Does respect for human rights vary across ‘civilizations’? A statistical reexamination
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The cultural content of international human rights standards has inspired much discussion and debate, but cross-cultural levels of compliance with these standards remains understudied. Using Samuel Huntington’s controversial ‘clash-of-civilizations’ thesis as a point of departure, this article analyzes whether human rights practices differ systematically across dominant cultural and religious traditions, with a focus on two sets of rights: bodily integrity and civil/political. Net of standard political, social, economic, and demographic factors, countries identified as Western countries and Japan generally have better rated practices than other countries, but differences are especially pronounced with respect to Buddhist, Catholic/Latin, Islamic, and Orthodox nations. These countries are closely scrutinized by watchdogs such as Amnesty International, which might account for their lower human rights scores. Variation in human rights scores also tends to be durable over time; in contrast with Huntington’s thesis, the end of the Cold War mattered little for cross-cultural differences in countries’ practices. Finally, cultural and religious effects are more pronounced for bodily integrity rights than for civil and political rights. All told, the analyses offer little support for the clash-of-civilizations approach, insofar as it predicts increased cultural conflict over putatively ‘Western’ human rights standards.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".