding the ways in which human rights regimes do or do not affect political outcomes. Also, the general accessibility of human rights institutions to individual complaint needs to be noted. Indeed, the general tendency observable in the 1990s – evidenced in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda tribunals, the establishment of a permanent International Criminal Court, the Pinochet case, and the various cases before national courts including tort cases in US federal courts – is toward the “individualization” of allegations involving violations of human rights. Clearly, the consolidation of a system of international criminal law has resulted in complex and interlocking processes of human rights enforcement (Broomhall 2003 ). However, within the broader universe of human rights institutions, adjudication still captures only a small part of how human rights regimes matter.

Third, conventional accounts of state compliance with international human rights norms that adopt predominantly top-down perspectives on international institutions, law and human rights tend to pay little attention to relevant domestic mechanisms and the conditions under which international norms are more, or less, likely to be effective or politically salient at the domestic level (Cortell and Davis 2002 ). Hence, evaluating human rights regimes in transnational terms also shapes how we might best think about “compliance” and “enforcement.” For many, the study of the role of law, and norms more generally, in world politics has suffered from inadequate attention given to the processes of legitimizing law as well as from failing to properly recognize that international law consists of processes as much as of its structural manifestations of law in international institutions (Kingsbury 1998 ). As Finnemore and Toope ( 2001 :744–7) emphasize in relation to international human rights law generally, “[o]utside of the European context, the entire law of human rights operates and affects world politics without any mechanisms of compulsory adjudication. Where modern treaties create mechanisms to promote implementation, they are often premised on the need for positive reinforcement of obligations rather than on adjudication and sanctions for noncompliance.” For Finnemore and Toope, international law is more than merely a matter of cases and courts or formal treaty negotiation. It has a constructive dimension in which actors participating in law’s construction “contribute to legitimacy and obligation, and to the continuum of legality from informal to more formal norms.” Law in this view draws attention to those rules, norms and decision-making procedures of institutions that shape expectations, interests, and behavior. The force of law in politics – its “effectiveness” – therefore does not merely manifest itself in the form of constraints, but it also has important creative, generative, and constitutive influences on political practice. In the context of the international human rights system, this perspective on the role of law in shaping political developments brings to our attention the criteria established by the system on which to judge the legitimacy of states’ behavior.

Global Human Rights: The United Nations System

The literature on the UN system and its relative effectiveness in shaping world politics in general and human rights in particular has waxed and waned according to broader political trends in international relations and reflects fluctuating scholarly perspectives on the potential of international institutions in influencing state cooperation as discussed in previous sections. As a consequence of the gradual evolution toward the institutional complexity of the contemporary UN human rights regime, the literature on human rights at the UN is vast and has become a technical and specialized field of legal expertise. Increasingly however, the IR literature on the UN system has broadened its focus beyond issues of institutional development to engage with questions of institutional impact and effectiveness.

Institutional Change and Hardening of Enforcement

Both the substantive issues in the field of human rights and the procedures in the UN for handling them have changed dramatically over time (Buergenthal 2006 ). From not having any formal powers to take any action in regard to human rights complaints at its inception, by the end of the 1990s the Commission on Human Rights annually reviewed the human rights records of UN member states (Lebovic and Voeten 2006 ).

A substantial literature has traced the UN’s remarkably successful record of standard-setting in the area of human rights (for an overview, see Forsythe 1985 ). There is a tendency in the human rights literature to portray the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the two International Covenants, and subsequent human rights treaties as an authoritative international expression of the human rights obligations of contemporary states, as those states have themselves agreed to, and as a reflection of global human rights as a universal, uniform, and coherent set of norms. However, the adoption of the various international human rights instruments varies considerably between states with the Convention on the Rights of the Child having the largest number of state parties and the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty being the treaty with the fewest state parties excluding the treaties most recently opened for signature. A burgeoning literature seeks to evaluate the empirical relationship between country participation in human rights treaties and country performance on different measures of human rights in practice (Hathaway 2002 ; Goodliffe and Hawkins 2006 ; Vreeland 2007 ). This literature has generated important insights into the political dynamics of state commitment to international human rights and the effects of treaty ratification on state behavior, though some argue this has been achieved at the expense of a more holistic understanding of the inter-related nature of global human rights politics. On this view the different committees monitoring compliance with and implementation of the respective treaties form part of a complex system of universal mechanisms that are best understood and evaluated not as isolated organs functioning within the particular treaty but also as part of the larger UN system.

The issue of human rights moved to the forefront of UN activities and since 1997 within the broader UN reform process the idea is for human rights to become operational (the so-called mainstreaming of human rights) throughout the UN organization (Oestreich 2007 ), with a High Commissioner for Human Rights serving as a focal point for UN action and information in the field of human rights (van Boven 2007 ). The UN itself has grown both in size and ambition, and through the expansion of different human rights mechanisms and specialized agencies in conjunction with a rapid growth in human rights NGOs worldwide a veritable “human rights industry” has been formed.

The 1990s also saw another dramatic opening for the UN’s human rights regime as the UN’s new peace-building role increasingly incorporated human rights protection in its mandate (Katayanagi 2002 ). Although the limitations of the UN in solving violent conflicts and ensuring human rights protection around the world were highlighted in, for example, the conflicts in Rwanda and the Balkans, the extent of efforts to “mainstream” human rights and the more overtly coercive dimensions of human rights enforcement could be seen in debates surrounding humanitarian intervention (Welsh 2006 ) and more recently, the principles of the “responsibility to protect,” and associated efforts to redefine threats to international peace and security that have introduced human rights on the agenda of the UN Security Council (Bailey 1994 ). However, these debates have also exposed the fissures in the dominant narrative of the 1990s regarding the potential of a more activist UN human rights program. As the establishment in 2006 and the early proceedings of the UN Human Rights Council (replacing the Commission on Human Rights) have highlighted, the divisions and tensions – despite the creation of novel monitoring procedures – over the role and purpose of global human rights institutions remain. Similarly, attempts in recent years on the part of the most powerful states in the international system to shift the normative balance between human rights and security in the name of “war on terrorism” has showed, according to some, the inherent power-based logic underpinning the global human rights regime (Sands 2005 ; Dunne 2007 ). For others however, the resilience and normative strength of the human rights system are demonstrated by the ways in which the human rights discourse has re-asserted itself at various levels (Foot 2007 ). However, beyond the more immediate human rights concerns, others envisage a more uncertain future for the global human rights regime as highlighted in the debates surrounding the meaning and wider implications of the rise of non-Western states, shifting global power balances, and what some predict could be the beginning of the end of the period of US hegemony (Evans 1996 ).

Overall, the development of the institutional human rights framework under the auspices of the UN has been far from linear (Alston and Megret 2004 ; Oberleitner 2007 ). The broader trend however, although uneven and contentious, could be characterized by normative expansion and increasing intrusiveness of international norms and institutions for the protection of human rights, an increased plurality of actors involved in the creation and implementation of these norms, and, over time, the hardening of enforcement. Many IR scholars note however that these enforcement procedures have not significantly altered the allocation of responsibility for human rights implementation. Whilst norm creation in the human rights field has been internationalized reflecting in large part the increasing role and influence of NGOs in this area of global governance, implementation remains largely with sovereign states (Wheeler 2003 ). Yet, contrasting visions of the UN’s institutional mechanisms of human rights implementation range between those based on state agreement, peer review, recommendations, and then possibly conciliation, as opposed to harder enforcement mechanisms based on binding legal and judicial measures, sanctions, and referral to the UN Security Council. As argued by Steiner et al. ( 2008 :735–6), those who focus on the role of sanctions and coercive measures targeting rights violators consider compliance to be a question of choosing the appropriate means of enforcement in a world of state actors. For others, compliance is mainly an issue of institutional design and judicial process, which focus attention on the features of the implementation mechanisms developed by the UN’s human rights institutions and the extent to which they are able to shift the incentives of states. And, for some, the pathway to compliance lies in the ability of non-state actors and coalitions to persuade and potentially socialize states through norm-driven arguments, which highlights the importance of meaningful NGO participation in UN human rights fora.

Regional Human Rights Regimes

As with international institutions more generally, regional human rights regimes need to be understood in the context of the broader normative structures in which they are embedded (Shelton 2008 ). Clearly, significant differences underpin the development of the regional systems with comparatively deep and complex institutionalization of human rights in Europe and the Americas, a mainly promotional regime in Africa, and Asia and the Arab world still without established human rights institutions. This regional variance partly reflects the extent of the cultural embedding of human rights norms across regions, but patterns of state formation, colonization and decolonization, civil society activism, legal and judicial traditions, democratization, and economic development also shape the scope and depth of regional institutionalization. Also, while some regional systems may actively draw on global human rights norms (the Americas), other regional institutions seek to more actively resist extra-regional pressures for human rights (Africa). In other words, the impact of processes of regionalization on the development of international law lies in the ways in which they shape the interaction between “universal” human rights standards and regional diversity and traditions (Fawcett and Hurrell 1995 ). Methodologically speaking, moreover, a regional perspective provides a more nuanced understanding of the relative impact of international human rights institutions more generally (Hafner-Burton and Ron 2007 ) as it allows for a contextualized examination of the actual processes underpinning the interaction between national, regional, and global human rights (Buergenthal 1977 ).

