Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-12T22:26:55.791Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Review of Methodologies Measuring Human Rights Implementation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Helen Watchirs
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This article examines various methodologies used to measure implementation of human rights norms. As the above quotations demonstrate, society's need for measurement to evaluate progress and change over the centuries has not diminished. One of the purposes of measurement is to move human rights discourse beyond the aspirational, which has made achievement of these rights elusive, to an approach that makes them more concrete and practical through accurately testing the extent of their implementation. Measurement can simply involve the assignment of variable values - for example, numbers - to objects or events, such as law, according to rules. A link can then be provided between abstract concepts, such as human rights, to empirical indicants. This article aims to draw general principles to guide and make better use of measurement methodologies, such as statistical analysis and audits, in human rights areas generally, but with particular emphasis on the health area, especially HIV/AIDS.

Type
Article
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 30 , Issue 4 , Winter 2002 , pp. 716 - 733
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2002

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Knowles, E., ed., Oxford Dictionary of Quotations, 5th ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999): at 432, quoting Kelvin, Lord, “Electrical Units of Measurement,” Popular Lectures and Addresses, vol. 1 (1889).Google Scholar
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Human Development Report: Human Rights and Human Development (New York: U.N. Publications, 2000): at 126, quoting Douglas N. Daft, chief executive officer of Coca-Cola (2000).Google Scholar
Rubin, B.R. and Newberg, P.R., “Statistical Analysis for Implementing Human Rights Policy,” in Newberg, P.R., ed., The Politics of Human Rights (New York: New York University Press, 1980): at 270.Google Scholar
Zeller, R.A. and Carmines, E.G., Measurement in the Social Sciences: The Link Between Data and Theory (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1980): at 1–2.Google Scholar
Scoble, H.M. and Wiseberg, L.S., “Problems of Comparative Research on Human Rights,” in Nanda, V.P. Scarritt, J.R., and Shepherd, G.W., eds., Global Human Rights: Public Policies, Comparative Measures, and NGO Strategies (Boulder: Westview Press, 1981): at 167.Google Scholar
Banks, D.L., “New Patterns of Oppression: An Updated Analysis of Human Rights Data,” in Jabine, T.B. and Claude, R.P., eds., Human Rights and Statistics: Getting the Record Straight (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1991): at 387.Google Scholar
Gupta, D.K. Jongman, A.J., and Schmid, A.P., “Creating a Composite Index for Assessing Country Performance in the Field of Human Rights: Proposal for a New Methodology,” Human Rights Quarterly, 16 (1993): 131–62, at 133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Chayes, A.H. and Chayes, A., The New Sovereignty: Compliance with International Regulatory Agreements (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1995).Google Scholar
Ball, P., Making the Case: The Role of Statistics in Human Rights Reporting, paper presented at the Conference on Statistics, Development and Human Rights, International Association for Official Statistics, Montreux, September 4–8, 2000.Google Scholar
For example, 800 indicators are used by the World Bank, World Development Indicators, 2001, available at <http://www.worldbank.org/data/wdi2001/> (last visited August 1, 2002).+(last+visited+August+1,+2002).>Google Scholar
Samuelson, D.A. and Spirer, H.F., “Use of Incomplete and Distorted Data in Inference About Human Rights,” in Jabine, T.B. and Claude, R.P., eds., Human Rights and Statistics: Getting the Record Straight (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1991): at 67.Google Scholar
The former Zaire government only reported AIDS cases to the World Health Organization in 1987, despite the existence of earlier cases and with allegations that this figure was unreliably low. Hiltzik, M.A., “Africa Facing Reality of AIDS War Amid Social Changes in Urban Life,” Los Angeles Times, November 14, 1988, at 6.Google Scholar
Valencia-Weber, G. and Weber, R.J., “El Salvador: Methods Used to Document Human Rights Violations,” Human Rights Quarterly, 8 (1986): 731–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stohl, M. et al., “State Violation of Human Rights: Issues and Problems of Measurement,” Human Rights Quarterly, 8 (1986): 592–606, at 600–03.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Claude, R.P. and Jabine, T.B., “Exploring Human Rights Issues with Statistics,” in Jabine, T.B. and Claude, R.P., eds., Human Rights and Statistics: Getting the Record Straight (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1991): at 6.Google Scholar
