3-4-1: Coding International Non-Governmental Human Rights Organizations
DEFINING HUMAN RIGHTS: Defining human rights is an unenviable task for anyone
studying human rights. I am not aware of any definitive definition of human rights in the
literature. The literature is full of disagreements (Weston, 1992), and much of it avoids
definition of human rights. This tendency is understandable when we consider that
human rights has become such an inclusive category that engulfs almost anything
activists decide to claim is human rights. An increasing number of organizations have
incorporated human rights in their agenda and accordingly expanded the accepted scope
of human rights. Established human rights organizations are expanding their scope of
human rights as well. For example, Amnesty International is debating whether to extend
their work to the area of economic, social and cultural rights in addition to their
traditional focus on civil and political rights. The United Nations has also been expanding
it! s list of what can be considered human rights (Bouandel 1997:5). Thus, Milan
Kundera’s concern that the fight for human rights might eventually make it “a kind of
universal stance for everyone towards anything, a kind of energy that turns all human
desire into rights” (quoted in Bouandel 1997:9) may be well warranted.
It is important to note this malleability of the category and to recognize that the
concept of human rights indeed has changed over time. Scholars often talk of three
generations of human rights that correspond to the three normative themes of the French
Revolution. First, civil and political rights (liberte), second, economic, social and cultural
rights (egalite) and, finally, solidarity rights (fraternite) (Vasak 1982). Civil and political
rights used to be considered the main component of human rights. Sometimes referred to
as negative rights, these rights were at the core of activities of international human rights
organizations such as Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and UN Human
Rights Committee. The second generation rights are often called positive rights, because
they require positive involvement of the government for their observance. The second
generation rights are becoming increasingly salient in global human rig! hts efforts, and
contemporary discourse on human rights rarely leave out economic, social and cultural
rights. Thus, protection of citizens from abusive state action is no longer the only purview
of global human rights (Donnelly 1998). The third generation rights are still not as
accepted in global politics as the other two. The collective rights of ethnic minorities and
indigenous peoples have gained much recognition, but the individual basis of human
rights still has a strong hold over contemporary debate of human rights. Human rights
practitioners are often apprehensive about a strong emphasis on collective rights because
dictators often use such discourse to conceal their violations. Hence, individual rights are
usually prioritized over collective or solidarity rights. Nevertheless, ethnic and religious
groups increasingly claim their rights as a social category, making these rights more
accepted in global politics.
In light of the constant expansion that the category has been undergoing, it is not
surprising that few scholars attempt a definition of the term. Nevertheless, I have to start
with some sort of working definition of human rights in order to collect data on
HRINGOs. Because it is virtually impossible and probably unproductive to try to
compress human rights into one or a few sentences, I shall use a list of types of human
rights as a working definition of global human rights. The closest thing to enumeration of
all types of global human rights is found in Jack Donnelly’s summary of internationally
recognized human rights (Donnelly 1998:6). The list, summarized in Table 3-4, includes
all rights that are discussed in at least two of the three documents of the International Bill
of Rights (Universal Declaration of Human Rights, International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights, and International Covenant on Economic, Social, and ! Cultural Rights),
or have a full article in one of the documents. While the list is rather long and some of the
items might need a clear definition themselves, it provides a rough working definition
that enables coding of HRINGOs.
DEFINING HRINGOS: With the working definition of human rights, I now turn to
the definition of human rights organizations. A new set of difficulties inhere in this task:
almost no organizations deal with all the human rights in the above list, and many
organizations that are marginal to the global human rights movement claim to work for
some of the rights in the list.