This section emphasizes the evolutionary character of regional organizations as each has undergone reform since its creation and has strengthened the human rights obligations of member states. Although compliance remains an issue in each system, as several studies have shown the regional systems have increasingly converged by developing similar norms, institutions and procedures to promote and protect human rights (Weston et al. 1987 ; Heyns et al. 2006 ). In particular, the impact of each regional system depends in large part on the uses domestic and transnational actors make of the system; how the system responds to developments under its jurisdiction; and, crucially, the responses of national governments, as there is significant variation amongst different states within the same regional system.

In 1950 the member states of the Council of Europe adopted the European Convention on Human Rights (Robertson and Merrills 1993 ). The Convention initially established a Commission and a Court to monitor state compliance. Yet, the drafters of the Convention made the Court’s jurisdiction optional, and while creating the world’s first individual petition procedure for human rights violations this was again made optional. The Convention also conferred some supervisory functions on the Committee of Ministers, the governing body of the Council of Europe. Hence, the standard procedure envisaged under the Convention was one over which states maintained considerable control and where inter-state complaints brought through the Commission to the Committee of Ministers, a political body, constituted the primary route to enforcement (Simpson 2001 ).

Over time, however, the regional system has developed into a “complex system of norms, institutions and procedures [that] have regionalized many aspects of human rights law in Europe” (Shelton 2003 :95). In addition, although the mechanisms of the Council of Europe constitute the principal human rights organ in the region, the regional system consists of two other entities with partially overlapping membership, the European Union (EU) and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) (Brett 1996 ; Alston et al. 1999 ). The expansion of European institutions has generated an extensive research agenda that seeks to specify the driving forces behind the increasingly intrusive nature of European legal and political integration, including state interests, national courts, individual litigants, and supranational actors such as the European Court of Justice. These developments have made EU law in general increasingly embedded in national legal systems and have offered domestic actors additional tools to influence national policies (Drzemczewski 1998 ). In the field of human rights specifically, the proliferation of European human rights bodies has considerably expanded and deepened the regional system and in the process enmeshed European states in an increasingly intrusive network of human rights institutions. In many ways this complex regional system invokes aspects of regional constitutionalization of human rights norms and the Court developed into what resembles a regional constitutional court (Merrills 1993 ). Madsen ( 2007 ) also notes that these developments have in some important ways transformed the Convention into a deeply specialized field of law and legal practice whereby the regional system has gained a considerable degree of legal autonomy vis-à-vis member states and is increasingly used by individuals across the region (Helfer 2008 ).

The expansion and increasing intrusiveness of the system have given rise to tensions between establishing and enforcing uniform regional standards and the need to respect member states’ diversity, and moreover, achieving the appropriate balance between individual rights and what may reasonably be claimed to be in the public interest. At the core of this system the European Court of Human Rights deals with questions of uniformity and diversity in judging whether a given state practice falls below “common European standards.” According to the Court’s doctrine of the “margin of appreciation,” the Court seeks to ensure minimum regional standards by testing the limits states themselves have decided to impose on the rights of the Convention outside the set of core rights. The Court has had a considerable influence on human rights standards in Europe, shaping domestic legislation in various domains across the region (Wildhaber 2007 ). In the process, the regime has developed from a system of human rights protection based solely on litigation to a complex network of interlocking bodies focused on standard-setting, prevention, monitoring, and enforcement. From a comparative perspective therefore, the European system has developed into the most legalistic of the regional human rights regimes where implementation has to a considerable degree become institutionalized. Explanations for the relative effectiveness of the European system have focused on broadly converging state interests; the institutional autonomy of a productive and authoritative Court; the embedment of the system in domestic legal systems; significant transnational connections with domestic litigants; and an interlocking framework for human rights enforcement that draws from the political resources of other European institutions. The regional system, however, has had to deal with few cases of gross and systematic violations of human rights. Therefore, the democratization of the wider Europe and the integration of new member states have posed a considerable challenge to the human rights system as it has become increasingly difficult to maintain uniform regional standards and high levels of state compliance with Court judgments in a system overloaded with cases and only limited resources.

The Americas

With the creation of the Organization of American States (OAS) in 1948 , an American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man was adopted by OAS member states. But it was not until 1978 with the entry into force of the American Convention on Human Rights that the inter-American system adopted the institutional structure that has remained to this day composed of a Commission and a Court (Medina 1990 ). Throughout its existence the OAS has been comprised of member states many of which at numerous occasions have been governed by repressive regimes with scant regard for human rights.

Yet, through the latter part of the Cold War and particularly in the 1990s, there was a significant expansion of regional institutions and important changes in the ambition, scope and density of regional governance in the Americas (Sikkink 1996 ). With the transition to democracy in the region the human rights system extended its reach as seen in the increasing number of ratifications of human rights instruments and the increasing acceptance of the Court’s jurisdiction (Pasqualucci 2003 ). The inter-American system also adopted numerous mechanisms to address the many human rights challenges confronting the region, thereby developing increasingly extensive and intrusive human rights norms (Moir 2003 ). For many of the democratic governments in the region, the question of how to deal with human rights abuses under prior governments would come to define the nature of the new democracies, and although differences in national approaches to “transitional justice” reflected country-specific political concerns the policies eventually adopted by governments were in part shaped by international legal norms developed and formalized by the regional system (Méndez and Mariezcurrena 1999 ).

In the process the inter-American human rights system has emerged, from its roots as a quasi-judicial entity with an ill-defined mandate to promote respect for human rights in the Americas, as a legal regime formally empowering citizens to bring suit to challenge the domestic activities of their own government (Medina Quiroga 1988 ; Harris and Livingstone 1998 ). The inter-American human rights regime has developed in an independent fashion with, at its most positive reading, benign neglect on the part of most OAS member states vis-à-vis the system (Cerna 1996–7 ). The Court has also taken the view that the objective of the Convention is to integrate the regional and global systems of human rights protection and the regional system has also sought to explicitly link the democratic form of government with the promotion of human rights in the region (Cooper and Legler 2006 ).

In comparative terms the inter-American system has developed ambitious human rights norms that to a significant degree draw from regional legal traditions of expansive formal constitutional protections of individual rights. A considerable literature on the regional system has focused on the political and quasi-judicial role of the inter-American Commission with a mandate not found in the European system to put pressure on regional states to comply with its recommendations. Since the introduction of the right of individual petition, the system has become, many observers argue, more effective in addressing human rights problems; although the capacity of domestic litigants to turn to the regime varies considerably between countries in the region reflecting uneven patterns of civil society mobilization. Moreover, in recent years the literature on the system has given increasing attention to the Court and its role in ensuring compliance with the norms of the system. However, again, there is significant regional variance in adherence to and ratification of the system’s human rights instruments with the US, Canada, and much of the English-speaking Caribbean not accepting the Court’s jurisdiction (Helfer 2002 ). Pasqualucci ( 2003 ) also argues that the effectiveness of the Court is limited owing to the failure of the political organs of the OAS to adequately support the human rights system as evidenced in inadequate funding and quality control of judges elected to the Court, but also in the absence of a supervisory body that would fulfill the enforcement role of the Council of Ministers in the European system. Beyond the internal workings of the regional system however, the spread of elected governments across the region has clearly marked an improvement in the condition of human rights in most countries. Yet, not only has the system begun to receive more cases from the “grey borderland where the state’s authority to promote the general interest collides with individual rights” (Farer 1997 :543), but it also has to confront cases of structural human rights violations the causes of which do not lie in the exercise of arbitrary state power but are rather the consequences of state weaknesses and failures to act. These trends pose major challenges for a regional human rights system that is geared toward the protection of individuals against actions of the state, built around legal notions of state responsibility, and that assumes, politically, that pressure can be exerted on states which possess the levers to improve the situation – in other words that states which are part of the problem can also be part of the solution.

The Organization of African Unity (OAU) was established in 1963 in the early phases of decolonization during which newly independent African states sought to consolidate their status as sovereign states whilst pursuing more ambitious goals of African unity and solidarity. The adoption of the African Charter of Human Rights and Rights of Peoples in 1981 (Kannyo 1984 ) created an African Commission, which allowed for interstate complaints and further envisioned a mechanism for the receipt of individual petitions. In terms of particular regional characteristics the Charter emphasized notions of collective or “peoples’ rights,” such as the rights to peace and development, and gave a particularly prominent place to individual duties (wa Mutua 1995 ). However, the Commission was established as a weak monitoring body and did not provide for a judicial organ or any other mechanism for authoritative regional enforcement of decisions. It is frequently noted that the African institutional environment is extremely unconducive to the pursuit of ambitious organizational objectives and that the OAU developed into a highly politicized organization for which questions of human rights came to play a marginalized role. Yet, as emphasized by Odinkalu and Christensen ( 2001 :327), “[t]he perception of the African regional human rights system generally has been significantly shaped […] by and filtered through a pessimism about Africa” (see further Murray 2006 ). However, the capacity of the human rights system to consider individual petitions, to provide remedies for violations, and to monitor states’ compliance with Charter obligations has remained significantly constrained (Viljoen and Louw 2007 ).