Alston, P., “The Nature and Scope of State Obligations Under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights,” Human Rights Quarterly, 9 (1987): 156–229, at 159–60; Robertson, R.E., “Measuring State Compliance with the Obligation to Devote the ‘Maximum Available Resources’ to Realizing Economic, Social and Cultural Rights,” Human Rights Quarterly, 16 (1994): 693–714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Article 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights requires that obligations be implemented immediately, whereas Article 2 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights requires that implementation be progressive and to the maximum of a state’s resources.Google Scholar
Hunt, P., State Obligations, Indicators, Benchmarks and the Right to Education, paper given at the Round-Table Discussion on Setting Benchmarks of the Realization of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, organized by the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, Geneva, March 25, 1998.Google Scholar
Hunt, P., State Obligations, Indicators, Benchmarks and the Right to Education, Background Paper, E/C. 12/1998/11 (July 16, 1998): at paras. 11–12.Google Scholar
Hunt concludes: “Without human rights indicators and benchmarks, it is difficult to see how these elusive concepts can be effectively monitored.” Id. at paras. 14–18, 29.Google Scholar
U.N. Secretariat, Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment 1: Reporting by States Parties (third session, 1989), in Compilation of General Comments and General Recommendations Adopted by Human Rights Treaty Bodies, U.N. Doc. HRI/GEN/1/Rev.1 (July 1994): at 42, para. 6.Google Scholar
Alston, P., Concluding Observations, paper given at the Round-Table Discussion on Setting Benchmarks of the Realization of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, organized by the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, Geneva, March 25, 1998.Google Scholar
Turk, D., The New Economic Order and the Promotion of Human Rights: Realization of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Progress Report, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1990/19 (1990).Google Scholar
United Nations, Report of the Seminar on Appropriate Indicators to Measure Achievements in the Progressive Realization of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, World Conference on Human Rights, U.N. Doc A/CONF.157/PC/73 (April 1993).Google Scholar
Id. at 170.Google Scholar
U.N. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the UNDP, Workshop on Civil and Political Rights Indicators, Geneva, September 27–29, 1999.Google Scholar
McNitt, A.D., “Systematic Measurement of Abuse,” in Cingranelli, D.L., ed., Human Rights: Theory and Measurement (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1988): at 99.Google Scholar
Siegal, R.L., “A Policy Approach to Human Rights Law,” in Cingranelli, D.L., ed., Human Rights: Theory and Measurement (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1988): at 80.Google Scholar
Sieghart, P., “Economic Development, Human Rights — and the Omelette Thesis,” Development Policy Review, 1 (1983): 95–104, at 96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
An example is the 1935 Nuremberg laws in Nazi Germany. Lopez, G.A. and Stohl, M., “Problems of Concept and Measurement in the Study of Human Rights,” in Jabine, T.B. and Claude, R.P., eds., Human Rights and Statistics: Getting the Record Straight (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1991): at 221.Google Scholar
Donnelly, and Howard, use the examples of Soviet rule under Stalin and apartheid in South Africa as institutionalizing repression through law rather than only procedural irregularities. Donnelly, J. and Howard, R.E., “Assessing National Human Rights Performance: A Theoretical Framework,” Human Rights Quarterly, 10 (1988): 214–48, at 232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
UNDP, supra note 2, at 10. It also recommends that assessment of the existing human rights situations be undertaken internally initially (for example, human rights national action plans could be combined with national development reports), as outside experts can generate unproductive hostility and tension. Id. at 10–11.Google Scholar
Id. at 80.Google Scholar
Boli-Bennett, J., “Human Rights or State Expansion? Cross-National Definitions of Constitutional Rights, 1870–1970,” in Nanda, Y.P. Scarritt, J.R., and Shepherd, G.W., eds., Global Human Rights: Public Policies, Comparative Measures, and NGO Strategies (Boulder: Westview Press, 1981): at 187–88.Google Scholar
Pritchard, K., “Comparative Human Rights,” in Cingranelli, D.L., ed., Human Rights: Theory and Measurement (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1988): at 142.Google Scholar
