No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Human Rights ‘Fact’ Production and Why It Matters: Myanmar as a Case in Point
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 14 March 2025
Abstract
Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the 'Save PDF' action button.
Ken MacLean's Crimes in Archival Form (University of California Press, 2022) explores the many ways in which human rights ‘facts’ are produced rather than found. Using Myanmar as a case study, the book examines the fact-finding practices of a human rights group, two cross-border humanitarian agencies, an international law clinic, and a global campaign led by a nongovernmental organization. Foregrounding fact-finding in critical yet constructive ways prompts overdue conversations about the possibilities and limits of human rights documentation as a mode of truth-seeking. In raising these issues, the book calls on practitioners and scholars alike to be more transparent about how human rights ‘fact’ production works, why it is important, and when its use should prompt concern.
Information
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Creative Commons
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-No Derivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.- Copyright
- Copyright © The Authors 2022
References
Article 19. 2022. ‘UN: Human Rights Council Adopts Resolution on Disinformation.’ Civic Space, 5 April. www.article19.org/resources/un-human-rights-council-adopts-resolution-on-disinformation.Google Scholar
Becker, Howard. 2017. Evidence. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eichorn, Kate. 2008. ‘Archival Genres: Gathering Texts and Reading Spaces.’ Invisible Culture: An Electronic Journal for Visual Culture (12): 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engle, Karen. 2015. ‘Anti-Impunity and the Turn to Criminal Law in Human Rights.’ Cornell Law Review 100(5): 1070–127.Google Scholar
Independent Investigative Mechanism for Myanmar. iimm.un.org.Google Scholar
Karen Human Rights Group. 2007. Shouldering the Burden of Militarization: SPDC, DKBA, and KPF Order Documents and Forced Labor Since September 2006. Mae Sot, Thailand: Karen Human Rights Group.Google Scholar
McPherson, Poppy. 2021. ‘U.S. Court Orders Facebook to Release Anti-Rohingya Content Records for Genocide Case.’ Reuters, 23 September. www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/us-court-compels-facebook-release-records-anti-rohingya-content-report-2021-09-23.Google Scholar
Mégret, Frédéric. 2016. ‘Do Facts Exist, Can They Be “Found,” and Does It Matter?‘ In The Transformation of Human Rights Fact-Finding, edited by Alston, Philip and Knuckey, Sarah, 27–48. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milmo, Dan. 2021. ‘Rohingya Sue Facebook for £150bn over Myanmar Genocide.’ The Guardian, 6 December. www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/dec/06/rohingya-sue-facebook-myanmar-genocide-us-uk-legal-action-social-media-violence.Google Scholar
Syrian Archive. syrianarchive.org.Google Scholar
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). 2022. ‘Rohingya Refugee Crisis Explained.’ News, 13 July. Washington, DC: UNHCR. www.unrefugees.org/news/rohingya-refugee-crisis-explained.Google Scholar
Wikipedia. 2022. ‘Disinformation in the 2022 Russian Invasion of Ukraine.’ Wikipedia. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disinformation_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine-Genocide_in_Donbas.Google Scholar
You have
Access
Open access