These structural and institutional challenges notwithstanding, since the end of the Cold War and during the last decade in particular the African system has undergone significant changes (Evans and Murray 2008 ). In 1998 , the OAU created an African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Mutua 1999 ; Van Der Mei 2005 ). In 2001 , moreover, African states adopted the Constitutive Act of the African Union marking the transition from the OAU to a new regional organization, the African Union (AU) (Murray 2004 ). Significantly, with the establishment of the AU, the member states formally endorsed the AU’s right to intervene in a member state in particularly grave circumstances such as cases involving war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity. Hence, the regional system has developed in response to a variety of internal and external factors, including tensions within existing regional institutions and the growing pressure exerted by international organizations and donor countries on African governments. Williams ( 2007 ) argues that a normative shift in regional institutions has taken place – from an emphasis on non-intervention to a “doctrine of non-indifference” – which has imposed limits on the applicability of the non-interference norm, and which may indicate some steps toward accountability of state officials who have committed atrocities.

Overall, the regional system has developed increasingly intrusive and robust institutions. In addition, an increasingly large number of international and local NGOs and other civil society actors have helped to put human rights issues on the OAU’s and now AU’s agenda (Okafor 2007 ). Yet, despite the greater normative and legal weight given to human rights norms in the region, the extent to which these norms have been internalized in countries across the region remains highly uneven, regional variance in terms of state and civil society engagement with the system is significant, and enforcement mechanisms remain weakly institutionalized and contested as reflected in ongoing debates surrounding the mandate and functions of the new regional human rights court (Bekker 2007 ).

Asia-Pacific and the Middle East

In relative terms the regional institutionalization of human rights in the Asia-Pacific and the wider Middle East remains patchy. The various regional entities that make up the organizational map of the Asia-Pacific and the Middle East are yet to set up formal human rights institutions. Donnelly, for example, identifies a number of reasons for the absence of regional human rights institutions in Asia, including low levels of regional cooperation and weak perceptions of regional community (Donnelly 1986 :628). Moreover, human rights norms remain deeply contested in many parts of the Asia-Pacific and the Middle East where, it is argued, such international norms are variably perceived as vehicles for external interference in domestic affairs and ill-suited to local cultures, customs and values.

However, in recent decades developments toward the strengthening of regional human rights norms and incipient institutional initiatives have been noted. For example, the member states of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) has since the early 1990s considered the establishment of a regional human rights mechanism (Thio 1999 ). Partly reflecting the informal networking and consensus-seeking style that has traditionally characterized ASEAN cooperation, and partly as the result of active resistance on the part of some member states to commit to human rights, the development toward a more robust institutional human rights framework has been slow. Yet, efforts by Asian and international NGOs led to the creation of an Asian Human Rights Charter in 1998 that urges regional states to establish an Asian Human Rights Commission and a Court (Harris 2000 ) and the newly adopted ASEAN Charter includes provisions for the establishment of an ASEAN human rights body. Many ASEAN member states remain reluctant however to the idea of a supranational human rights monitoring body and some states have instead emphasized the need for national human rights institutions under closer state control (Maznah 2002 ).

In the Middle East these tensions between broader normative changes internationally and resistance by regional states run equally deep (An-Na’im 2001 ). The League of Arab States established the Permanent Arab Commission on Human Rights in 1968 but the subsequently proposed Arab Charter of Human Rights was largely ignored. However, in 1994 the Arab League adopted the Charter and after significant criticisms by regional human rights NGOs adopted a revised Charter in 2004 , which entered into force in 2008 . Yet, although the Charter declares “human rights [to be] at the centre of the key national concerns of Arab States” Rishmawi ( 2005 :368) argues that there is still no “common vision and position among Arab states on human rights.”

This essay has focused on a series of research questions and puzzles that arise from the central concern whether international human rights institutions make a difference for the protection and promotion of human rights. It identified some major lines of enquiry that have emerged in response to these questions with a particular emphasis on the increasing transnationalization of the study of human rights regimes on the one hand and the range of conceptual understandings of regime effectiveness on the other. The research on human rights regimes has clearly generated important insights into the role of institutions in narrowing the gap between the rhetoric and practice of human rights; yet crucial areas seem to call for further scholarly attention. One particularly important area of research consists of identifying and explaining the mechanisms for institutional effects located at the transnational and domestic levels; and that seeks to “disaggregate” the state. Further study is required on the domestic actors and institutions that act and could potentially act as “compliance constituencies” and conduits of domestic implementation linking international human rights norms to domestic political and legal institutions and actors. Also, human rights scholarship tends to examine only a narrow set of human rights that are institutionalized in international human rights regimes (predominantly civil and political rights). With the more systematic recognition of social, economic and cultural rights within human rights institutions, norm-setting efforts are increasingly targeting other actors than states. Efforts to push beyond state-centric understandings of human rights should also be seen in the light of many contemporary human rights violations that are occurring in the context of weak and fragile states where state responsibility for violations is difficult to establish and often even absent. Finally, a genuinely interdisciplinary approach to the study of human rights regimes calls for a dislocation of disciplinary boundaries between international and national law, IR and comparative politics on the one hand, and between law and politics on the other. This seems particularly important as studies of regime effectiveness increasingly engage with studies of what explains repression and human rights violations in the first place. Moreover, although increasing methodological diversity is enriching our understandings of both the potential and limits of human rights regimes, the central questions and research puzzles of this particular field of enquiry should guide the appropriate methods and disciplinary approaches and not the other way around. This essay has identified a number of areas in which scholarly efforts are exploring such links to foster better understandings of the role of international and regional human rights institutions in human rights protection.

Acknowledgments

The author is particularly grateful to Andrew Hurrell whose guidance and insights on many of the themes covered in this essay continue to be inspiring. Carolyn Haggis , Thomas Pegram , Ioanna Thoma and two anonymous reviewers provided very helpful comments on a previous draft. Chandra Sriram ’s patience in pushing this essay through the editorial process is gratefully acknowledged. Any remaining errors of fact and interpretation remain the sole responsibility of the author.