Pritchard, K., “Human Rights and Development,” in Forsythe, D.P., ed., Human Rights and Development: International Views (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1989): at 342.Google Scholar
Safran, W., “Civil Liberties in Democracies: Constitutional Norms, Practices, and Problems of Comparison,” in Nanda, V.P. Scarritt, J.R., and Shepherd, G.W., eds., Global Human Rights: Public Policies, Comparative Measures, and NGO Strategies (Boulder: Westview Press, 1981): at 196.Google Scholar
The dimensions are political rights practice, constitutional rights (economic and social, and civil and political), political liberties practice, and social and economic rights practice. Fraser, E.E., “Reconciling Conceptual and Measurement Problems in the Comparative Study of Human Rights,” International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 35 (1994): 1–18, at 11–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
In 1973 and 1974, the surveys were semiannual. See Gastil, R., Freedom in the World: Political Rights and Civil Liberties (New York: Freedom House, 1981).Google Scholar
Scoble, and Wiseberg, , supra note 5, at 161.Google Scholar
Twelve other studies were also cited. Kaufmann, D. Kraay, A., and Ziodo-Lobaton, P., Aggregating Governance Indicators, Policy Research Working Paper 2195, World Bank Development Research Group (October 1999): at 30.Google Scholar
World Audit, available at <http://www.worldaudit.org> (last visited July 25, 2002).+(last+visited+July+25,+2002).>Google Scholar
Freedom House publishes the two checklists on its website, available at <http://www.freedomhouse.org/research/freeworld/2001/methodology.htm> (last visited August 1, 2002).+(last+visited+August+1,+2002).>Google Scholar
Two publications include Banks, A., ed., Political Handbook of the World (Binghamton, New York: CSA Publications/SUNY Press, 1986), and Gall, S.B. and Gall, T.L., eds., Worldmark Encyclopedia of Nations (Farmington Hills, Michigan: Gale Group, 1997). Gastil, , supra note 39. Banks in fact criticizes Gastil’s undercounting of problems based on his own work. Banks, D.L., “The Analysis of Human Rights Data Over Time,” Human Rights Quarterly, 8 (1986): 664–79, at 669.Google Scholar
Stern, L., ed., Freedom in the World: The Annual Survey of Political Rights and Civil Liberties 1999–2000 (New York: Freedom House, 2000): at Foreword.Google Scholar
Lopez, and Stohl, , supra note 30, at 223.Google Scholar
Scoble, and Wiseberg, , supra note 5, at 152–63.Google Scholar
Bollen, K.A., “Political Rights and Political Liberties in Nations: An Evaluation of Human Rights Measures, 1950 to 1984,” Human Rights Quarterly, 8 (1986): 567–91, at 585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCamant, J.F., “A Critique of Present Measures of ‘Human Rights Development’ and an Alternative,” in Nanda, V.P. Scarritt, J.R., and Shepherd, G.W., eds., Global Human Rights: Public Policies, Comparative Measures, and NGO Strategies (Boulder: Westview Press, 1981): at 132.Google Scholar
Goldstein, R.J., “The Limitations of Using Quantitative Data in Studying Human Rights Abuses,” Human Rights Quarterly, 8 (1986): 607–27, at 620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stohl, M. et al., “State Violation of Human Rights: Issues and Problems of Measurement,” Human Rights Quarterly, 8 (1986): 592–606, at 599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
The three variables are life expectancy at birth, educational attainment, and gross national product per capita. UNDP, supra note 2.Google Scholar
Humana, C., World Human Rights Guide (New York: Pica Press, 1984).Google Scholar
Humana only introduced them in his 1986 study. Humana, C., World Human Rights Guide (New York: Facts on File, 1986).Google Scholar
This consisted of unqualified respect (three points); occasional breaches (two points); frequent violations (one point); and consistent pattern of violations (zero points).Google Scholar
UNDP, Human Development Report: Financing Human Development (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991): at 15, 18–19.Google Scholar
UNDP, Human Development Report: Global Dimensions of Human Development (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992): at 29.Google Scholar
Id. at 27–28.Google Scholar
Id. at 29.Google Scholar
Tomasevski, K., “A Critique of the UNDP Political Freedom Index 1991,” in Andreassen, B. and Swinehart, T., eds., Human Rights in Developing Countries Yearbook 1991 (Oslo: Nordic Human Rights Publications, 1992): 3–24, at 13. She notes that it was surprising that the UNDP adopted the model of Humana’s book, which had not passed peer review and was not based on authoritative sources of information.Google Scholar
Id. at 15, citing UNDP, Expert Meeting on Human Freedom and Development, New York, November 19–20, 1991, U.N. Doc. DP/1992/13 (January 21, 1992).Google Scholar
Id. at 15–16.Google Scholar