Wiseberg (1992) points out that there are roughly two types of NGOs that contributed to
the global expansion of human rights: (1) ideal or exclusive HRINGOs and (2) NGOs
with broader agendas, one of which is human rights. The former focus exclusively on
human rights related activities, and their raison d’ $BsM (Bochtre derives from fight
for human rights. Prominent examples of such organizations include Amnesty
International and Human Rights Watch. They are mostly voluntary organizations
independent of both governments and all groups which seek direct political power, and
themselves do not seek power. While
Table 3-4: Internationally Recognized Human Rights
Equality of rights without discrimination
Life
Liberty and security of person
Protection against slavery
Protection against torture and cruel and inhuman punishment
Recognition as a person before the law
Equal protection of the law
Access to legal remedies for rights violations
Protection against arbitrary arrest or detention
Hearing before an independent and impartial judiciary
Presumption of innocence
Protection against ex post facto laws
Protection of privacy, family, and home
Freedom of movement and residence
Seek asylum from persecution
Nationality
Marry and found a family
Own property
Freedom of thought, conscience, and religion
Freedom of opinion, expression, and the press
Freedom of assembly and association
Political participation
Social security
Work, under favorable conditions
Free trade unions
Rest and leisure
Food, clothing, and housing
Health care and social services
Social protections for children
Education
Participation in cultural life
A social and international order needed to realize rights
Self-determination
Humane treatment when detained or imprisoned
Protection against debtor’s prison
Protection against arbitrary expulsion of aliens
Protection against advocacy of racial or religious hatred
Protection of minority culture
Source: (Donnelly 1998):6
total autonomy and independence may be achieved only imperfectly by most of these
organizations, as they have to deal with political dynamics and use political savvy to
advance their causes, political nonpartisanship is the foundation on which their
legitimacy and credibility hang (Wiseberg 1992).
The second type of organizations, far more numerous than the former, have broader
or different primary goals but devote substantial resources to the human rights struggles.
Examples of such organizations include churches, trade unions, peasant organizations,
women’s organizations, professional associations (of lawyers, journalists, doctors,
educators, scientists etc.), ethnic associations, and development or environment
organizations. Some of them have branches committed to human rights related activity,
while others only have human rights planks in their programs. Some did not have human
rights agenda originally but moved into the area quickly, while others were established by
individuals who carry out human rights work under the guise of a social or cultural
association or a development organization, because of governmental regulations and
interventions. Some human ! rights organizations are hard to distinguish from other
political groups, but the key differences are that the latter typically seek to protect the
rights of their members or constituents only, while the former work to secure the rights
for all members of the society; and that the latter seek to advance their own particular
interests or programs, while the former seek to keep the political process open to all
legitimate social forces (Wiseberg 1992:373).
In coding HRINGOs from directories of international organizations, the first type of
exclusive organizations create few problems. The second type of organizations, whose
focus is not necessarily on human rights but whose work involve human rights related
activities, require careful treatment. For instance, a trade union that seeks to improve the
welfare of members is more of a political actor trying to protect interests of its
constituents than a human rights organization. If the union advocates labor rights not only
of its members but also of groups in other countries, it is making contributions to global
human rights. Making a distinction between those organizations whose involvement in
human rights work is secondary and those who make important contributions to global
human rights is important not only to prevent the data from becoming too unwieldy but
also to create an accurate count of human rights orga! nizations over time.
To address this problem, I define international non-governmental human rights
organizations as international non-governmental organizations that are concerned
primarily about the promotion and protection of human rights in the long term. Human
rights here refer to civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights of living human
beings as internationally recognized (cf. Table 3-4). “Non-governmental” status requires
that the organizations are composed largely of independent citizens and are free of any
government’s influences. “International” means that the organizations have members
from two or more countries.
Following Wiseberg, I exclude organizations that only work to protect and
promote interests of their members and constituencies. Most professional organizations
get off the list on account of this provision. To the extent that these organizations are
concerned about the welfare of the general population, however, they are included in the
data set. The International Commission of Jurists, for example, is composed of lawyers
but its concerns are not limited to the welfare of its constituencies: they work to protect
human rights of the oppressed.
It is important to add the phrase “in the long term” to exclude humanitarian organizations
that offer tentative solutions to social problems but do not aim for any long-term social
changes. They make great contributions to human rights protection, but to the extent they
are focused on the short-term relief regardless of who the victims are and do not aim for
structural changes, I see them as not interested in promoting human rights in the long
term.
