Fan Jizeng
Introduction and Motivation
Legal science and philosophy are two of the most important disciplines in the field of human rights research, both of them assuming different roles and functions in human rights analysis. Scholars can discuss or debate from a philosophical perspective such as where the ideology of human rights comes from,what the ontology of human rights is and whether people could legitimate human rights claimson the basis of natural morality. However, the fact is that the absence of a consensusphilosophical foundation for the justificationof human rights depresses these human rights philosophers a lot.From a historical view, human rights thought evolved from the Stoics’ “rights derive from natural justice”1 to “inherent dignity and the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family are the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world” stated in the preamble of Universal Declaration of Human Rights, also the natural justice theory, God’s will theory, social contract theory and natural rights theory or human dignity theory, interest theory, and universal ethics theory can be seen as the formal source of metaphysical human rights. On the other hand, originally cultural differencespervasively broughtin a plurality of social consciousness and identities to different communities where these features were strongly molded by the local culture and hardly totally dissolved by any imposed external forces, including the colonial way.2 Modern Western stateswere pervasively founded on the ideology of liberalism by which their citizens could legally change theirreligious beliefs due to freedom of religion.In contrast, Arabs cannot do the same as their Western counterpartssince Muslim rules in theKoran, the primary legal authority in the Muslim world, have stated firmly that men and women have the obligation eternally to believe in their God.3 Even among Western countries that share a similar social and politicalculture, human rights scholars have not been able to reach total agreement on human rights philosophical theory either.We have also seen in recent years a similar scene among Chinese scholars as among Western legal philosophy scholars who have been heatedly debating for a long time which characteristic of human rights (liberty or equality) should betaken as the priority for national states, but they have hardly come to any widely accepted conclusions. Therefore, scholars have found it impossible to reach a common stand in their metaphysical ideas due to their culture-based and political-based differences; even some scholars claim that it is no more than a time-wasting activity to explore human rightslegitimacy from a philosophical (metaphysical) standpoint because these debates would not help us converge compatibly and but would prompt us to gradually diverge into a meaningless ideology war. Canadian sociologist Alasdair McIntyre was onewho argued that it is a superstition to trust the existence of human rights,since it is the same as trusting the existence of a unicorn.4Obviously, he proposed that any presupposed metaphysical foundation for human rights cannot be treated as a self-evident rule, so there is no way that we can justify human rights (or “rights”) in a liberal ideology unless dating ourselves back to history. In fact, I rather disagree with the strong culture-bound theory that totally ignoresconvergence more or less happening in the cultural field in the globalization process. Women’s rights reform in Turkey is a good example where rural women were widely in favor of a new property law in contrast with a long tradition that has entitled them to more independent procedural rights in divorce cases.5In contrast, I hold a weak culture-bound perspective that defines culture to some extent or in some fields as a dynamic convergence or divergence with states in cross-national communications.[page]
After World War II, human rights scholars put their effortsinto building a formulation for international human rights law in order to maintain world peace and to oppose Nazism. Respecting human rights, eliminating illegal military invasions and preventing systematic massacres were the main tasks of UN humanitarian affairs stated in the UN Charter. The representatives of European and Latin American states proposed setting up a special commission for drafting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights(UDHR) according to the mandates granted by Articles 55 and 56 of the UN Charter.The UN General Assembly adopted UDHR with no opposing votes in 1946. Twenty years after the birth of UDHR, the UN adopted two legallybinding human rights covenants. Then their corresponding human rights protection mechanisms,which encourage both domestic governments and internal communitiesto take active measures to respect individual dignity and rights, were set up. Obviously, relatively articulate human rights treaty contexts to some extent relieved philosophical disputes; on the other hand, international human rights treaties set up minimum universal human rights standards that all state parties have an obligationto incorporate into domestic law at least in a legislative way, havingpotentially providedrelatively effective standards to review human rights situations in specific countries. However, actual human rights monitoring mechanisms are not as powerful as those in the WTO legal system. Legal scholars normally employ a normative approach, particularly in human rights research, focusing on the definition of rights, balancing of rights conflicts, analysis of the relationship between legal fact and legal act and studying legal cases.Chinese scholar Sun Shiyan argued controversially that theinquiry objects