• Alston, P. , Bustelo, M.R. , and Heenan, J. (eds.) (1999) The EU and Human Rights . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Alston, P. , and Megret, F. (eds.) (2004) The United Nations and Human Rights: A Critical Appraisal . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• An-Na’im, A.A. (2001) Human Rights in the Arab World: A Regional Perspective. Human Rights Quarterly 23 (3), 701–32.
• Bailey, S.D. (1994) The UN Security Council and Human Rights . Basingstoke: Macmillan.
• Barnett, M.N. , and Finnemore, M. (2004) Rules for the World: International Organizations in Global Politics . Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
• Bekker, G. (2007) The African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights: Safeguarding the Interests of African States. Journal of African Law 51 (1), 151–72.
• Brett, R. (1996) Human Rights and the OSCE. Human Rights Quarterly 18 (3), 668–93.
• Broomhall, B. (2003) International Justice and the International Criminal Court: Between Sovereignty and the Rule of Law . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Buergenthal, T. (1977) International and Regional Human Rights Law and Institutions: Some Examples of Their Interaction. Texas International Law Journal 12, 321–30.
• Buergenthal, T. (2006) The Evolving International Human Rights System. American Journal of International Law 100 (4), 783–807.
• Camp Keith, L. (1999) The United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Does It Make a Difference in Human Rights Behavior? Journal of Peace Research 36 (1), 95–118.
• Cerna, C.M. (1996–7) International Law and the Protection of Human Rights in the Inter-American System. Houston Journal of International Law 19, 731–59.
• Cooper, A.F. , and Legler, T.F. (2006) Intervention without Intervening?: The OAS Defense and Promotion of Democracy in the Americas . Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Cortell, A.P. , and Davis, J.W. (2002) Understanding the Domestic Impact of International Norms: A Research Agenda. International Studies Review 2 (1), 65–87.
• Dai, X. (2007) International Institutions and National Policies . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Donnelly, J. (1986) International Human Rights: A Regime Analysis. International Organization 40 (3), 599–642.
• Downs, G.W. , Rocke, D.M. , and Barsoom, P.N. (1996) Is the Good News About Compliance Good News About Cooperation? International Organization 50 (3), 379–406.
• Drzemczewski, A.Z. (1998) European Human Rights Convention in Domestic Law: A Comparative Study . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Dunne, T. (2007) The Rules of the Game Are Changing: Fundamental Human Rights in Crisis after 9/11. International Politics 44 (2), 269–86.
• Evans, M.D. , and Murray, R. (2008) The African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights: The System in Practice, 1986–2006 . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Evans, T. (1996) US Hegemony and the Project of Universal Human Rights . Basingstoke: Macmillan.
• Farer, T.J. (1997) The Rise of the InterAmerican Human Rights Regime: No Longer a Unicorn, Not Yet an Ox. Human Rights Quarterly 19 (3), 510–46.
• Fawcett, L. , and Hurrell, A. (1995) Regionalism in World Politics: Regional Organization and International Order . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Finnemore, M. , and Sikkink, K. (1998) International Norm Dynamics and Political Change. International Organization 52 (4), 887–917.
• Finnemore, M. , and Toope, S.J. (2001) Alternatives to “Legalization”: Richer Views of Law and Politics. International Organization 55 (3), 743–58.
• Foot, R. (2007) The United Nations, Counter Terrorism and Human Rights: Institutional Adaptation and Embedded Ideas. Human Rights Quarterly 29 (2), 489–514.
• Forsythe, D.P. (1985) The United Nations and Human Rights, 1945–1985. Political Science Quarterly 100 (2), 249–69.
• Goldsmith, J.L. , and Posner, E.A. (2005) The Limits of International Law . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Goodale, M. , and Engle Merry, S. (2007) The Practice of Human Rights: Tracking Law between the Global and the Local . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Goodliffe, J. , and Hawkins, D. (2006) Explaining Commitment: States and the Convention against Torture. The Journal of Politics 68 (2), 358–71.
• Goodman, R. , and Jinks, D. (2004) How to Influence States: Socialization and International Human Rights Law. Duke Law Journal 54 (3), 621–703.
• Hafner-Burton, E.M. (2008) Sticks and Stones: Naming and Shaming the Human Rights Enforcement Problem. International Organization 62 (4), 689–716.
• Hafner-Burton, E.M. , and Ron, J. (2009) Seeing Double: Human Rights Impact through Qualitative and Quantitative Eyes. World Politics 61 (2), 360–401.
• Hafner-Burton, E.M. , and Ron, J. (2007) Human Rights Institutions: Rhetoric and Efficacy. Journal of Peace Research 44 (4), 379–84.
• Harris, D.J. , and Livingstone, S. (1998) The Inter-American System of Human Rights . Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• Harris, S.R. (2000) Asian Human Rights: Forming a Regional Covenant. Asian-Pacific Law and Policy Journal 1 (2), 1–22.
• Hasenclever, A. , Mayer, P. , and Rittberger, V. (1997) Theories of International Regimes . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Hathaway, O. (2002) Do Human Rights Treaties Make a Difference? Yale Law Journal 111 (8), 1935–2042.
• Hawkins, D.G. , Lake, D.A. , Nielson, D.L. , and Tierney, M.J. (eds.) (2006) Delegation and Agency in International Organizations . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Helfer, L.R. (2002) Overlegalizing Human Rights: International Relations Theory and the Commonwealth Caribbean Backlash against Human Rights Regimes. Columbia Law Review 102 (7), 1832–911.
• Helfer, L.R. (2008) Redesigning the European Court of Human Rights: Embeddedness as a Deep Structural Principle of the European Human Rights Regime. European Journal of International Law 19 (1), 125–59.
• Henkin, L. (1989) International Human Rights and Rights in the United States. In T. Meron (ed.) Human Rights in International Law: Legal and Policy Issues . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Heyns, C. , Padilla, D. , and Zwaak, L. (2006) A Schematic Comparison of Regional Human Rights Systems: An Update. Sur: International Journal on Human Rights 4, 163–71.
• Hurrell, A. (1993) International Society and the Study of Regime: A Reflective Approach. In V. Rittberger (ed.) Regime Theory and International Relations . Oxford: Clarendon.
• Kannyo, E. (1984) The Banjul Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights: Genesis and Political Background. In C.E. Welch and R.I. Meltzer (eds.) Human Rights and Development in Africa . Albany: State University of New York Press.
• Katayanagi, M. (2002) Human Rights Functions of United Nations Peacekeeping Operations . The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.
• Keck, M.E. , and Sikkink, K. (1998) Activists beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics . Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
• Keohane, R.O. (1982) The Demand for International Regimes. International Organization 36 (2), 325–55.
• Keohane, R.O. (1988) International Institutions: Two Approaches. International Studies Quarterly 32 (4), 379–96.
• Kingsbury, B. (1998) The Concept of Compliance as a Function of Competing Conceptions of International Law. Michigan Journal of International Law 19 (2), 345–72.
• Koh, H.H. (1997) Why Do Nations Obey International Law? Yale Law Journal 106 (8), 2599–659.
• Koremenos, B. , Lipson, C. , and Snidal, D. (eds.) (2004) The Rational Design of International Institutions . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Krasner, S.D. (1983) International Regimes . Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
• Krasner, S.D. (1993) Sovereignty, Regimes, and Human Rights. In V. Rittberger and P. Mayer (eds.) Regime Theory and International Relations . Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• Kratochwil, F.V. , and Mansfield, E.D. (1994) International Organization: A Reader . New York: HarperCollins.
• Landman, T. (2008) Issues and Methods in Comparative Politics . London: Routledge.
• Lebovic, J.H. , and Voeten, E. (2006) The Politics of Shame: The Condemnation of Country Human Rights Practices in the UNCHR. International Studies Quarterly 50 (4), 861–88.
• Levy, M.A. , Young, O.R. , and Zurn, M. (1995) The Study of International Regimes. European Journal of International Relations 1 (3), 267–330.
• Madsen, M.R. (2007) From Cold War Instrument to Supreme European Court: The European Court of Human Rights at the Crossroads of International and National Law and Politics. Law and Social Inquiry 32 (1), 137–59.
• Martin, L.L. , and Simmons, B.A. (2001) International Institutions: An International Organization Reader . Cambridge: MA, MIT Press.
• Maznah, M. (2002) Towards a Human Rights Regime in Southeast Asia: Charting the Course of State Commitment. Contemporary Southeast Asia 24 (2), 230–51.
• Medina, C. (1990) The Inter-American Commission of Human Rights and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights: Reflections on a Joint Venture. Human Rights Quarterly 12 (4), 439–64.
• Medina Quiroga, C. (1988) The Battle of Human Rights: Gross Systematic Violations and the Inter-American System . The Hague: M. Nijhoff.
• Méndez, J.E. , and Mariezcurrena, J. (1999) Accountability for Past Human Rights Violations: Contributions of the Inter-American Organs of Protection. Social Justice 26 (4).
• Merrills, J.G. (1993) The Development of International Law by the European Court of Human Rights . Manchester: Manchester University Press.
• Moir, L. (2003) Law and the Inter-American Human Rights System. Human Rights Quarterly 25 (1), 182–212.
• Moravcsik, A. (2000) The Origins of Human Rights Regimes: Democratic Delegation in Postwar Europe. International Organization 54 (2), 217–52.
• Murray, R. (2004) Human Rights in Africa: From the OAU to the African Union . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Murray, R. (2006) International Human Rights: Neglect of Perspectives from African Institutions. International and Comparative Law Quarterly 55 (1), 193–204.
• Mutua, M. (1999) The African Human Rights Court: A Two-Legged Stool? Human Rights Quarterly 21, 342–63.
• Neumayer, E. (2005) Do International Human Rights Treaties Improve Respect for Human Rights? Journal of Conflict Resolution 49 (6), 925–53.
• Oberleitner, G. (2007) Global Human Rights Institutions: Between Remedy and Ritual . Cambridge: Polity.
• Odinkalu, C.A. , and Christensen, C. (2001) Analysis of Paralysis or Paralysis by Analysis? Implementing Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights under the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights. Human Rights Quarterly 23 (2), 327–69.
• Oestreich, J.E. (2007) Power and Principle: Human Rights Programming in International Organizations . Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
• Okafor, O.C. (2007) The African Human Rights System, Activist Forces and International Institutions . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Pasqualucci, J.M. (2003) The Practice and Procedure of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Price, R. (2003) Transnational Civil Society and Advocacy in World Politics. World Politics 55 (4), 579–606.
• Raustiala, K. , and Slaughter, A.-M. (2002) International Law, International Relations and Compliance. In W. Carlsnaes , T. Risse , and B.A. Simmons (eds.) Handbook of International Relations . London: Sage, 538–58.
• Rishmawi, M. (2005) The Revised Arab Charter on Human Rights: A Step Forward? Human Rights Law Review 5 (2), 361–76.
• Robertson, A.H. , and Merrills, J.G. (1993) Human Rights in Europe: A Study of the European Convention on European Rights . Manchester: Manchester University Press.
• Sands, P. (2005) Lawless World: America and the Making and Breaking of Global Rules . London: Penguin.
• Schmitz, H.P. , and Sikkink, K. (2002) International Human Rights. In W. Carlsnaes , T. Risse and B.A. Simmons (eds.) Handbook of International Relations . London: Sage, 517–37.
• Shelton, D. (2003) The Boundaries of Human Rights Jurisdiction in Europe. Duke Journal of Comparative and International Law 13, 95–153.
• Shelton, D. (2008) Regional Protection of Human Rights . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Sikkink, K. (1996) Reconceptualizing Sovereignty in the Americas: Historical Precursors and Current Practices. Houston Journal of International Law 19, 705.
• Sikkink, K. (2004) Mixed Signals: US Human Rights Policy and Latin America. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 192–211
• Simmons, B.A. (2009) Mobilizing for Human Rights: International Law in Domestic Politics . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Simmons, B. , and Martin, L. (2002) International Organisations and Institutions. In W. Carlsnaes , T. Risse , and B. Simmons (eds.) Handbook of International Relations . London: Sage.
• Simpson, A.W.B. (2001) Human Rights and the End of Empire: Britain and the Genesis of the European Convention . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Slaughter, A.-M. (2004) A New World Order . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Steiner, H.J. , Alston, P. , and Goodman, R. (eds.) (2008) International Human Rights in Context: Law, Politics, Morals . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Thio, L.-A. (1999) Implementing Human Rights in Asean Countries: Promises to Keep and Miles to Go before I Sleep. Yale Human Rights and Development Law Journal 2 (1), 1–15.
• van Boven, T. (2007) The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights: The History of a Contested Project. Leiden Journal of International Law 20 (4), 767–84.
• Van Der Mei, A.P. (2005) The New African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights: Towards an Effective Human Rights Protection Mechanism for Africa? Leiden Journal of International Law 18 (1), 113.
• Viljoen, F. , and Louw, L. (2007) State Compliance with the Recommendations of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, 1994–2004. American Journal of International Law 101 (1), 1–34.
• Vreeland, J.R. (2007) Political Institutions and Human Rights: Why Dictatorships Enter into the United Nations Convention against Torture. International Organization .
• Wa Mutua, M. (1995) The Banjul Charter and the African Cultural Fingerprint: An Evaluation of the Language of Duties. Virginia Journal of International Law 35 (2), 339–80.
• Welsh, J.M. (ed.) (2006) Humanitarian Intervention and International Relation . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Weston, B.H. , Lukes, R.A. , and Hnatt, K.M. (1987) Regional Human Rights Regimes: A Comparison and Appraisal. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 20 (4), 585–637.
• Wheeler, N.J. (2003) Enforcing Human Rights. In G.M. Lyons and J. Mayall (eds.) International Human Rights in the 21st Century: Protecting the Rights of Groups . Lanham MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.
• Wildhaber, L. (2007) The European Convention on Human Rights and International Law. International and Comparative Law Quarterly 56 (2), 217–32.
• Williams, P.D. (2007) From Non-Intervention to Non-Indifference: The Origins and Development of the African Union’s Security Culture. African Affairs 106 (423), 253–79.
• Young, O.R. (1992) The Effectiveness of International Institutions: Hard Cases and Critical Variables. In J.N. Rosenau and E.-O. Czempiel (eds.) Governance without Government: Order and Change in World Politics . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Links to Digital Materials

Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. At www.ohchr.org , accessed January 16, 2009. The official website of the UN’s High Commissioner for Human Rights. Provides an accessible introduction to the UN’s human rights system including data on both charter- and treaty-based human rights bodies. Includes relevant information of UN member states’ human rights records and useful contact information.

University of Minnesota Human Rights Library. At www1.umn.edu/humanrts , accessed January 16, 2009. Provides a large collection of human rights documents, including human rights treaties and other international human rights instruments from the UN and regional human rights systems. The site also provides access to a vast number of links categorized according to human rights topics and is a useful search engine.

Bayefsky.com. At www.bayefsky.com , accessed January 16, 2009. Offers a wide range of information concerning the application of the UN human rights treaty system by its monitoring treaty bodies. Includes UN documents organized by state and human rights theme.

International Service for Human Rights (ISHR). At www.ishr.ch , accessed January 16, 2009. The ISHR is a service organization that seeks to support the work of others with and within the UN and regional human rights systems. Monitors, analyzes, and reports on the developments within the UN human rights system primarily and provides useful guides and contact information on the UN system.

European Court of Human Rights. At www.echr.coe.int/echr , accessed January 16, 2009. The official website of the Council of Europe’s Human Rights Court. Includes the basic texts of the European human rights system and a searchable database of the Court’s judgments and decisions.

The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights. At www.osce.org/odihr , accessed January 16, 2009. The official website of the specialized institution of the OSCE dealing with elections, human rights, and democratization. Includes relevant OSCE documents.

Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR). At www.cidh.org , accessed January 16, 2009. The official website of the IACHR of the American Organization of American States (OAS). Provides the basic documents pertaining to the inter-American human rights system. Includes annual reports, on-site reports, cases, and recommendations issued by the IACHR.

Inter-American Court of Human Rights. At www.corteidh.or.cr , accessed January 16, 2009. The official website of the OAS’ Court of Human Rights. Includes a searchable database of the Court’s jurisprudence and information on past and ongoing cases.

African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights. At www.achpr.org , accessed January 16, 2009. The official website of the African Union’s Human Rights Commission. Provides the basic texts of the African human rights system, including state reports and communications, and the special human rights mechanisms established by the Commission.

Working group for an ASEAN Human Rights Mechanism. At www.aseanhrmech.org , accessed January 16, 2009. The website of a coalition of national working groups from ASEAN member states composed of government representatives, parliamentary human rights committees, academics, and NGOs with the objective to establish an ASEAN human rights commission and Court. Includes draft agreements and proposals submitted to ASEAN member states.

Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC). At www.ahrchk.net , accessed January 16, 2009. The AHRC is a regional NGO that seeks to promote human rights in Asia. Its website contains wide-ranging information on the situation of human rights in regional states and various ongoing campaigns and thematic human rights issues.

The Arab Association for Human Rights. At www.arabhra.org , accessed January 16, 2009. At the time of writing only the version in Arabic is available.

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, International Studies. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 15 May 2024

• Cookie Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility
• [66.249.64.20|185.80.150.64]
• 185.80.150.64

Character limit 500 /500

Human Rights Research League

Research. Education. Advocacy. Development. (R.E.A.D.)

Mission statement

The Human Rights Research League (HRRL) is a non-governmental organization in consultative status with the United Nations (ECOSOC) aiming at protecting individuals by placing acts contrary to human rights and international humanitarian law, systemic grievances as well as humanitarian emergencies on the agenda. HRRL seeks to contribute to knowledge and research based public discussion and problem analysis without geographical, political, confessional or other limitations or alignments.

As our name suggests, we are an organization primarily focused on research from the basis of a strong academic foundation. However, we recognize that lasting impact and positive change also depend on connecting academics and practitioners, combining research on root causes of human rights challenges with implementation of projects and policies addressing those grievances. 

To this end, we are engaged in four focus areas: Research. Education. Advocacy. Development. (R.E.A.D.), all with a view to bridging the gap between academic and practical approaches to human rights, and between problem analysis and implementation of solutions.

News & reports

Conferences & calls

Twitter timeline

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

Publications

• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

Human Rights

What are americans’ top foreign policy priorities.

The majority of Americans say preventing terrorism and reducing the flow of illegal drugs into the country are top foreign policy priorities.

How COVID-19 Restrictions Affected Religious Groups Around the World in 2020

Nearly a quarter of countries used force to prevent religious gatherings during the pandemic; other government restrictions and social hostilities related to religion remained fairly stable.

Methodology

Results presented in this data essay are drawn from nationally representative surveys conducted over the past 20 years in more than 60 countries.

How Global Public Opinion of China Has Shifted in the Xi Era

The Chinese Communist Party is preparing for its 20th National Congress, an event likely to result in an unprecedented third term for President Xi Jinping. Since Xi took office in 2013, opinion of China in the U.S. and other advanced economies has turned more negative. How did it get to be this way?

Negative Views of China Tied to Critical Views of Its Policies on Human Rights

Large majorities in most of the 19 countries surveyed have negative views of China, but relatively few say bilateral relations are bad.

Fast facts about views of China ahead of the 2022 Beijing Olympics

Here are recent findings about Americans’ views of the diplomatic boycott and how people in the U.S. and around the world see China.

More adults approve than disapprove of U.S. diplomatic boycott of Olympics; few have heard much about it

About nine-in-ten U.S. adults (91%) say they have heard little (46%) or nothing at all (45%) about the diplomatic boycott of the Olympics.

Large Majorities Say China Does Not Respect the Personal Freedoms of Its People

Unfavorable views of China also hover near historic highs in most of the 17 advanced economies surveyed.

Most Americans Support Tough Stance Toward China on Human Rights, Economic Issues

Fewer adults have confidence in Joe Biden to handle the U.S.-China relationship than other foreign policy issues.

International Cooperation Welcomed Across 14 Advanced Economies

The United Nations is broadly credited with promoting peace and human rights as younger adults are more supportive of cooperation with other countries.

REFINE YOUR SELECTION

Research teams.

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Age & Generations
• Coronavirus (COVID-19)
• Economy & Work
• Family & Relationships
• Gender & LGBTQ
• Immigration & Migration
• International Affairs
• Internet & Technology
• Methodological Research
• News Habits & Media
• Non-U.S. Governments
• Other Topics
• Politics & Policy
• Race & Ethnicity
• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Copyright 2024 Pew Research Center

share this!

May 10, 2024

This article has been reviewed according to Science X's editorial process and policies . Editors have highlighted the following attributes while ensuring the content's credibility:

fact-checked

trusted source

Worker rights are one of the least protected human rights, new research reveals

by Binghamton University

Worker rights are among the least protected human rights in the world, according to new research from faculty at Binghamton University, State University of New York.

The findings are part of a new report published by the CIRIGHTS Data Project, the largest human rights dataset in the world. Since 1981, the project has ranked countries around the world on their respect for human rights, providing an annual "report card" on 25 internationally recognized human rights. The project is co-led by Binghamton University Professor of Political Science David Cingranelli.

According to the project 's latest report, published in Human Rights Quarterly , the five countries with the best overall scores were Canada, Sweden, New Zealand, Norway and Portugal. The five countries with the lowest overall scores were Iran, Syria, North Korea, China and Iraq.

Worker rights, including the right to form a trade union and the right to bargain collectively—are among the least protected human rights. Worker rights are "always violated to some extent," wrote the researchers.

"Previous research shows that it is unlikely that governments protect the rights to an adequate minimum wage, occupational health and safety, or reasonable limitations on work hours (including voluntary overtime work) unless they allow workers to form independent trade unions and to bargain collectively," said Cingranelli. "In other words, the right to unionize, bargain, and strike are the gateway rights. If they are protected, all other labor rights are likely to be protected as well. But globally, the gateway rights are in decline."

Cignarelli said that while democratic and rich countries protect labor rights more than others do, economic inequality has increased almost everywhere.

"Economic globalization has increased competition among nations, which has led governments to favor corporations over workers in conflicts between the two," said Cignarelli.

In the least economically developed countries, large agricultural, mining and oil extraction companies have their way with workers, said Cignarelli. This also happened during the early stage of industrialization in the United States.