CODING SCHEME: The main source of data in the analyses is the Yearbook of
International Organizations published annually by the Union of International
Associations. The coding was done using mainly the categorization employed in the
Yearbook. The Yearbook has various headings under which it lists organization names,
and users can find more information on each organization in the organization descriptions
section, which is referenced in the organization list. Since the categorization changes over
time toward more categories and specifications, identifying organizations that qualify as a
HRINGO is the easiest for 1998 Yearbook and requires the most effort for 1978.
In the 1998 Yearbook, there is a category “human rights organizations”, from which most
of relevant organizations are coded. Although this expedites the coding process
tremendously, there are some organizations that qualify as HRINGOs by my definition
but do not appear in this category. Thus, organizations listed under other headings such as
“innovative change/rights” and “mankind/rights” are examined, and qualified
organizations are incorporated in the data set.
For 1988 data, I had to expand the scope and code organizations in many more categories.
The categories used include “rights”, “justice”, “equality”, “discrimination”, and
“humanity”. Many organizations are listed in multiple categories, but examining these
categories produced a more comprehensive list of possible HRINGOs.
In 1978, the Yearbook’s categorization was more primitive, and coding of
HRINGOs required the most work. It used two types of subject headings: English subject,
which uses organization names as the key, and classified subject, which uses organization
aims and activities as the key. I first coded organizations under English subject headings
“human” and “rights”. Then, I coded organizations under classified subject headings
“social welfare”, “women”, “trade union”, and “religion, ethics, morals”. Most
organizations listed in the last three headings are included in the heading “social welfare”
but examination of these headings did result in several more organizations in the data set.
The initial coding was done in an inclusive manner, including organizations that
may not qualify as HRINGOs in more careful examination. Thus, after coding all these
organizations, the data files still had some organizations that are not HRINGOs according
to my definition, particularly for 1978 and 1988 files. To sort out HRINGOs from these
bigger data, I ranked each organization using a four-point scheme (0 to 3). Each score
means the following.
3 – definitely a HRINGO
2 – activities relevant to global human rights but does not qualify as a HRINGO
1 – activities remotely relevant to global human rights and not a HRINGO
0 – not a HRINGO
Those organizations that rank as “3” work primarily for promotion of human rights
as internationally recognized, and their work is not intended exclusively for their
constituents.
Those with the score of “2” are organizations that might contribute to promotion and
protection of global human rights, but do not work explicitly for that or do not work for
long term social changes. Humanitarian organizations that aid refugees and natural
disaster victims fall in this category to the extent that they aid any victims regardless of
political or religious backgrounds and do not focus on changing social systems that
produce these victims. Ethnic and religious organizations that do not work for justice,
equality or rights, women’s organizations that are focused exclusively on research
activities, authors’ rights organizations that deal with commercial/intellectual rights but
not with freedom of expression are in this category as well.
Organizations that have a score of “1” are mostly development organizations and
trade unions that only work for their members. Development organizations that do not
work for fundamental human rights do not qualify as HRINGOs. They typically have as
their goals “improvement in the quality of life” or “upgrading the standard of living”.
Trade unions and other professional organizations, such as organizations for professional
women, are also in this category to the extent they work exclusively for the interests of
their constituents.
The last category has a few organizations that promote different kinds of “rights”
than human rights. Animal rights organizations provide a typical example. Pedestrian
rights groups or mechanical reproduction rights organizations are also picked up because
of “rights” in their names. These organizations present few problems, as they are clearly
not HRINGOs.
In the following analyses, I used only the organizations that have the score of 3. This
means that the data include only organizations that work explicitly to promote and protect
internationally recognized human rights in the long term. The data files include 107
(1978), 200 (1988), and 553 (1998) organizations, indicating a dramatic increase in
HRINGO activities over the last thirty years. I explore this explosion of HRINGOs
further in the following sections.