of human rights research should be divided into three levels:philosophical theory of human rights, ontology of human rights and mechanism of human rights protection. Compared with philosophical theory on fundamental human rights theory, both human rights ontology and human rights protection mechanisms should be taken as the primary goal for international legal scholars. Human rights researchers limit their effortsto the study of first-hand sources of evidence from international human rights treaties and human rights legal cases.6 However, legal scholars have reluctantly admitted to the fact for a long time that the UDHR and international human rights treaties are politically basedon international documents, essentially formed upon apolitically overlapping consensus among different states rather than civil society. Those states’governments prefer to ratify or accede to international treaties with the expectation of improving their reputation rather than in hope of reducing their powers, which could explain why the only superpower – the United States – is often keen on declaring reservations about some articles before becoming a party to a specific convention. As a result, international human rights treaties and their response mechanisms cannot guarantee individual safety in all circumstances. For instance, according to the 1949 Geneva Convention (POW convention), some prisoners can be denied visits by the International Committee of the Red Cross for undefined reason of military necessity. One can also note in the 1951 Refugee Convention and related international treaties that refugee status is granted by national domestic law rather than by the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees. Professor Kennedy, therefore, appropriately reminded us that international human rights law and humanitarian law may sometimes entail some negatives for human dignity, and perhaps a more political and diplomatic approach might do just as well if not better, at least sometimes.7 Moreover, a legal research approach itself has its own inherent deficiencies, just as Brem criticized those legal scholars and lawyers who neither cared about the analyzed human rights system nor concerned scientific human rights methodology,8 Chinese legal scholarsusually take international human rights documents as golden rules, only focusing their study on legal context expression and individual case studies but neither exploring the impact of soft law and extralegal factors on human rights policy and human rights activity, nor doing human rights research in functional or statistical method.9 As a result, unlike political scientists or sociologists, international legal scholars in many cases monotonously devote their interpretive effort to superficial conclusions without any consideration to applying some advanced empirical methods (functional methodsor statistical methods).[page]
However, some legal scholars resort to reforming the legal approach in order to solve the problem mentioned above. Robert Alexy invented the theory “duality of the law” in which legal norms both have the function of internal description and external moral criticism. However, this theory cannot push the legal approach beyond the normative act model, which is simply formulated by “what is” and “what ought to be.”10The social science approach may to some extent effectively fix the deficiency in the philosophical and legal approaches. The primary aim of social science is to provide explanation and understanding of observed social phenomena. Such phenomena variously include events, action, outcomes, conditions and perceptions. Social scientific explanationsseek to provide general accounts of why things happen and why certain conditions or states of affairs persist or change. Such explanations rely on the systematic analysis of evidence to make inferences. Social science contributions to understanding, on the other hand, seek to provide deeper meanings of what has happened, persisted, or changed, where systematic analysis of evidence provides the foundation for arriving at overarching interpretations. The key element of social science is social science methodology, which can provide different approaches to diverse inquiry objects in order to build an effective human rights analysis system and provide practical human rights protection proposals. Professor Landman divides social science approaches into three levels from the macroscopic point of view: (1) epistemological continuum; (2) cross-national generalizations and comparative method; (3) quantitative and qualitative method.11These three parts have a very close relationship. The first part, epistemological continuum, is used to function as a holistic framework for covering all the categories of approaches in human rights study that can provide several fundamental methods for dealing with different inquiry objects. The latter two interrelated and interdependent parts can function as two subdivided approaches going deeply into dealing with concrete human rights problems. The comparative approach helps us to learn similarities and differences to which we can resort for political and legal reform, also that approach “can help us understand who we are.”12 Quantitative and qualitative strategies are the cornerstone of the validity of the comparative empirical approach, providing statistics and data in order to verify or retest their hypotheses.13 So far, the pervasively application of statistical strategy by political economy scholars has brought us numerous counterintuitive results in human rights research. I will present more details in the third part.[page]
I. Epistemological Continuum