For example, the scores of post-communist regimes in Eastern Europe were said to be too generous, being based on good intentions rather than actual practice. Gupta, Jongman, , and Schmid, , supra note 7, at 139–40.Google Scholar
Barsh, R.L., “Measuring Human Rights: Problems of Methodology and Purpose,” Human Rights Quarterly, 15 (1993): 87–121, at 104–05.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Id. at 88–89, citing General Debate of the UNDP Governing Council, New York, June 11, 1991, U.N. Docs. DP/1991/WP.17 (1991) and DP/1991/WP.19 (1991). See also Forsythe, D.P., “The United Nations, Human Rights and Development,” Human Rights Quarterly, 19 (1997): 334–49, at 343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
UNDP, supra note 2, at 90.Google Scholar
UNDP, Human Development Report: Gender and Human Development (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995). See also Apodaca, C., “Measuring Women’s Economic and Social Rights Achievement,” Human Rights Quarterly, 20 (1998): 139–72, at 141.Google Scholar
UNDP, supra note 67.Google Scholar
World Bank, Advancing Gender Equality: World Bank Action Since Beijing (2000): at 4–5.Google Scholar
World Bank, Draft Poverty Reduction Strategy (2000): at 3–4. It recommends a three-part strategy for reforming institutions to establish equal rights and opportunities, fostering economic development to strengthen incentives for more equal sharing of resources, and taking active policy measures to redress persistent gender disparities in command of resources and political voice. The World Bank advocates integrating gender for reasons of efficiency and equity in the four dimensions of poverty, in terms of diagnosis (data collection and analysis), defining policy implication (identifying gaps and possible interventions), and monitoring and evaluation (gender differences in the outcomes and impacts of programs). These four dimensions are opportunities (access to productive resources), capabilities (access to essential public services, such as education and health), security (economic and personal vulnerability, such as exposure to violence), and empowerment (political participation and decision-making, and control over household resources).Google Scholar
Id. at 107; Alston, P., “Towards a Human Rights Accountability Index,” Human Development Journal, 1 (July 2000): 249–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arat, Z.F., Democracy and Human Rights in Developing Countries (Boulder: Rienner, 1991): at 23–29.Google Scholar
Arat, Z.F., “Can Democracy Survive Where There Is a Gap Between Political and Economic Rights?,” in Cingranelli, D.L., ed., Human Rights: Theory and Measurement (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1988): at 231–33.Google Scholar
Saward, M., “Democratic Theory and Indices of Democratization,” in Beetham, D., ed., Defining and Measuring Democracy (London: Sage, 1994): at 18.Google Scholar
Pintat, C., Statistics on Democratic Processes and Civil and Political Rights — Reflections on the Experience of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, paper presented at the Conference on Statistics, Development and Human Rights, International Association for Official Statistics, Montreux, September 4–8, 2000, at 6.Google Scholar
Weir, S. and Beetham, D., Political Power and Democratic Control in Britain: The Democratic Audit of the United Kingdom (London: Routledge, 1999): at Part 4. This book focuses on democratic institutions and practice, and is one of a companion set of two. The other book, Klug, F. Starmer, K., and Weir, S., The Three Pillars of Liberty, Political Rights and Freedom in the United Kingdom (London: Routledge, 1996), at Chapter 15, focuses on political rights and freedoms. The two main criteria are (1) how clearly does the law define and effectively protect the political and civil rights of citizens; and (2) how secure are citizens in the exercise of their political and civil rights, and the remedies available to them when they are violated, and how far do they enjoy equal treatment of those rights and remedies?.Google Scholar
Klug, Starmer, , and Weir, , supra note 76, at 13–36. However, it does not measure economic, social, and cultural rights. Also, it does not include the Scottish legal system or special laws and practices in Northern Ireland.Google Scholar
Id. at 304–10.Google Scholar
Id. at 24.Google Scholar
All-Party Parliamentary Group on AIDS, The UK HIV and Human Rights: Recommendations for the Next Five Years (London: APPG, July 2001): at 47, available at <http://www.unaids.org/publications/documents/human/UKreport0701.pdf>..>Google Scholar
Democratic Audit of Australia, available at <http://democratic.audit.anu.edu.au> (last visited August 2, 2002).+(last+visited+August+2,+2002).>Google Scholar
See SNS (Studieförbundet Näringsliv och Sämhalle) Democratic Audit of Australia, available at <http://www.const.sns.se/dr/English> (last visited August 2, 2002).+(last+visited+August+2,+2002).>Google Scholar
