{"title":"人权的不可分割性:一个实证分析","authors":"Jan Essink, Alberto Quintavalla, Jeroen Temperman","doi":"10.1093/hrlr/ngad013","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article aims to test whether human rights have an indivisible nature. To do that, we perform correlation analysis and Granger causality tests to test 1) the relationship within socio-economic rights and 2) between socio-economic rights and civil-political rights. The results show that certain socio-economic rights have mutual reinforcing relationships, lending support to the existence of widespread indivisibility. This finding yields relevant policy implications. Given their financial constraints, states could make use of the existence of widespread indivisibility, in combination with the progressive implementation clause, to foster the efficient allocation of resources for human rights implementation. Furthermore, this article shows that the intensity of indivisibility varies depending on the income category of states: the indivisible nature of socio-economic rights is more intense in low-income countries while seems to achieve a saturation point at the highest levels of human rights compliance. We, thus, propose to define this phenomenon as ‘indivisibility saturation’. Lastly, our findings detect a more complex picture for the indivisibility principle between the two classes of human rights. While widespread indivisibility does not follow from the tests, important unidirectional relationships between different human rights exist and are equally important for human rights policy-making purposes.","PeriodicalId":46556,"journal":{"name":"Human Rights Law Review","volume":"346 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Indivisibility of Human Rights: An Empirical Analysis\",\"authors\":\"Jan Essink, Alberto Quintavalla, Jeroen Temperman\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/hrlr/ngad013\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract This article aims to test whether human rights have an indivisible nature. To do that, we perform correlation analysis and Granger causality tests to test 1) the relationship within socio-economic rights and 2) between socio-economic rights and civil-political rights. The results show that certain socio-economic rights have mutual reinforcing relationships, lending support to the existence of widespread indivisibility. This finding yields relevant policy implications. Given their financial constraints, states could make use of the existence of widespread indivisibility, in combination with the progressive implementation clause, to foster the efficient allocation of resources for human rights implementation. Furthermore, this article shows that the intensity of indivisibility varies depending on the income category of states: the indivisible nature of socio-economic rights is more intense in low-income countries while seems to achieve a saturation point at the highest levels of human rights compliance. We, thus, propose to define this phenomenon as ‘indivisibility saturation’. Lastly, our findings detect a more complex picture for the indivisibility principle between the two classes of human rights. While widespread indivisibility does not follow from the tests, important unidirectional relationships between different human rights exist and are equally important for human rights policy-making purposes.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46556,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Human Rights Law Review\",\"volume\":\"346 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Human Rights Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/hrlr/ngad013\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Human Rights Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/hrlr/ngad013","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
The Indivisibility of Human Rights: An Empirical Analysis
Abstract This article aims to test whether human rights have an indivisible nature. To do that, we perform correlation analysis and Granger causality tests to test 1) the relationship within socio-economic rights and 2) between socio-economic rights and civil-political rights. The results show that certain socio-economic rights have mutual reinforcing relationships, lending support to the existence of widespread indivisibility. This finding yields relevant policy implications. Given their financial constraints, states could make use of the existence of widespread indivisibility, in combination with the progressive implementation clause, to foster the efficient allocation of resources for human rights implementation. Furthermore, this article shows that the intensity of indivisibility varies depending on the income category of states: the indivisible nature of socio-economic rights is more intense in low-income countries while seems to achieve a saturation point at the highest levels of human rights compliance. We, thus, propose to define this phenomenon as ‘indivisibility saturation’. Lastly, our findings detect a more complex picture for the indivisibility principle between the two classes of human rights. While widespread indivisibility does not follow from the tests, important unidirectional relationships between different human rights exist and are equally important for human rights policy-making purposes.
期刊介绍:
Launched in 2001, Human Rights Law Review seeks to promote awareness, knowledge, and discussion on matters of human rights law and policy. While academic in focus, the Review is also of interest to the wider human rights community, including those in governmental, inter-governmental and non-governmental spheres, concerned with law, policy, and fieldwork. The Review publishes critical articles that consider human rights in their various contexts, from global to national levels, book reviews, and a section dedicated to analysis of recent jurisprudence and practice of the UN and regional human rights systems.