The epistemological continuum is the basis of social science methodology; it indicates that the objects of inquiry are divided into several connected parts. I will borrow the strategy summarized by Professor Landman who has categorized human rights epistemology into seven types dependent on five different parameters.14
The hermeneutic and “thick description” end of continuum (Column I) comprises those approaches that rely on descriptive and interpretative analysis of the social world, using a variety of qualitative methods such as participantobservation, in-depth interviews and ethnographic methods, oral history, archival documentation and the formal or informal discourse of individuals. Less emphasis is placed on explanation of the whole social world, and there is rarely any attempt to make generalizations that extend far beyond the evidence that has been examined. Thus, there is greater attention to primary evidence and less of an attempt to use that evidence to make inferences that extend far beyond the context in which a particular research project or study has taken place. The primary goal of this approach is to understand human rights situations through investigations and interviews in a specific area or region. Professor Goldstein uses this method to investigate public vigilante violence in a small peripheral section of Cochabamba, Bolivia.15 Methodological criticism of this approach first argues that pure descriptive studies have little social scientific value since they are “atheoretical” and “interpretive,”“configurative-ideographic,” and may simply provide “evidence without inference”; second, this approach could be scientific but only confined to a small area which is unable to apply universality, being the general human rights research model.[page]
The next category in the continuum (Column II) includes those approaches that adopt discourse analytic techniques to problem areas in the social sciences. Such analysis is much akin to “hermeneutic” analysis in that it seeks to elucidate problematic objects of study by seeking description, understanding and interpretation. The goal of such analysis is to produce new interpretations about specific objects of investigation through either uncovering phenomena previously obscured and undetected by dominant social scientific theory and approaches or by problematic existing accounts and articulating alternative interpretations. Such analysis relies on inductive and analytical reasoning that examines the social and political logic in the construction of meaning, understanding and articulate practice. Such meaning and understanding are obtained through an analysis of language and action, which are seen as mutually constitutive phenomena. Like its hermeneutic counterpart, discourse analysis eschews making universalgeneralizations and tends to analyze small subnational units and single countries, although it has begun to explore ways in which to carry out comparative analysis that is at once “problem-driven,” but does not sacrifice attention to historical context and concrete specificities of the case under comparison. For example, Chinese Professor Xia Yong adopted this method to explore why Chinese society did not form the same human rights culture as their Western counterparts and how to embed rights discourse into Chinese society. Professor Xia Yong argued in his conclusion that “rights” cannot be understood well in a Chinese linguistic context. This term should be interpreted as “rights for interests” (li quan) rather than “rights” (quan li).16
The next three categories in the continuum (Columns III, IV, V) share a general orientation to providing theory-driven empirical analysis that is inductive, comparative and seeks to make abroad generalizations that still leave room for some exceptions. While they use differences in the degree to which they use qualitative and quantitative analysis and in the number of countries that feature in their comparison, they are all scientifically self-conscious about research methods and the strength of the inferences that are drawn from their analysis. The third column (Column III) describes the comparative method among a small number of countries or two specific countries. The goal of this comparison is to draw larger inferences about the process of human rights norms socialization through examination of the transnational mobilization of rights, pressure on nation states and regime reform that ultimately leads to internalization of human rights norms. Professors Roppe and Sikkink made the conclusion that observing international human rights norms and submittinginternational pressure can promote domestic political reform by using the comparative method by which they compared the international community’s imposition of different pressure on two states in the1970s-1980s.17The fourth method (Column IV) mixes qualitative and quantitative analysis in a small number of countries. Professor Donnelly argues that an export-oriented economic system can promote a domestic human rights situation more rapidly by making a comparison of two political regimes with military governments, an export-oriented economic situation, domestic economic statistics and the liberal consciousness between South Korea and Brazil in the 1980s. He made the conclusion that small countries with a highly developed export-oriented economy and small territory are always “dominated” by the international community or one superpower that might force thosestatesmaking transitional political reform.18 The fifth method (Column V) uses pure quantitative analysis across a large number to establish a set of universal empirical generalizations about the relationship among different variables. In the book“Protecting Human Rights: A Comparative Study,” Professor Landman made a comparative analysis of the international human rights regime, the impact factor of human rights development and the different models of human rights protection from a vertical historical perspective, making the conclusion that the relationships between all the variables are complicated, and geopolitical issues and pressures from the international community can cause a direct effect on the human rights situation.19[page]