International IDEA, State of Democracy: Trends from the Pilot Countries: An Overview of Democracy Assessment Reports in Bangladesh, El Salvador, Italy, Kenya, Malawi, New Zealand, Peru and South Korea (Stockholm: International IDEA, 2001). See also Beetham, D. et al., International IDEA Handbook on Democracy Assessment (The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 2001).Google Scholar
See Mann, J. and Tarantola, D., eds., AIDS in the World II: Global Dimensions, Social Roots, and Responses (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996).Google Scholar
World Health Organization, World Health Report 1999 — Making a Difference (Geneva: World Health Organization, 1999).Google Scholar
This is as opposed to lifespan, which incorporates differences due to chance. Gakidou, E.E. et al., “Defining and Measuring Health Inequality: An Approach Based on the Distribution of Health Expectancy,” Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 78, no. 1 (2000): 42–54.Google Scholar
Murray, C.J.L. et al., “Health Inequalities and Social Group Differences: What Should We Measure?,” Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 77, no. 7 (1999): 537–43, at 541.Google Scholar
World Health Organization, supra note 85. The four main areas are population (size, annual growth rate, dependency ratio, and total fertility rate); mortality rates (infant, maternal, and the probability of dying under the age of five years and between the ages of 15–59 years); socioeconomic (life expectancy at birth for women and men, real gross domestic product, educational attainment, and measure of malnutrition — using the proxy of the percentage of children under the age of five whose growth is stunted); and health services and finances (percentage of children immunized against measles, health expenditures as a percentage of gross domestic product, and the percentage of health taken from public sources).Google Scholar
Id. at 7.Google Scholar
Id. at 6, Box 1.1.Google Scholar
Leary, V., “The Right to Health in International Human Rights Law,” Health and Human Rights, 1 (1994): 24–56, at 42–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
World Health Organization, Global Strategy for Health for All by the Year 2000 (Geneva: World Health Organization, 1981): at 3. The strategy was implemented by a plan of action in 1982 based on the Alma-Ata Declaration. World Health Organization, Declaration of Alma-Ata, Report of the International Conference on Primary Health Care, Alma-Ata (USSR) (Geneva: World Health Organization, 1978).Google Scholar
An example is the equitable notion of health security. World Health Organization’s Task Force on Health in Development, Health: The Courage to Care—A Critical Analysis of WHO’s Leadership Role in International Health, WHO/HPD/97.3 (1997).Google Scholar
Id. at 6. The report on the consultation sets out the relevant background to these developments. World Health Organization, Report of the Informal Consultation on Health and Human Rights, Geneva, December 4–5, 1997.Google Scholar
Inter-regional Roundtable on Measuring Women’s Health Status Though A Human Rights Approach, November 12–14, 1997.Google Scholar
One example is childhood vaccination. Taylor, A.L., “Making the World Health Organization Work: A Legal Framework for Universal Access to the Conditions for Health,” American Journal of Law & Medicine, 18 (1992): 301–46, at 318.Google Scholar
Id. at 326.Google Scholar
Leary, V., “Lessons from the Experience of the International Labor Organisation,” in Alston, P., ed., The United Nations and Human Rights: A Critical Appraisal (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992): at 580.Google Scholar
The booklet also urges the use of health legislation to promote women’s health, based on the substantial contribution already made to public health. Cook, R., Women’s Health and Human Rights: The Promotion and Protection of Women’s Health through International Human Rights Law (Geneva: World Health Organization, 1994).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Id. at 13.Google Scholar
Id. at 14–15.Google Scholar
See text accompanying notes 9, 75, and 136.Google Scholar
World Health Organization, Guidelines for Social Mobilization: A Human Rights Approach to Tuberculosis, WHO/CDS/STB/2001.9 (2001).Google Scholar
World Health Organization, 25 Questions and Answers on Health and Human Rights (Geneva: World Health Organization, 2002).Google Scholar
World Health Organization, Informal Consultation on Health and Human Rights: Towards a WHO Health and Human Rights Strategy, Draft Report, April 3–4, 2000. See also U.N. Economic and Social Council, Commission on Human Rights, Specific Groups and Individuals: Other Vulnerable Groups and Individuals — The Protection of Human Rights in the Context of HIV/AIDS, Report of the Secretary-General, E/CN.4/2001/80 (December 20, 2000): at para. 84.Google Scholar
