Human Rights Watch (HRW) is an International Non-Governmental Organization (INGO) that, according to their website (Human Rights Watch, n.d.-a), is “known for its accurate fact-finding, impartial reporting, effective use of media, and targeted advocacy, often in partnership with local human rights groups.” HRW publishes over 100 reports and briefings annually on over 90 countries’ human rights conditions (Human Rights Watch, n.d.-a). HRW’s mission is simple: “[to defend] the rights of people worldwide” (Human Rights Watch, n.d.-a). HRW also lists four core values that drive its mission: it does not accept governmental or private funding that “could compromise [its] objectivity and independence”; it is committed to being “factual, accurate
…show more content…
In June 2016, HRW published seven reports of which, for the purpose of this assignment, only the most recent report will be discussed. The most recent report published on June 29, 2016 is titled “They Can Arrest You at Any Time: The Criminalization of Peaceful Expression in Burma” and provides an analysis of the effects of recently passed laws on media censorship and its implications on the basic liberty of free speech of Burmese citizens. Lakhdir and her team began their research for this report in March 2014. The report provides a historical context of the progression, and lack thereof, free speech since its establishment (Lakhdhir, 2016). The report points to the specific laws that “have proven to be most prone to misuse” rather than “offer a comprehensive examination of all laws that criminalize free speech in Burma” (Lakhdhir, 2016). Lastly, the report provides recommendations to specific persons, organizations and other key Burmese stakeholders of what HRW believes these named stakeholders should take to move toward …show more content…
As with any research done, there will always be a level of bias, but all assumptions need to be explained and credible sources need to be vetted. In 2015, the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute created a set International Fact-Finding Guidelines, also known as the Lund-London Guidelines. “They arose out of concert that, despite there being no agreed international standards for human rights fact-finding reporting, such reports are frequently referred to by courts, tribunals, governments, Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) and other stakeholders” (International Bar Association, 2015). These guidelines were created out of a need for best practices and standards for fact-finding and reporting (International Bar Association, 2015). While representatives of HRW participated in development of the guidelines (Am, 2015), HRW’s employment of the guidelines in its processes remaints to be seen, as HRW itself does not make mention of use of the methodology (Human Rights Watch, n.d.-b). Even the founder and Founding Chairman Emeritus Robert Berstein has gone on record to pen an op-ed article (2009) to echo HRW’s critics when the NGO put out reports that were anti-Israeli in tone. HRW and its current executive director Ken Roth have been accused of being “unable to separate political advocacy from human rights research” (Rubin, 2014). If HRW is able to substantiate the findings in its
In June 2016, HRW published seven reports of which, for the purpose of this assignment, only the most recent report will be discussed. The most recent report published on June 29, 2016 is titled “They Can Arrest You at Any Time: The Criminalization of Peaceful Expression in Burma” and provides an analysis of the effects of recently passed laws on media censorship and its implications on the basic liberty of free speech of Burmese citizens. Lakhdir and her team began their research for this report in March 2014. The report provides a historical context of the progression, and lack thereof, free speech since its establishment (Lakhdhir, 2016). The report points to the specific laws that “have proven to be most prone to misuse” rather than “offer a comprehensive examination of all laws that criminalize free speech in Burma” (Lakhdhir, 2016). Lastly, the report provides recommendations to specific persons, organizations and other key Burmese stakeholders of what HRW believes these named stakeholders should take to move toward …show more content…
As with any research done, there will always be a level of bias, but all assumptions need to be explained and credible sources need to be vetted. In 2015, the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute created a set International Fact-Finding Guidelines, also known as the Lund-London Guidelines. “They arose out of concert that, despite there being no agreed international standards for human rights fact-finding reporting, such reports are frequently referred to by courts, tribunals, governments, Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) and other stakeholders” (International Bar Association, 2015). These guidelines were created out of a need for best practices and standards for fact-finding and reporting (International Bar Association, 2015). While representatives of HRW participated in development of the guidelines (Am, 2015), HRW’s employment of the guidelines in its processes remaints to be seen, as HRW itself does not make mention of use of the methodology (Human Rights Watch, n.d.-b). Even the founder and Founding Chairman Emeritus Robert Berstein has gone on record to pen an op-ed article (2009) to echo HRW’s critics when the NGO put out reports that were anti-Israeli in tone. HRW and its current executive director Ken Roth have been accused of being “unable to separate political advocacy from human rights research” (Rubin, 2014). If HRW is able to substantiate the findings in its