Finally, the last two categories in the continuum share the same orientation towards providing universal knowledge claims and explanations for human rights violations based on deductive reasoning, while differing in their reliance on evidence. Many rationalist forms of analysis engage in a process of theorizing, where the assumption of human nature combines with a series of “stylized facts” and then derive a set of propositions about social phenomena that can be observed.The approach in the penultimate category (Column VI) involves deriving from a set of propositions deductively from the starting assumption and testing them with limited empirical evidence, which typically consists of confirmatory case studies. Chinese Professor Li Buyun argued “human rights derive from human nature” with this method. In his paper“On the Human Rights Derivation,” Li first proposed several discursive hypotheses and then tested their validity from a rational logical perspective and specific cases. Finally, he made the conclusion that human rights derive from human nature.20Carradetti took a similar discursive approach to study the validity of human rights and of its transplantability among different social-culture countries. He followed the theory of Habermastestifying that different social consciousness brings us discourse covered with different meaning that must be reformulated by inter-subjects communication and recognition.21 In contrast,the approach in the final category sits proposition in exactly the same manner, but does not subject it to empirical testing. Wantchekon and Healy presented an abstract and highly stylized set of “game theory” strategic interactions between “ideal type” torturers and victims to arrive at a deductive conclusion. Since this method put too much emphasis on inference with evidence, it was criticized as “theory far from practice.”22
II Cross-national generalization and comparative method
Comparative methods provide a way to compare similarities and differences across countries to arrive at a series of generalizations about particular human rights problems. There are three general comparative methods available to social scientists of human rights: global comparison, a comparison of a few countries, and a single case study. The trade-off associated with these methods involves the degree to which each can make broad-ranging empirical generalizations at different levels of conceptual abstraction. Global comparisons tend to make broad-ranging empirical generalizations using concepts and constructs at a fairly high level of abstraction. A comparison of a few countries tends to limit the generalization and lower the level of abstraction in analyzing human rights problems across a selection of countries. A single case analysis tends to further limit its empirical generalization and concentrate on the contextual particularities of a single case investigation, but can be constructed in such a way as to contribute to larger theoretical and empirical problems.[page]
Global comparative analysis (large-N comparative) which was first created by Professor Coppedge typically involves the use of large and complex data sets comprising variables that have been operationalized quantitativelyand have been specified in such a way that they can be measured over time and across space.23With a large number of intensive observations and accurate statistical analysis, researchers can use this method to make empirical generalizations about relationships between and among variables that have associated degrees of statistical significance. The main advantage of this kind of analysis includes statistical control to rule out rival explanation in the basis of which research can make relative generalization and its exception.One typical finding throughglobal comparative analysisregarding the relationship between economic growth and human rights practice suggested that personal integrity rights violations are relatively lower in the wealth-democratic states than in other democratic forms.24 Global analysis also has a number of weaknesses. On the one hand, there are few authoritative human rights organizations contributing to human rights ratings, which consequently resultsin the lack of unified human rights rating standards observed worldwide. At the UN level, the Universal Periodic Review is a political charter-based mechanism requiring all states’representatives sitting around in order to review human rights situation and relevant states responsibilities in accordance with international human rights treaties. However, Amnesty International and Freedom House publish their annual reports to analyze the human rights situationof all countries and scale them according to their exclusive liberal standards. But actually these famous NGOs with a Western background are just concernedwith liberal rights rather than with social and collective rights. On the other hand, global comparative analysis cannot address a whole range of important research questions in the human rights field, since many such topics are not susceptible to quantitative methods. Even if they were, global quantitative analysis provides generalizations that need greater specification and in-depth research that can only be carried out on smaller samples of countries.