The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Health, General Comment 14, E/C. 12/2000/4 (Geneva: United Nations, August 2000).Google Scholar
London’s Health, A Short Guide to Health Impact Assessment: Informing Healthy Decisions (August 2000), available at <http://www.londonshealth.gov.uk/pdfs/shortguide.pdf>..>Google Scholar
Ewan, C. et al., National Framework for Environmental and Health Impact Assessment (Canberra: National Health and Medical Research Council, 1994); Dunt, D.R. Abramson, M.J., and Andreassen, D.C., “Health Impact Assessment of a New Freeway Development,” Australian Journal of Public Health, 19 (1995): 347–56; Canadian Public Health Association, Health Impacts of Social and Economic Conditions: Implications for Public Policy, Board of Directors Discussion Paper (CPHA: Ottawa, March 1997), available at <http://www.cpha.ca/english/policy/pstatem/impact/pagel.htm>; Dahlren, G. Nordgren, P., and Whitehead, M., eds., Health Impact Assessment of the EU Common Agricultural Policy, NIPH Policy Report, 2d ed. (Stockholm: Swedish National Institute of Public Health, 1997); Birley, M.H., The Health Impact Assessment of Development Projects (London: HMSO, 1995).Google Scholar
Birley, M.H. et al., Health and Environmental Impact Assessment: An Integrated Approach (London: Earthscan and the British Medical Association, 1998).Google Scholar
Ison, E., The Main Resource, vol. 1 of Resource for Health Impact Assessment, commissioned by the British National Health Service (London: NHS Executive, 2000).Google Scholar
See Scott-Samuel, A. Birley, M., and Ardern, K., Merseyside Guidelines for Health Impact Assessment (November 1998), available at <http://www.liv.ac.uk/∼mhb/publicat/merseygui/>; U.K. Department of Health, Conference Report: Second Health Impact Assessment Conference, October 5–6, 1999.;+U.K.+Department+of+Health,+Conference+Report:+Second+Health+Impact+Assessment+Conference,+October+5–6,+1999.>Google Scholar
Scott-Samuel, A., “Health Impact Assessment — Theory into Practice,” Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 52 (1998): 704–05, at 705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Keefe, E. and Scott-Samuel, A., “Human Rights and Wrongs: Could Health Impact Assessment Help?,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 30, no. 4 (2002): 734–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
The methodology originated in 1972 with respect to family planning. Stover, J., The AIDS Program Effort Index (API): Results from the Field Test, The POLICY Project, the Futures Group International (August 1999).Google Scholar
Expertise varied from government officials, nongovernmental organizations, private sector, and civil society (that is, religious organizations, universities, doctors, and journalists). Stover, J. Rehnstrom, J., and Schwartlander, B., “Measuring the Level of Effort in the National and International Response to HIV/AIDS: The AIDS Program Effort Index (API),” report presented at the Thirteenth International AIDS Conference, Durban, South Africa, (July 2000).Google Scholar
UNAIDS, National AIDS Programmes: A Guide to Monitoring and Evaluation, UNAIDS/00.17E (Geneva: UNAIDS, 2000): at 32.Google Scholar
UNAIDS, Protocol for the Identification of Discrimination Against People Living with HIV, UNAIDS/00.05E (Geneva: UNAIDS, 2000): at 10.Google Scholar
Id. at 11.Google Scholar
Id. at 15.Google Scholar
Id. at 17.Google Scholar
Id. at 11–13.Google Scholar
Id. at 14.Google Scholar
Gostin, L. and Mann, J., “Towards the Development of a Human Rights Impact Assessment for the Formulation and Evaluation of Public Health Policies,” Health and Human Rights, 1 (1994): 58–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent, François-Xavier Bagnoud Center for Health and Human Rights, and Harvard School of Public Health, AIDS, Health and Human Rights: An Explanatory Manual (Geneva: IFRC, 1995): at Parts I (4) and III.Google Scholar
Gostin, L.O. and Lazzarini, Z., Human Rights and Public Health in the AIDS Pandemic (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997): at Chapter 3.Google Scholar
Id. at Chapter 5.Google Scholar
Watchirs, H., Report on a Rights Analysis Instrument for Use in Evaluating Mental Health Legislation, Attorney-General’s Department, commissioned by the Australian Health Ministers’ Advisory Council, National Mental Health Working Group, Legislation Sub-Committee (December 1996), available at <http://www.health.gov.au/hsdd/mentalhe/resources/pdf/rightsanalysis.pdf>.Google Scholar
Principles for the Protection of Persons with Mental Illness and for the Improvement of Mental Health Care, General Assembly Resolution, A/RES/46/119 (December 1991).Google Scholar
Australian Health Ministers, National Mental Health Statement of Rights and Responsibilities, Department of Health, Housing and Community Services, Commonwealth of Australia (1991).Google Scholar