"It is important to remember that companies and workers typically take adversarial positions about how much attention corporate leaders should pay to what workers want concerning the terms and conditions of their work," he said. "Corporate leaders typically prefer to distribute most of the profit from their activities to shareholders, not workers."

Stringent labor regulations in one country can cause companies to change their locations. Cignarelli noted that it's the role of government to make sure that workers have a fair chance to have their concerns heard.

"Without government policies protecting workers, companies can do whatever they want to keep unions out," Cignarelli said.

Provided by Binghamton University

Explore further

Feedback to editors

Tiger beetles fight off bat attacks with ultrasonic mimicry

8 hours ago

Machine learning model uncovers new drug design opportunities

12 hours ago

Astronomers find the biggest known batch of planet ingredients swirling around young star

How 'glowing' plants could help scientists predict flash drought

New GPS-based method can measure daily ice loss in Greenland

New candidate genes for human male infertility found by analyzing gorillas' unusual reproductive system

13 hours ago

Study uncovers technologies that could unveil energy-efficient information processing and sophisticated data security

14 hours ago

Scientists develop an affordable sensor for lead contamination

Chemists succeed in synthesizing a molecule first predicted 20 years ago

New optical tweezers can trap large and irregularly shaped particles

Relevant physicsforums posts, cover songs versus the original track, which ones are better, who is your favorite jazz musician and what is your favorite song.

9 hours ago

How does academic transcripts translation work?

Biographies, history, personal accounts.

21 hours ago

Today's Fusion Music: T Square, Cassiopeia, Rei & Kanade Sato

22 hours ago

Music to Lift Your Soul: 4 Genres & Honorable Mention

May 12, 2024

More from Art, Music, History, and Linguistics

Related Stories

Most of the world's countries receive failing grade in global 'human rights report card'

Dec 7, 2023

Data project ranks how well countries around the globe protect human rights

Jan 26, 2023

Research team launches world's largest global human rights dataset

Dec 9, 2022

Study exposes alarming risks to Scotland's food delivery couriers

May 7, 2024

Biden administration tells employers to stop shackling workers with 'noncompete agreements'

Apr 25, 2024

EU lawmakers approve scaled-back rules for app worker rights

Apr 24, 2024

Recommended for you

The power of ambiguity: Using computer models to understand the debate about climate change

May 13, 2024

Study finds avoiding social media before an election has little to no effect on people's political views

Researchers develop algorithms to understand how humans form body part vocabularies

Study shows AI conversational agents can help reduce interethnic prejudice during online interactions

Study finds liberals and conservatives differ on climate change beliefs—but are relatively united in taking action

May 9, 2024

Analysis of millions of posts shows that users seek out echo chambers on social media

Let us know if there is a problem with our content.

Use this form if you have come across a typo, inaccuracy or would like to send an edit request for the content on this page. For general inquiries, please use our contact form . For general feedback, use the public comments section below (please adhere to guidelines ).

Please select the most appropriate category to facilitate processing of your request

Thank you for taking time to provide your feedback to the editors.

Your feedback is important to us. However, we do not guarantee individual replies due to the high volume of messages.

E-mail the story

Your email address is used only to let the recipient know who sent the email. Neither your address nor the recipient's address will be used for any other purpose. The information you enter will appear in your e-mail message and is not retained by Phys.org in any form.

Newsletter sign up

Get weekly and/or daily updates delivered to your inbox. You can unsubscribe at any time and we'll never share your details to third parties.

More information Privacy policy

Donate and enjoy an ad-free experience

We keep our content available to everyone. Consider supporting Science X's mission by getting a premium account.

E-mail newsletter

10 Tips for conducting human rights research

Research on human rights can be as varied as compiling a list of human rights violations in a selected country to carry out fieldwork for an investigative media piece. Your research might involve different methodologies, ranging from conducting 1-to-1 interviews with the people affected by human rights abuses to attending a lecture by experts in the field. Whatever your approach, there are certain rules that can help you conduct research both effectively and ethically and produce results that are worth publishing.

Familiarise yourself with the available literature

Getting to know the existing literature on the subject will not only help you to analyse the topic in depth but also to identify the gaps in the research. This will allow you to make your research unique. Whatever the field you are writing in, remember that adopting an interdisciplinary perspective can enhance your analysis, hence, it is important to have an overview of the literature on the topic written in different fields. You might also want to skim research with the same design, regardless of the subject, to get tips on the methodology used and any challenges encountered.

Plan, plan, plan!

Don’t underestimate the importance of this part of the research because planning is probably one of the most important steps in the whole research process! At this stage, you will need to think about your research questions, hypotheses, and methodology, including ethical and other practical considerations. You should decide how many testimonies you will collect and how you will find your interviewees. If you have a specific deadline for the project, you should also consider how long each activity will take; e.g. obtaining a statement from a government official might take weeks, but you can use this time to progress on your readings or conduct other interviews.

Get different sources and from different perspectives

Quoting the latest Amnesty International reports or statistics won’t be enough for a balanced paper. Neither is building your research exclusively around first-hand accounts of victims of abuses. Ensuring that your sources are varied will create solid basis for a well-informed research paper. Having said this, remember that since your paper is most likely aimed at revealing the patterns of human rights violations, it will undoubtedly paint a negative picture of government practices. This does not mean you lack objectivity, but simply that your paper has a specific focus.

Build rapport and trust

Testimonies have been a major part of human rights research since organisations like Amnesty International have introduced them to their work. To get honest and thorough witness accounts, it is essential to firstly build trustworthy and professional relationships with the victims. This might mean simply proving your credentials and commitment to confidentiality, but usually also involves attentiveness, sensitivity, and patience. You cannot expect people to open up on very personal and sensitive issues to a complete stranger, so if necessary, do tell them about your experiences first: they might be more inclined to speak with you.

Ask the right questions

Asking yes or no questions might provide you with a hint of the direction to follow in your research but will definitely not offer the quality of information you need. Ensure that your questions are open-ended to allow the respondents to answer in any way they wish. In addition, make sure you avoid leading questions that already suggest an answer or embed any bias. Even if it’s not your first time conducting research, having a colleague or a supervisor read your questions can uncover small flaws that might have gone unnoticed. This is valid both for fieldwork research and for desk-based research – you want your questions to be targeted to the right audience and subject area, so make sure you review these before and after any interviews.

Quality over quantity

Case studies can be much more appreciated than numbers by NGOs and funders as they provide a more detailed picture of the impact that human rights violations and abuses have on individuals and communities. It is much more powerful to hear a first-hand witness account than being presented a chart with numbers of the latest statistics. Yet, even if you are working with numbers, choosing the right ones to present is also a matter of quality and will determine the engagement of your audience.

Ethics and safety first

The first ethical principle of any type of social research is not to cause any harm. Consider wisely the context your interviewees are living in and do not put them at further risk of abuse. Do not make promises you cannot maintain, do not state the false and be clear about what your research is about. Conducting your research according to these ethical principles will add credibility to your report and will help you build trust with both your clients and sponsors.

Don’t be afraid of talking politics

Different organisations have different stands on how they approach politics. They might tell you to be ‘neutral’, but the truth is that human rights work is inherently political and should take the stand of the victims it is trying to protect. Since this work is about identifying human rights violations that are often conducted by governments and corporations, you might have to face government officials and big corporations. Nevertheless, don’t let yourself be intimidated by their big names: this is what justice is all about.

Cross-examine the results

Sometimes data can be misleading. If you’re working with numbers, check that you have enough supporting evidence to explain the reasons, causes or wider impact of the phenomenon you’re examining. Similarly, if you’re focusing on a case study, it is not safe to generalise the results unless you have demonstrable proof that this is the case. Cross-examining the results will ensure that your conclusions are valid and reliable.

Even if your report is not aimed at an academic journal, referencing the materials you use is common professional practice. This does not include only published literature, but also quotes from interviews or conversations you hold during your research. Don’t forget to uphold confidentiality by hiding any personal details and changing the names of vulnerable individuals.

You may also like

Apply Now for the United Nations The Hague Immersion Programme

The UN Immersion Programme Is Open for Applications!

The UN Young Leaders Online Training Programme is Open for Applications!

Apply now: Essex Human Rights Summer School (Fully Online)

17 International Organizations Offering Early-Career Opportunities

Gender Rights Jobs: Our Short Guide

Free MOOC on Children’s Right to Education in Armed Conflict

9 Online Courses on Leading Diverse Teams

40 Top-Rated Social Issues Courses to Study in 2024

10 Courses to Prepare for Your Human Rights Job

Register now: Global Institute of Human Rights Certificate Program

NGO Jobs: Our Short Guide

About the author, human rights careers.

Human Rights Careers (HRC) provides information about online courses, jobs, paid internships, masters degrees, scholarships and other opportunities in the human rights sector and related areas.

• News Releases

Worker rights are one of the least protected human rights, new research reveals

Data project provides ‘report card’ for countries around the world

Binghamton University

University of Johannesburg cleaners and other organizations supporting the Persistent Solidarity Forum march in demand of a fair living wage for the workers.

Credit: "Protesters: 'Workers deserve a living wage'" by Meraj Chhaya is licensed under CC BY 2.0..

BINGHAMTON, N.Y. -- Worker rights are among the least protected human rights in the world, according to new research from faculty at Binghamton University, State University of New York.

The findings are part of a new report published by the  CIRIGHTS Data Project , the largest human rights dataset in the world. Since 1981, the project has ranked countries around the world on their respect for human rights, providing an annual “report card” on 25 internationally recognized human rights. The project is co-led by Binghamton University Professor of Political Science  David Cingranelli.