Few-country comparisons define that comparing few countries achieves control through careful selection of cases analyzed using a middle level conception abstraction.Studying all the case elements systematically is the preliminary requirement of using this method. The outcomes from this type of comparison are often seen to be “configurative,” which means that every social result (Y) is always caused by multiple social reasons (X1, X2, X3,…) . In contrast to global comparative analysis, this type of comparison is referred to as “case-oriented” since the case is often the unit of analysis and the focus tends to be on the similarities and differences among the cases rather than analytical relationships between variables. The primary goal of this method is to present and illustrate causes and effects of social phenomena. There are two comparative models in this method: Most Similar System Design (MSSD) and Most Different System Design (MDSD). MSSD is often applied to explore the reason why countries with similar characteristics have different results. Typically, regional and areas studies analysis compares countries that share similar language, history, religion, politics and culture and then isolate the remaining factors that vary to see if the variation is related to the variation in the outcome that is to be explained. In contrast to MSSD, MDSD compares countries that share very few features and then focuses on those factors common across the countries that may account for the outcome. Comparative studies always focus on large historical events such as the transition to democracy. Hayner compares the outcomes and impacts of similar instances of truth commissions across countries in Latin America and Africa. Her comparison reveals that these two continents share few common features in ethics and religion, but the human rights institutions nearly take the same function in the political transition.25 Both the MDSD and MDDS seek to identify a relationship between explanatory factors and outcomes by comparing different outcomes across similar countries and similar outcomes across different countries and what role specific variables take. However, this method has its own shortcomings. On the one hand, such studies might identify a large number of explanatory variables whose full variation far exceeds the number of countries under investigation, which may lead to unscientific research results. On the other hand, the intentional selection of cases rather than a random selection can seriously undermine the types of inferences that can be drawn. During comparative research, scholars always choose evidence that can support their conclusion and are blind to other evidence.[page]
Single-country studies, by definition, focus on countries with particularly problematic human rights records, and official reports of governmental and nongovernmental organizations, domestic commissions and NGOs, and research monographs. Researchers can then seek out individual cases of human rights violation from which they can continue to inducegeneralities. Single-country studies can make a significant and valuable contribution to the study of human rights, including establishing new classifications, generating hypotheses and their use as “crucial cases” for testing hypotheses. Juan Linz’s development of the authoritarian regime type, which was based on the case of Spain, was extended by Gullermo O’Donnell to the “bureaucratic-authoritarian” type, based on the case of Argentina in the 1960s and 1970s, which was then applied to Latin American regimes as well as to those in East Asia.26 In an analysis of the effectiveness of international pressure on Argentina military pressure,Weissbrodt and Bartolomei started their research with the supposition that international pressure could play a positive role in the human rights situation. Both of them argued that “the lessons of this case study should be tested in cases involving other countries and time periods to determine whether more general lessons can be drawn from this single case.”27 In a similar fashion, in the study of the relationship between international human rights and the transformation of the Pinochet regime, Hawkins testedthe hypothesis in the Chilean case and in the additional case of South Africa, but found the conclusion could not be generalizedsince international pressure had a large impact on the fall of the Pinochet regime, whereas the election changed the political situation in South Africa.28Single-country studies can provide an exception to some general conclusions. For example, for a long time South Africa was regarded as least likely to become a democratized state because internal apartheid could not be compatible with democratizationin general, but the conclusion was overthrown by the South Africa suffrage election in 1994.[page]
III.Quantitative and qualitative evidence
Searching and using evidence are the crucial steps in social science studies and are directly related to whether research outcomes are scientific or not. Quantitative and qualitative evidence strategies are two vitally important methods in the social science fields. Quantitative methods seek to show the difference in number between certain subjects of analysis, while qualitative methods seek to show how the differences in kinds which contribute more to analyze the nature of inquiry objects. Quantitative analyses just answer the simple question “how many do they have?” In the human rights field, there can be some data published by domestic governments, foreign governments or international or regional human rights institutions on the total number of human rights legal cases, human rights violation and the survey data collected from national human rights commissions, as well as data or reports that are collected from international nongovernmental human rights organizationsthat have recorded human rights development and deficiencies, according to them usually a national ranking. Social science scholars explicitly adopt bivariate and multivariate approaches to determine and test the relationship among these defined variables using simple and advanced statistical strategies. The common tools for estimating simple bivariate measures of association are correlation and cross tabulation, where statistics help establish the magnitude, significance and direction of the association between the two variables. Scholars presuppose a hypothesis, but