This exception was Queensland because it was in the process of enacting new legislation. It was suggested that the multidisciplinary panels include the following representatives: a consumer, a human rights expert, a lawyer familiar with the subject matter (mental health), a nongovernmental organization service provider, a clinician, an advocate, a caregiver, and a government officer working in the relevant policy/program area.Google Scholar
The thirteen indicators covered general and aspirational human rights, human rights in mental health facilities, determination of mental illness, criteria for admission to a mental health facility, involuntary review or appeals body and process, appointment of a personal representative/guardian, procedural safeguards, consent to general and special treatment and procedures, treatment and medication, accountability, standards and monitoring, and general legal provisions in non-mental health legislation (for example, antidiscrimination). Watchirs, H., Application of Rights Analysis Instrument to Australian Mental Health Legislation, Report to Australian Health Ministers’ Advisory Council Mental Health Working Group (2000), available at <http://www.health.gov.au/hsdd/mentalhe/resources/reports/pdf/amhl.pdf>..>Google Scholar
Watchirs, H., A Rights Analysis Instrument to Measure Compliance with the International Guidelines on HIV/AIDS and Human Rights, Report to the Australian National Council on AIDS and Related Diseases (August 1999).Google Scholar
Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and UNAIDS, HIV/AIDS and Human Rights: International Guidelines — Second International Consultation on HIV/AIDS and Human Rights, Geneva, September 23–25, 1996, HR/PUB/98/1 (Geneva: United Nations, 1998).Google Scholar
Robertson, , supra note 16, at 695–97.Google Scholar
See Gostin, L. O., Public Health Law: Power, Duty and Restraint (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000): at 319–20.Google Scholar
Fukuda-Parr, S., “Indicators of Human Development and Human Rights — Overlaps, Differences … and What About the Human Development Index?,” paper presented at the Conference on Statistics, Development and Human Rights, International Association for Official Statistics, Montreux, September 4–8, 2000.Google Scholar
Australia is a federal system — responsibility for health and law matters is generally with states.Google Scholar
Watchirs, H., Measuring Legal Implementation of International Human Rights Norms in the Context of HIV/AIDS, Doctor of Philosophy thesis, Australian National University (2001).Google Scholar
The author has been granted a Jonathan Mann Health and Human Rights scholarship by the AIDS Trust of Australia to perform these applications of the instrument.Google Scholar
Taylor, S.J. and Bogdan, R., Introduction to Qualitative Research Methods: A Guidebook and Resource (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1998): at Chapter 1; Simon, J.L., Basic Research Methods in Social Science: The Art of Empirical Investigation (New York: Random House, 1969); Strauss, A. and Corbin, J., Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques (Newbury Park: Sage Publications, 1990).Google Scholar
Babbie, E., The Practice of Social Research (Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1983): at 278.Google Scholar
One study of journal articles found that law was the main source of content analysis in the 1970s (35 percent), but dwindled to 2.1 percent in the 1990s. Schrott, P.R. and Lanoue, D.J., “Trends and Perspectives in Content Analysis,” in Borg, I. and Mohler, P., eds., Trends and Perspectives in Empirical Social Research (New York: W. de Gruyter, 1994): at 336–37.Google Scholar
Krippendorff, K., Content Analysis: An Introduction to its Methodology (Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1980): at 57–64.Google Scholar
Babbie, , supra note 141, at 274–75.Google Scholar
Id. at 279.Google Scholar
Groeben, N. and Rustemeyer, R., “On the Integration of Quantitative and Qualitative Methodological Paradigms (Based on the Example of Content Analysis),” in Borg, I. and Mohler, P., eds., Trends and Perspectives in Empirical Social Research (New York: W. de Gruyter, 1994): at 315.Google Scholar
It should be noted that, in law, regulatory precision is thought to increase certainty by removing vague terms such as “public interest.” Diver, C.S., “Regulatory Precision,” in Hawkins, K. and Thomas, J., eds., Making Regulatory Policy (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1989): at 200.Google Scholar
Overly precise and detailed laws without user-friendly guides are difficult to absorb and alienating, with ignorance and sense of irrelevance hindering negotiation and compliance. This leads to problems of rule overload, opening loopholes and creative compliance. Black, J., Managing Discretion, paper given at the Australian Law Reform Commission Conference: Penalties, Policy, Principles and Practice, Sydney (June 2001): at 23.Google Scholar