According to their latest report, published in  Human Rights Quarterly , the five countries with the best overall scores were Canada, Sweden, New Zealand, Norway and Portugal. The five countries with the lowest overall scores were Iran, Syria, North Korea, China and Iraq.

Worker rights, including the right to form a trade union and the right to bargain collectively – are among the least protected human rights. Worker rights are “always violated to some extent,” wrote the researchers.

“Previous research shows that it is unlikely that governments protect the rights to an adequate minimum wage, occupational health and safety, or reasonable limitations on work hours (including voluntary overtime work) unless they allow workers to form independent trade unions and to bargain collectively,” said Cingranelli. “In other words, the right to unionize, bargain, and strike are the gateway rights. If they are protected, all other labor rights are likely to be protected as well. But globally, the gateway rights are in decline.”

Cignarelli said that while democratic and rich countries protect labor rights more than others do, economic inequality has increased almost everywhere.

“Economic globalization has increased competition among nations, which has led governments to favor corporations over workers in conflicts between the two,” said Cignarelli.

In the least economically developed countries, large agricultural, mining and oil extraction companies have their way with workers, said Cignarelli. This also happened during the early stage of industrialization in the United States.

“It is important to remember that companies and workers typically take adversarial positions about how much attention corporate leaders should pay to what workers want concerning the terms and conditions of their work,” he said. “Corporate leaders typically prefer to distribute most of the profit from their activities to shareholders, not workers.”

Stringent labor regulations in one country can cause companies to change their locations. Cignarelli noted that it’s the role of government to make sure that workers have a fair chance to have their concerns heard.

“Without government policies protecting workers, companies can do whatever they want to keep unions out,” Cignarelli said.

Human Rights Quarterly

Subject of Research

Article title.

CIRIGHTS: Quantifying Respect for All Human Rights

Article Publication Date

10-May-2024

Disclaimer: AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert system.

• International edition
• Australia edition
• Europe edition

Outdated laws and customs stalling progress on women’s rights across Africa – study

Family law has not kept up with social shifts, with marital rape, child marriage and lack of property and custody rights persistent problems, research finds

Discriminatory laws and customs across Africa are stalling progress on women’s rights in the region, according to new research.

The human rights organisation Equality Now studied family law and practices in 20 African countries and found that despite some progress in recent decades, inequalities persisted in marriage, divorce, child custody and inheritance and property laws.

Most of the countries in the report have pluralistic legal systems, where statutory legislation sits alongside customary and religious laws, making interpretation and application difficult.

The majority of countries have ratified two protocols that guarantee strong rights and protections for women, including the Protocol to the African Charter on the Rights of Women in Africa ( the Maputo protocol ) and the UN’s Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women .

However, some countries still permit rape in marriage; in others, women are unable to petition for divorce and have no guarantee of inheriting property on the death of a partner. Customary laws in countries including Algeria, Cameroon and Nigeria mean women receive less inheritance than male counterparts.

Activists say that family laws have not kept up with the social shifts of recent decades, including changes in family responsibilities and increased divorce rates.

There has been some success across the continent, including raising the legal age for marriage to 18, said the report. Countries including the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Kenya and Mozambique have banned child marriage. However, Cameroon, Senegal and Tanzania still allow it. Countries such as Nigeria outlawed child marriage in 2003, but the practice continues in the north of the country, where approximately 50% of girls are married before the age of 18.

Esther Waweru, report co-author and a senior legal adviser at Equality Now, said: “Culture and religion frequently act as major impediments in the struggle for family law equality, stalling reforms. Claw-back clauses water down the full impact of some progressive laws, and we are now witnessing backlash from anti-rights movements seeking to reverse hard-won gains made in ending harmful practices such as child marriage and female genital mutilation .

“Stagnation is also a problem, with governments pledging to reform discriminatory laws but failing to take meaningful action. In some instances, progressive family codes have remained in limbo for decades, awaiting enactment.”

Hadiza Dauda, a 37-year-old woman from the northeastern Nigerian city of Bauchi, has had first-hand experience of discriminatory customary laws.

Forced to marry at 12, which cut short her education and exposed her to early motherhood, when her husband died in 2020, her in-laws put pressure on her to marry her brother-in-law. They threatened to take custody of her children and evict her from her matrimonial home if she did not.

Dauda got her land back with the help of Women for Women, which trains marginalised women on their rights , and she is now a community activist, advocating against forced marriage and widow evictions in her home town.

“[These practices] really affect women negatively,” she said. “Those that don’t know what to do fall into poverty, doing all sorts of menial jobs to feed their families. Others go into depression, not knowing where to start from. I didn’t have a choice on when to get married, or when and how to give birth, but we are saying women must have a say, and [this needs to change].”

• Women's rights and gender equality

Most viewed

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Environmental Changes Are Fueling Human, Animal and Plant Diseases, Study Finds

Biodiversity loss, global warming, pollution and the spread of invasive species are making infectious diseases more dangerous to organisms around the world.

By Emily Anthes

Several large-scale, human-driven changes to the planet — including climate change, the loss of biodiversity and the spread of invasive species — are making infectious diseases more dangerous to people, animals and plants, according to a new study.

Scientists have documented these effects before in more targeted studies that have focused on specific diseases and ecosystems. For instance, they have found that a warming climate may be helping malaria expand in Africa and that a decline in wildlife diversity may be boosting Lyme disease cases in North America.

But the new research, a meta-analysis of nearly 1,000 previous studies, suggests that these patterns are relatively consistent around the globe and across the tree of life.

“It’s a big step forward in the science,” said Colin Carlson, a biologist at Georgetown University, who was not an author of the new analysis. “This paper is one of the strongest pieces of evidence that I think has been published that shows how important it is health systems start getting ready to exist in a world with climate change, with biodiversity loss.”

In what is likely to come as a more surprising finding, the researchers also found that urbanization decreased the risk of infectious disease.

The new analysis, which was published in Nature on Wednesday, focused on five “global change drivers” that are altering ecosystems across the planet: biodiversity change, climate change, chemical pollution, the introduction of nonnative species and habitat loss or change.

The researchers compiled data from scientific papers that examined how at least one of these factors affected various infectious-disease outcomes, such as severity or prevalence. The final data set included nearly 3,000 observations on disease risks for humans, animals and plants on every continent except for Antarctica.

The researchers found that, across the board, four of the five trends they studied — biodiversity change, the introduction of new species, climate change and chemical pollution — tended to increase disease risk.

“It means that we’re likely picking up general biological patterns,” said Jason Rohr, an infectious disease ecologist at the University of Notre Dame and senior author of the study. “It suggests that there are similar sorts of mechanisms and processes that are likely occurring in plants, animals and humans.”

The loss of biodiversity played an especially large role in driving up disease risk, the researchers found. Many scientists have posited that biodiversity can protect against disease through a phenomenon known as the dilution effect.

The theory holds that parasites and pathogens, which rely on having abundant hosts in order to survive, will evolve to favor species that are common, rather than those that are rare, Dr. Rohr said. And as biodiversity declines, rare species tend to disappear first. “That means that the species that remain are the competent ones, the ones that are really good at transmitting disease,” he said.

Lyme disease is one oft-cited example. White-footed mice, which are the primary reservoir for the disease, have become more dominant on the landscape, as other rarer mammals have disappeared, Dr. Rohr said. That shift may partly explain why Lyme disease rates have risen in the United States. (The extent to which the dilution effect contributes to Lyme disease risk has been the subject of debate, and other factors, including climate change, are likely to be at play as well.)

Other environmental changes could amplify disease risks in a wide variety of ways. For instance, introduced species can bring new pathogens with them, and chemical pollution can stress organisms’ immune systems. Climate change can alter animal movements and habitats, bringing new species into contact and allowing them to swap pathogens .

Notably, the fifth global environmental change that the researchers studied — habitat loss or change — appeared to reduce disease risk. At first glance, the findings might appear to be at odds with previous studies, which have shown that deforestation can increase the risk of diseases ranging from malaria to Ebola. But the overall trend toward reduced risk was driven by one specific type of habitat change: increasing urbanization.

The reason may be that urban areas often have better sanitation and public health infrastructure than rural ones — or simply because there are fewer plants and animals to serve as disease hosts in urban areas. The lack of plant and animal life is “not a good thing,” Dr. Carlson said. “And it also doesn’t mean that the animals that are in the cities are healthier.”

And the new study does not negate the idea that forest loss can fuel disease; instead, deforestation increases risk in some circumstances and reduces it in others, Dr. Rohr said.

Indeed, although this kind of meta-analysis is valuable for revealing broad patterns, it can obscure some of the nuances and exceptions that are important for managing specific diseases and ecosystems, Dr. Carlson noted.

Moreover, most of the studies included in the analysis examined just a single global change drive. But, in the real world, organisms are contending with many of these stressors simultaneously. “The next step is to better understand the connections among them,” Dr. Rohr said.

Emily Anthes is a science reporter, writing primarily about animal health and science. She also covered the coronavirus pandemic. More about Emily Anthes

Explore the Animal Kingdom

A selection of quirky, intriguing and surprising discoveries about animal life..

Scientists say they have found an “alphabet” in the songs of sperm whales , raising the possibility that the animals are communicating in a complex language.