lackquantitative evidencethat the development is the outcome of economic development, which assumes that highly developed countries should be those with good human rights records.29 This presupposition has been provedwrong by work studying the relationship between the economic growth in one country and the actual state of rights to personal integrity protection covering the years from 1976-1993. Actually, economic development had a significant impact on human rights repression in some Latin American States then.30 Professor Hathaway used the database of the U.S.Department of State and NGOs to detect the relationship between access to human rights treaties (both international and regional level) and human rights practice opposing genocide and torture, and in the area of civil rights protection and fair trials using an advanced quantitative method in the global context. However, one of his counterintuitive conclusions“charmingly”stated that“treaty ratification is more often associated with worse human rights ratings in areas where rights are deeply entrenched in international law than in areas that are of more recent provenance.”31 The common tool for estimating more complex and “multivariate” relationships is some form of regression analysis, which determines the magnitude, direction and significance of the independent relationships between the two or more explanatory variables and the outcome that is to be explained. The result of this kind of analysis can provide measures of association between all the explanatory variables and the outcome variables, which allows the analyst to determine their relative strength, magnitude and statistical magnificence. In the past 20 years, the World Bank has been doing comparative research in the comparative rule of law trying to find out how to help transitional states transform successfully. During the process of research, the experts agreed to use multivariate methods to deal with the complex program. They have set a huge series of variable framework and the identify the “variable” and “self-variable”in order to ensure the mutual causal and effect relationship.32 Human rights quantitative study cannot exclusively rely on any specific variables but a holistically structural frame, which is a right direction to a reliable and scientific conclusion.[page]
Qualitative methods seek to identify and understand the attribute, characteristics and traits of the inquiry object as well as the meaning, process and context. As discussed across many of the examples above, these methods include macro-historical comparisons, in-depth interviews and participation and using approaches of hermeneutics and thick description to analyze the inquiry objects in a constructed way in order to define those elements important to the outcome (see the part I and the form). I have identified four factors (thought emancipation, market-oriented economy, pluralistic culture and international human rights communication) as the internal and external forces to improve Chinese human rights theory, with“thought emancipation” as the decisive one contributing to the later changing in China.33 However, I didn’t use any quantitative evidence in my research, which seemed all my process and conclusion are based on empirical-descriptive rather than empirical-statistical. This brings me a question but a very common phenomenon: can we take a division in social science between those who use qualitative methods and those who those quantitative methods?
Indeed, separation of the methods seems as false for many reasons. First, human rights scholars seeking to induce the results from a mass of data materials ought to apply quantitative and qualitative methods equally. Second, qualitativedistinction has a function to categorize social phenomenon that necessarily precedes the process of quantification. In this sense, social scientists need to know “what kind” of object to count before counting it, and this qualitative step is very important in the qualification of human rights. Finally, there have been important and significant methodological developments in combining the strengths of qualitative and quantitative strategies by recognizing that both methods are found on the same logic of inference and linking qualitative distinction to quantitative representation.
Conclusion
Human rights research methods vary in their aim and in who does the research. We cannot deny that legal scholars might take an approach to studying a human rights problem that is obviously different from their philosophical and social science counterparts. However, it is impossible to have a method existing in the human rights field better than the others forever, since the methods used depend on the inquiry objects. However, when we decide to study human rights problem in a practical and logical way, it is inevitable to use the social science methods thatI referred to above. The epistemological continuum functions as the fundamental frame for human rights scholars in the social sciences. They can choose a suitable model and, if necessary, innovate and develop these models. To deduce and induce logical conclusions and scientific qualifications of human rights in a comparative way, scholars might have to deal with qualitative and quantitative evidence carefully, paying attention to the characteristics and the functions of the two types of evidence.[page]
(The author is a Ph.D. candidate in comparative public law at the Sant’Anna School of Advanced Studies in Pisa)
1.See ShenJianlin, The Evolvement of Natural Law,Beijing: Social Science Academic and Document Press, 2005, pp.52-53.
2.Richard L. Abel, “Law as a Lag: Inertia as a Social Theory of Law”, Michigan Law Review(1982) 4, Vol.80, pp.785-809.
3.See Manfred Nowak,U.N. Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Commentary, 2nd revised edition, Arlington: N.P. Engel, 2005, p. 410.
4.See Alasdair MacIntyre, After Virtue, Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2005, p. 67.
5.Lawrence Friedman, “Some Comments on Cotterrell and Legal Transplant”, in Adapting Legal Culture, edited by David Nelkenand Johannes Feest, Oxford: Oxford Press, 2001, p.97.
6.Sun Shiyan, “Human Rights Study: Problem and Method”Law and Social Development (1991) 2, p. 88.
7.See David P. Forsythe, “Human Rights Studies: On the Dangers of Legalistic Assumption”in Method of Human Rights Research, edited by LandiToddmand, London: Intersentia Press, 2009, p. 63.
8.See Eva Brems, “Method in Legal Human Rights Research,” in Method of Human Rights Research, London: Intersentia Press, 2009, p. 83.[page]
9.Zhang Wei, National Human Rights Institution Study, Beijing: China University Political Science and Law Press, 2009.
10.Robert Alexy, The Dual Effect of Law, a paper from the 25th World Conference of Legal and Social Science (IVR); Jan M. Smith, “Redefining Normative Legal Science: Towards An Argumentative Discipline,” in Method of Human Rights Research, London:IntersentiaPress, 2009, p. 83.
11.See Todd Landman, “Social Science Method and Human Rights,” in Method of Human Rights Research, London:Intersentia Press, 2009, p. 5.
12.Paul W. Kahn, “Comparative Constitutional in a New Key”, Michigan Law Review (2003)4, Vol.101, p. 2679.
13.Francesco Parisi and Barbara Luppi, Quantitative Method in.
14.Todd Landman, Studying Human Rights,London: Routledge, 2006, p. 60.
15.See Daniel M. Goldstein, The Spectacular City: Violence and Performance in Urban Bolivia,Durham NC: Duke University Press, 2004.
16.Xia Yong, The Origin of the Human Rights Concept, Beijing: China University of Political Science and Law Press, 2001, pp. 24-26.
17.See Stephen C. Roppand Kathryn Sinkkink, “International Norms and Domestic Politics in Chile and Guatemala,” in The Power of Human Rights, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999, pp. 172-205.
18.Jack Donnelly, The Theory and Practice of Human Rights, translated by Wang Puyou, Beijing: Social Science Academic and Document Press, 2001, pp.193-214.[page]
19.See Todd Landman, Protecting Human Rights: A Comparative Study, Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 2005, pp. 59-170.
20.Li Buyun, “On the Human Rights Derivation”,The Tribune of Political Science and Law (2004) 3, pp.10-17.
21.Claudio Corradetti,“Can Human Rights Be Exported? On the Very Idea of Human Rights Transplantability,” in New Directions in Comparative Law, edited by AntoninaBakardjievaEngelbrektandJoakimNergelius, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, 2009, pp.40-55.
22.See Leonard Wantchekonand Andrew Healy, “The ‘Game’ of Torture”, The Journal of Conflict Resolution(1995) 5, Vol.43, pp.596-609.
23.Michael Coppedge, “Theory Building and Hypothesis Testing: Large vs. Small-n Research on Democratization”.
24.Stephen Juan King, “Democracy, Opposition, Economic Development, and Political Repression: Unobserved Statistical Interaction Across Forty-eight Countries and Thirty-four Years.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association in 1997, Chicago.
25.Priscilla B. Hayner, “Fifteen Truth Commissions, 1974-1994: A Comparative Study”,Human Rights Quarterly(1994) 2, Vol.16, pp.597-655.
26.Gullermo O’Donnell, Economic Modernization and Bureaucratic Authoritarianism, Berkeley, CA: Institute of International Studies, 1973.[page]
27.See David S. Weissbrodt and Maria L. Bartolomei, The Effectiveness of International Human Rights Pressure: The Case of Argentina,1976-1983, Minnesota Law Review(1991) 3, Vol.75,pp. 1009-1035.
28.See Darren Hawkins. International Human Rights and Authoritarian Rule in Chile, Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2002.
29.Michael Bogdan: “Development Assistance in the Legal Field: Promotion of Market Economy v. Human Rights”, in New Direction in Comparative Law, edited by AntoninaBakardjievaEngelbrektandJoakimNergelius, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, 2009, pp.33-39.
30.Steven C. Poe, C. Neal Tate and Linda Camp Keith, Repression of Human Rights to Personal Integrity Revisited: A Global Cross-National Study Covering the Year 1976-1993,International Studies Quarterly (1999) 2, Vol.43, pp.291-313.
31.Oona A. Hathaway, “Do Human Rights Treaties Make a Difference?”Yale Law Review(2001-2002), p.1999.
32.Randall Peerenboom, “Towards a Methodology for Successful Legal Transplant,” The Chinese Journal of Comparative Law(2013) 1, Vol.2. pp.9-15.
33.Fan Jizeng, “The Dynamic Factors of Human Rights Thought in China”,Human Rights (2011) 3, pp.32-36.