The four quadrants are minimal (more than 0, but less than 2.5), partial (more than 2.5, but less than 5), significant (more than 5, but less than 7.5), and substantial (more than 7.5).Google Scholar
Kaufmann, D. et al., “Governance Matters: From Measurement to Action,” Finance and Development, 37, no. 2 (2000), available at <http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2000/06/kauf.htm>. See also “Can Corruption Be Measured? Bank Offers Diagnostic Tools to Measure and Combat Corruption to Member Countries,” Bank’s World, 3, no. 6 (1999): at 1,3.Google Scholar
Such use of the instrument would comply with International Guidelines themselves. Guideline 11, State Monitoring and Enforcement of Human Rights: (a) Collection by states of information on HIV-related human rights as part of their treaty reporting obligations. Guideline 12, International Cooperation: (f) States reporting on implementation of the Guidelines to the treaty bodies. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and UNAIDS, supra note 133, at 30–32.Google Scholar
UNDP, supra note 2.Google Scholar
McNitt, A.D., “Systematic Measurement of Abuse,” in Cingranelli, D.L., ed., Human Rights: Theory and Measurement (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1988): at 94–97. De Neufville challenges this assertion, as she argues that the reports have been increasingly independent, accurate, and unbiased. de Neufville, J.I., “Human Rights Reporting as a Policy Tool: An Examination of the State Department Country Reports,” Human Rights Quarterly, 8 (1986): 681–99, at 682. The Webers contrast the depiction of El Salvador from U.S. State Department reports and nongovernmental organization information. Valencia-Weber, and Weber, , supra note 13.Google Scholar
Scoble, and Wiseberg, , supra note 5, at 159.Google Scholar
The factors Kenneth Bollen identifies as influencing judges include political orientation, information access, stakes in rating (political, personal, social, and economic), and relationship between rated country and home country. Bollen, K.A., “Political Rights and Political Liberties in Nations: An Evaluation of Human Rights Measures, 1950 to 1984,” in Jabine, T.B. and Claude, R.P., eds., Human Rights and Statistics: Getting the Record Straight (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1992): at 202, 205–06, and 208–09.Google Scholar
Selltiz, C. Wrightsman, L.S., and Cook, S. W., Research Methods in Social Relations (New York: Henry Holt & Co., 1976): at 172.Google Scholar
Tomasevski, , supra note 60, at 14.Google Scholar
Reiter, R.B. Zunzunegui, M.V., and Quiroga, J., “Guidelines for Field Reporting of Basic Human Rights Violations,” Human Rights Quarterly, 8 (1986): 628–53, at 652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
This is as opposed to more complex types such as interval or ratio scales. Moser, C.A. and Kalton, G., Survey Methods in Social Investigation (London: Heinemann Educational, 1971): at 352–53.Google Scholar
Lin, N., Foundations of Social Research (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1976).Google Scholar
Judd, C.M. Smith, E.R., and Kidder, L.H., Research Methods in Social Relations (Fort Worth: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1991): at 148.Google Scholar
Gupta, Jongman, , and Schmid, , supra note 7, at 141–42.Google Scholar
It did not, however, find any statistical basis to support criticisms that the studies were culturally biased. Id. at 154–56.Google Scholar
Steiger, J.H., “Factor Analysis in the 1980s and the 1990s: Some Old Debates and Some New Developments,” in Borg, I. and Mohler, P., eds., Trends and Perspectives in Empirical Social Research (New York: W. de Gruyter, 1994).Google Scholar
Zeller, R. A. and Carmines, E.G., Measurement in the Social Sciences: The Link Between Data and Theory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980).Google Scholar
Lopez, and Stohl, , supra note 30, at 230.Google Scholar
McCamant, , supra note 49, at 126.Google Scholar
Banks, , supra note 6, at 265.Google Scholar
Jabine, T.B., “Indicators for Monitoring Access to Basic Health Care as Human Rights,” in Chapman, A.R., ed., Health Care Reform: A Human Rights Approach (Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 1994): at 254.Google Scholar
Chayes, and Chayes, , supra note 8; Braithwaite, J. and Drahos, P., Global Business Regulation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000).Google Scholar
Epistemic communities are defined by Peter Haas as a network of professionals with recognized expertise and competence in a particular domain and with an authoritative claim to policy-relevant knowledge within that domain or issue-area. Haas, P., “Introduction: Epistemic Communities and International Policy Coordination,” International Organization, 46 (1992): 1–36. See also Haas, E.B., When Knowledge Is Power: Three Models of Change in International Organizations (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990). 172. Hunt, , supra note 18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar