I am delighted to announce that the current issue of the
Minnesota Journal of International Law (Winter 2019) is carrying an article
that I co-wrote with David
Weissbrodt, Regents Professor of Emeritus at the University of Minnesota
Law School. Professor Weissbrodt
is my long-time employer and a mentor, so I am deeply honored to share a byline
with him. Our article explores the
causal research on human rights violations and compliance. The Abstract is reproduced below
(footnotes omitted). The entire
article can be accessed here
on the Minnesota Journal of International Law website.
*****
Human Rights Conditions: What We Know and Why it Matters
David Weissbrodt and
Patrick Finnegan
Abstract
It may be impossible
to understand the cause of every human rights violation. Causal research is a
useful endeavor, however, as it sheds light on the conditions that produce
human rights violations and compliance. Such knowledge can help improve the
effectiveness of human rights advocacy strategies to target and influence these
conditions. This survey examines four broad themes: (A) Government Behavior and
Structure; (B) Armed Conflict; (C) Economic Factors; and (D) Psychological Factors.
The findings by scholars and practitioners are myriad and complex, but some general
trends are observable. Democratic governments tend to better protect a broad
range of human rights, especially when paired with an independent judiciary.
Democratization may involve short-term disruption but has long-term payoffs in
respect for human rights. Repression in weak states heightens the likelihood of
civil wars. Armed conflict, in turns, tends to generate the most grave human
rights abuses. Economic factors are deeply intertwined with the full spectrum
of human rights in two key ways: (1) the distribution of resources (economic,
social, and cultural rights); and (2) economic structures and incentives that
may encourage repression. Individual psychological factors, such as the tendency
to obey authority, group identity, and exclusionary ideologies can lead people
to commit atrocities, especially in the context of armed conflict.
Following this
overview, the article discusses some of the controversies and challenges in
human rights research. These issues include: differences in qualitative and
quantitative methods; surveillance bias in statistical work; and the difficulty
of comparative work. The article then explores theories of how international
human rights norms influence state behavior and how this influence affects domestic
conditions. The article concludes by reiterating that causal research can
improve advocacy, and adds that it may serve a persuasive function as well.
Causal research can help human rights advocates make the case for policies that
contribute to the promotion and protection of human rights. It can do so by
establishing the credibility of policy proposals, demonstrating that advocates
understand the problems they seek to address.
