Abstract
Indicators are increasingly used in international human rights monitoring, and time, expertise and resources are being devoted in ever-growing quantities to the production of more apparently powerful and sophisticated ways to objectively measure human rights performance. However, there is a certain level of resistance and scepticism to the statistical measurement of human rights on the part of many practitioners and advocates, who argue that it is reductionist and disruptive to their work. This article uses the writing of Michael Oakeshott as a lens through which to examine the shift towards indicators and argues that it is a project that is strongly characterized by rationalism: a desire for certainty, uniformity and clarity that neglects the experiential, tacit, and conversational. This not only provides a method for analysing the dangers present in the phenomenon but also explains why the reliance on indicators and other measurement methods seems destined to grow despite the reservations held by practitioners and scholars alike.
Highlights
Mary Robinson once envisioned a ‘science of human dignity’ based on the use of statistics in monitoring human rights.[1]
This article uses the writing of Michael Oakeshott as a lens through which to examine the shift towards indicators and argues that it is a project that is strongly characterized by rationalism: a desire for certainty, uniformity and clarity that neglects the experiential, tacit, and conversational
The analysis presented here encompasses existing concerns about the domination of human rights monitoring and discourse by indicators – the dangers of unanticipated consequences and the chilling effects that indicators have on conversation and dialogue – and provides an explanation for why the project continues to grow; why it appears to represent not just a supplementary tool to traditional human rights monitoring and the transformation of a tool into a paradigm that displaces other perspectives
Summary
Mary Robinson once envisioned a ‘science of human dignity’ based on the use of statistics in monitoring human rights.[1]. 386 EJIL 27 (2016), 385–408 the creation of more powerful, useful and speciically tailored statistical methods for measuring human rights performance This effort marks a signiicant shift in emphasis away from what might be called the ‘traditional’ approach to human rights monitoring, which was largely (though by no means entirely) carried out as a discursive or narrative-based process. It would be an exaggeration to say that this shift signiies a rift in ‘the human rights community’, if such a thing exists Most of those who support an increased role for indicators see them as another tool in the arsenal of human rights monitoring to go alongside existing mechanisms. It considers some of the pernicious consequences of this shift, before explaining why its rationalist propensity is so expansionist and transformative
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