Indigenous rangers in Australia’s Western Desert got a rare close-up with the northern marsupial mole , which is tiny, light-colored and blind, and almost never comes to the surface.

For the first time, scientists observed a primate in the wild treating a wound  with a plant that has medicinal properties.

A new study resets the timing for the emergence of bioluminescence back to millions  of years earlier than previously thought.

Scientists are making computer models to better understand how cicadas  emerge collectively after more than a decade underground .

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

China makes cheap electric vehicles. Why can't American shoppers buy them?

Camila Domonoske

BYD electric cars wait to be loaded onto a ship at a port in Yantai, China, on April 18. China has rapidly become a major auto exporter, but tariffs have kept cheap Chinese EVs out of the U.S. market — so far. STR/AFP via Getty Images hide caption

BYD electric cars wait to be loaded onto a ship at a port in Yantai, China, on April 18. China has rapidly become a major auto exporter, but tariffs have kept cheap Chinese EVs out of the U.S. market — so far.

New EVs aren't cheap.

At least, not in the United States. In other parts of the world , bargain electric vehicles from China abound, but a 27.5% tariff has kept those cars out of the United States.

Arvind Srinivasan, who recently shopped around for an EV under $25,000, feels conflicted about that.

"As a consumer, yeah, I would buy a Chinese EV, probably without question," he says. "But as a person who cares about the country, in that view, I feel like, no, we should either tariff or ban them."

Even higher tariffs and outright bans are both real possibilities.

That's because cheap Chinese EVs could be devastating to a key sector of the U.S. economy: auto manufacturing. And the Biden administration's climate strategy, which would benefit from cheaper EVs, also prioritizes U.S. jobs.

Chinese electric carmakers are taking on Europeans on their own turf — and succeeding

The Sunday Story: Answering Your Questions About Electric Vehicles

Climate, national security, American jobs: This is why Srinivasan is torn. Even if he's not a fan of big auto companies, exactly.

"At some point, if we don't support U.S. auto manufacturers, [Chinese automakers] are just going to come in, undercut it," he says. "Then we're dependent on China for cheap EVs. And I don't think that's sustainable for the country long term."

Plenty of filet mignon but no hamburger

EV prices have been falling, but cheap ones remain elusive.

That might sound paradoxical, but steak at a discount costs a lot more than hamburger meat. Right now, luxury electric SUVs — the filet mignon of the automotive world — are on sale . But small, cheap cars? That hamburger case is empty.

Well, almost empty. Srinivasan, who wanted an EV to save on gas, found exactly one option. After poring over the new and used offerings, he went with a new Chevy Bolt — just $23,500 after a tax credit.

Arvind Srinivasan, pictured with his Chevy Bolt, wished there were more options when he was shopping for an affordable EV. Bhargav Devana/Arvind Srinivasan hide caption

Arvind Srinivasan, pictured with his Chevy Bolt, wished there were more options when he was shopping for an affordable EV.

"It was like, 'OK, this car isn't great, but it's cheap,'" he says. "No one sells anything remotely close to its price target."

In fact, right now, not even Chevy sells anything close. General Motors is moving on from the older battery that powers the modest-sized, never-profitable hatchback. The Bolt is not currently in production.

Larger vehicles carry larger price tags. As companies pour billions of dollars into making electric vehicles, they're trying to offset those huge expenses. So even though EV prices have fallen about 10% from last year, they're still averaging about $54,000, according to Kelley Blue Book.

EVs won over early adopters, but mainstream buyers aren't along for the ride yet

Companies say they're working on cheaper options. Ford has a "skunkworks" team tackling the project; GM has pledged to bring back the Bolt with a new battery; Stellantis has said a profitable $25,000 EV is key. Tesla, the undisputed market leader for EVs, says it's bringing a cheaper model to market by next year.

But they don't have much time to waste.

Volvo, the Swedish carmaker owned by a Chinese company, plans to sell a Chinese-made EV in the U.S. beginning this summer, at a relatively budget-friendly starting price of under $35,000. (Volvo says it's paying the tariff; the company did not comment when asked about reports that it will be refunded that money in exchange for exporting U.S.-made vehicles.)

People look at a BYD Seagull at the Bangkok International Motor Show in Nonthaburi, Thailand, on March 27. Lillian Suwanrumpha/AFP via Getty Images hide caption

People look at a BYD Seagull at the Bangkok International Motor Show in Nonthaburi, Thailand, on March 27.

How is an "impressive" car just $10,000?

Meanwhile, cheap — really cheap — Chinese EVs are proliferating. The BYD Seagull costs just $10,000 in China.

Chinese-made cars used to be a punchline. Economist Sue Helper, who has spent decades tracking globalization and auto manufacturing, remembers seeing BYD vehicles a few years ago that were, in a word, "terrible." But she recently took a Seagull for a test drive in a parking lot in Detroit. (They are not allowed on U.S. streets.)

"It's impressive," she says. "It's cute."

The Indicator from Planet Money

The surprising leader in evs.

The Seagull would cost more than $10,000 in the U.S., given that it would have to be modified to meet U.S. safety standards. But you could double the price of the Seagull and it would still be a steal.

In fact, you could double the price and pay the 27.5% tariff, and it would still undercut every EV for sale in the United States.

Why? Helper points out that, first, it's a very small car, a rare beast in the U.S. these days. And China has economies of scale and clever design.

There's also, she says, "the Chinese playbook of 'let's subsidize and repress labor and get ourselves a foothold in an international market and take it over.'"

For instance, she says, the Chinese government heavily subsidizes China's EV industry to give it an international advantage. Wages in the Chinese auto industry are lower. And some companies in the Chinese auto-supply chain almost certainly use forced labor, or modern-day slavery , according to human rights groups.

Why aren't cheap Chinese EVs for sale in the U.S.?

National security concerns and old-fashioned protectionism have kept these cars out of the U.S. so far.

When president, Donald Trump imposed a heavy tariff on Chinese-made vehicles, which the Biden administration has extended and could increase.

This year, the U.S. Commerce Department launched an investigation into whether Chinese vehicles' navigation and communication features could spy on Americans.

The department's investigation could result in a prohibition on certain Chinese-made vehicles. Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., has proposed hiking tariffs on Chinese vehicles, while Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, has proposed an outright ban .

The $7,500 tax credit for electric cars keeps changing. Here's how to get it now

Scott Paul of the Alliance for American Manufacturing is lobbying for higher tariffs and says he'd back an outright ban. His organization represents unionized steelworkers and companies in the auto-supply chain.

"We've seen this play out in the past in other industries," he says. "We need to get ahead of this instead of responding to it after the fact, when we're just cleaning up the mess and we're seeing these factories wiped out, these jobs displaced and these communities devastated."

Meanwhile, a different "Alliance" — the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, which represents automakers — also recognizes the risk but couches it differently.

"The overall competitiveness of the auto industry in the U.S. will be harmed if heavily subsidized Chinese vehicles can be sold at below-market prices to U.S. consumers," John Bozzella, the president of the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, told NPR in a statement. The group declined to state a position on banning Chinese autos.

There's good reason for the more measured tone: Major automakers operate globally, not just in the United States. China is a rival, sure, but it's also the world's largest auto market, as well as a major supplier. As Bozzella has previously put it , where China is seen by policymakers as "binary" — good or bad, friend or foe — for automakers, "'China' is complicated."

Climate impacts are complicated too

Bonnie Dixon, another frustrated car shopper, is also torn over Chinese EVs.

Bonnie Dixon, pictured with her 1997 Ford Ranger, drives only about once a week. When she does, she would prefer to be driving a zero-emission vehicle. But she can't find a new one in her budget. Bonnie Dixon hide caption

Bonnie Dixon, pictured with her 1997 Ford Ranger, drives only about once a week. When she does, she would prefer to be driving a zero-emission vehicle. But she can't find a new one in her budget.

Dixon, who works part time as a research scientist and is on a tight budget, drives an older gas pickup she'd love to swap for a zero-emission car. She's wary of used cars so is looking at new ones. She needs a car capable of driving long distances — she can't have a short-range EV that works only around town. New, affordable, long range: no dice.

She doesn't know much about the politics of tariffs, she says. "What I am aware of is just the great urgency of needing to reduce carbon emissions."

If she could buy a Chinese EV, wouldn't that help the planet?

The answer, according to some climate advocates, is complicated.

They argue that buying time for U.S. automakers to change — to make more EVs, at cheaper prices, with cleaner supply chains — could be better for the climate in the long run.

In a boost for EVs, EPA finalizes strict new limits on tailpipe emissions

What biologists see from the shores of the drying Great Salt Lake

The human cost of climate-related disasters is acutely undercounted, new study says

"We are trying to move the market so that all automakers are making vehicles as sustainably as possible," says Katherine García of the Sierra Club. And when it comes to things like greener steel and electricity, American companies rank much better than Chinese ones. Meanwhile, labor groups and green groups have united around the argument that decarbonizing will be good for the planet and U.S. workers.

García emphasized that people can take public transit, bike and drive used EVs to help fight climate change. But she also sees an urgent need for cheaper new EVs — just maybe not cheap Chinese EVs.

It's a position that resonates with Dixon.

"Definitely the best solution would be if we could build them in the U.S.," Dixon says. "That's what I'm hoping — that the U.S. car manufacturers will get their act together and produce these more affordable EVs that we need."

In the meantime, when she needs to drive, she hops in her old gas pickup.

• auto industry
• electric vehicles