Search

Debates over the best way to identify human rights violations, assess compliance with treaty obligations, and measure human rights progress over time have preoccupied scholars and practitioners for many years. These debates have been especially pressing in the field of economic, social, and cultural rights, where the need for new methodologies has been felt most urgently. Quantitative data has been forwarded as a central tool in the drive for better methods of assessment, monitoring, and advocacy. Among quantitative tools, human rights indicators have been identified as especially powerful. Rights indicators are understood to have a variety of advantages: they render complex data simple and easy to understand; they can be designed to demonstrate compliance with obligations, fulfillment of rights, and government efforts toward these goals; and they are capable of capturing progress over time and across countries. This Article closely examines the use of indicators by U.N. bodies charged with monitoring State compliance with human rights treaties. The Article places these efforts to create human rights indicators in conversation with scholarship on audit and standardization from the social sciences. We conclude that while there are very real drawbacks involved in the indicators project, debates about indicators may provide advocates with new opportunities to use the language of science and objectivity as a powerful tool to hold governments to account. However, because human rights compliance indicators threaten to close space for democratic accountability and purport to turn an exercise of judgment into one of technical measurement, advocates of human rights would do well to remain vigilant to effects of the elisions at work in the indicators project. The conundrum of democratic accountability and the failure to clearly locate responsibility for judgment in international human rights assessment exercises are not products of the tools chosen to carry out those exercises, but are instead structural problems, foundational to international human rights law as it exists today. Thus, some of the core problems we argue are inherent in the indicators project would still be present even if quantitative indicators were banished from human rights assessment projects. Nonetheless, the use of quantitative indicators tends to disguise those problems as technical ones of measurement and data availability. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Powerful western nations (who constitute the primary markets for trafficked labor) are engaged in pressuring "source" countries to standardize their legal definitions of and responses to the problem of human trafficking. This paper draws upon ethnographic fieldwork in Bosnia-Herzegovina (BiH) among law enforcement and human rights officials involved in the effort to improve BiH's "rating" in a US State Department evaluation of its anti-trafficking measures. It undertakes what Paul Kahn has referred to as a cultural study of law as it emerges through politically charged interactions in an "emergent democracy. Rather than examining the effectiveness of anti-trafficking legal efforts themselves, the paper seeks to elucidate the mechanisms through which legal change is wrought, and the specific cultural assumptions embedded in both international and local anti-trafficking laws. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many intergovernmental and transnational human rights and human development agencies rely upon research conducted by "international consultants" from the United States and other wealthy western nations for their programming decisions. Using a case study of a national research project on child trafficking in Eastern Europe designed by the author, this paper raises questions about the conflicting agendas at work when research is commissioned by one agency, directed by consultants from elsewhere, and implemented by local researchers. What are the implications for the research itself? What are the obligations of the "internationals" in designing research on "local" problems that are actually defined by international organizations? How do standards from different agencies and professional organizations intersect, and with what consequences? This paper extends conversations begun in anthropology about the ethics of "western" research on "non-western others" into the realm of current human rights and human development centered research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]