The political terror scale (PTS): A re-introduction and a comparison to CIRI

Human Rights Quarterly

Volumn 32, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 367-400

  Wood, Reed M ^a   Gibney, Mark ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT ASHEVILLE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DATA SET; HUMAN RIGHTS;

EID: 77952938744     PISSN: 02750392     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1353/hrq.0.0152     Document Type: Article

References (95)

1. The State As Terrorist : The Dynamics of Governmental Violence and Repress ion (Michael Stohl & George A. Lopez eds., 1984);
2. Government Violence and Repression: An Agenda for Research (Michael Stohl & George A. Lopez eds., 1986);
3. David Cingranelli & Thomas E. Pasquarello, Human Rights Practices and the Distribution of US Foreign Aid to Latin American Countries, 29 Am. J. Pol. Sci. 539 (1985);
4. Raymond D. Duvall & Michael Stohl, Governance by Terror, in The Politics of Terrorism 179 (Michael Stohl ed., 1983).
5. Lars Schoultz, Human Rights and United States Policy Toward Latin America (1981);
6. David Carleton & Michael Stohl, The Foreign Policy of Human Rights: Rhetoric and Reality from Jimmy Carter to Ronald Reagan, 7 Hum. Rts . Q. 205 (1985);
7. Raymond D. Gastil, Freedom in the World: Political Ri ghts and Civil Liberties (1980).
8. Mark Gibney & Matthew Dalton, The Political Terror Scale, 4 Pol'y Stud. & Dev. Nations 73 (1996).
9. For an extensive bibliography see The Political Terror Scale, available at http:// www.politicalterrorscale.org.
10. For a description of the CIRI project, see David L. Cingranelli & David L. Richards, Measuring the Level, Pattern, and Sequence of Government Respect for Physical Integrity Rights, 43 Int'l Stud. Q. 407 (1999);
11. David Cingranelli & David Richards, CIRI Human Rights Data Project, available at http://ciri.binghamton.edu/index.asp.
12. Carleton & Stohl, supra note 2, 211-18 (using data to compare the Carter Administration's respect for human rights to the Reagan Administration's respect for human rights);
13. Michael Stohl, David Carleton, George Lopez & Stephen Samuels, State Violation of Human Rights: Issues and Problems of Measurement, 8 Hum. Rts . Q. 592 (1986) [hereinafter State Violation of Human Rights].
14. For examples of Steven Poe and Neal Tate's work, see Steven C. Poe & C. Neal Tate, Repression of the Human Right to Personal Integrity in 1980s: A Global Analysis, 88 Am. Pol. Sci. Rev. 853 (1994);
15. Steven C. Poe, C. Neal Tate & Linda Camp Keith, Repression of the Human Right to Personal Integrity Revisited: A Global Cross-National Study Covering the Years 1976-1993, 43 Int'l Stud. Q. 291 (1999).
16. Carleton & Stohl, supra note 2.
17. See Duvall & Stohl, supra note 1;
18. State Violation of Human Rights, supra note 5, at 594-95.
19. The PTS scores for the Soviet Union were as follows: 1980 (SD 3, AI 3);
20. 1981 (SD 3, AI 3);
21. 1982 (SD 3, AI 3);
22. 1983 (SD 3, AI 3);
23. 1984 (SD 2, AI 2);
24. 1985 (SD 2, AI 2);
25. 1986 (SD 3, AI 3).
26. The Political Terror Scale, available at http://www.politicalterrorscale. org.
27. Quite typical from early in the decade is this language from the 2002 USDS Report on Colombia: "A small percentage of total human rights abuses reported were attributed to state security forces; however, some members of the government security forces continued to commit serious abuses, including unlawful and extrajudicial killings. Some members of the security forces collaborated with paramilitary groups that committed serious abuses. Impunity remained at the core of the country's human rights problems." U.S. Dep't of State, 2002 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, Colombia (2003), available at http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2002/18325.htm.
28. See Amnesty Int'l, Amnesty International Report 2008: The State of the World's Human Ri ghts 97 (2008), available at http://archive.amnesty.org/ report2008/document/101.pdf;
29. U. S. Dep't of State, 2008 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Colombia (2009), available at http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2008/wha/ 119153.htm;
30. Jorge Restrepo & Michael Spagat, Civilian Casualties in the Colombian Conflict: A New Approach to Human Security (27 Oct. 2004) (unpublished manuscript, on file with Royal Holloway College, University of London), available at http://eprints.rhul.ac.uk/439/1/HS-in-Colombia- Civil-Conflict.pdf.
31. U.S. Dep't of State, 2008 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, supra note 11;
32. Amnest y Int'l, supra note 11.
33. The year associated with the Amnesty International annual report is the publication year and not the year actually covered in the report. For example, the 2005 Amnesty report would cover the events occurring in 2004.
34. See Steven C. Poe, Sabine C. Carey & Tanya C. Vazquez, How Are These Pictures Different? A Quantitative Comparison of the US State Department and Amnesty International Human Rights Reports, 1976-1995, 23 Hum. Rts . Q. 650 (2001) [hereinafter How Are These Pictures Different?] for a full analysis and discussion of biases in the reports and change in bias over time.
35. In general, the PTS has been fortunate to have had significant consistency among its coders. Mark Gibney has been the project manager and a principal coder since 1984. Consistency in coders is particularly important for coding schemes that rely on significant, subjective assessment of qualitative information rather than event codes or other more objective criteria. This helps ensure consistency in the coding processes and minimizes the introduction of new biases that occur with coder changes. Political Terror Scale, Frequently Asked Questions, available at http://www.politicalterrorscale.org/faq.php.
36. The need to consult a third coder might occur in one or two cases per year.
37. How Are These Pictures Different?, supra note 14 at 658.
38. State Violation of Human Rights, supra note 5, at 600-03.
39. See id. It is difficult (and largely inappropriate) to quantify scope. Doing so necessitates being able to count X number of imprisonments as equivalent to Y tortures and Z killings. However, ranking the severity of these abuses along an ordinal scale is possible. This ranking is essentially the logic behind the PTS measure; the PTS does not attempt to count and compare raw numbers of events.
40. For instance, regime violence directed against labor leaders and political activists that results in hundreds of killings and disappearances would be more selective (have a more confined range) than indiscriminate violence toward apolitical peasants, even if the number of actual abuses in the latter case is lower. This is most obvious in the distinction between categories 4 and 5 on the PTS, although it can certainly affect scores at any level of intensity.
41. These cases are extraordinary-abuses are rarely so effectively limited to the group or sub-group that is the primary target.
42. David Cingranelli & David Richards, CIRI Human Rights Documentation, available at http://ciri.binghamton.edu/documentation.asp.
43. The CIRI creators provided a more superficial account of some of these differences in an earlier publication. See David L. Cingranelli & David L. Richards, Measuring the Level, Pattern, and Sequence of Government Respect for Human Rights, supra note 4, at 407-08, 414-15.
44. David L. Cingranelli & David L. Richards , The Cingranelli -Richards CIRI Human Rights Data Project Coding Manual, version 7.30.08 (2008) [hereinafter Project Coding Manual], available at http://ciri.binghamton.edu/ documentation/ciri-coding-guide.pdf.
45. The CIRI index also offers measures for a range of other human rights and civil liberties including union rights, women's rights, and economic freedoms, among others. Davi d L. Cingranelli & David L. Richards , Short Variable Descriptions for Indicators in he [sic] the Cingranelli -Richards (CIRI) Human Rights Data Set, version 12.07.08 (2008) [hereinafter Short Variable Descriptions], available at http://ciri.binghamton.edu/documentation/ciri- variables-short-descriptions. pdf.
46. This is Kendall's Tau-b coefficient. That the State Department PTS score is more highly correlated with the CIRI is largely due to the fact that CIRI uses the US Department of State reports as the primary source and the Amnesty International reports as a secondary source. Short Variable Descriptions, supra note 24, at 3. The Tau-b coefficient for the "worst" of the Amnesty or USDS score is 0.74.
47. Short Variable Descriptions, supra note 24, at 3-4.
48. James M. McCormick & Neil J. Mitchell, Human Rights Violations, Umbrella Concepts, and Empirical Analysis, 49 World Pol. 510, 511-15 (1997).
49. Poe, Tate & Keith, Repression of the Human Right to Personal Integrity Revisited, supra note 6, at 298.
50. David L. Cingranelli & David L. Richards, Measuring the Level, Pattern, and Sequence of Government Respect for Human Rights, supra note 4, at 411-15.
51. Physint stands for Physical Integrity Rights Index. It is the total score that the CIRI gives to a country after adding together the scores from four indicators: torture, extrajudicial killing, political imprisonment, and disappearance. Short Variable Descriptions, supra note 24, at 3.
52. See Project Coding Manual, supra note 24, at 5.
53. Id. at 18 (dividing the torture indicator into three categories with three corresponding scores).
54. Again to avoid confusion, throughout this paper we use an inversion of the CIRI scale. Consequently, CIRI's worst category is a "0", suggesting that no physical integrity rights were respected. Herein, we convert this score to an "8" for ease of comparison with the PTS.
55. See Project Coding Manual, supra note 24, at 18.
56. Unless otherwise noted, all comparisons use the "worst" PTS score from either the AI or USDS-derived scores.
57. The distribution of scores for the period 1976-2006, the entire range for which the PTS is available, is virtually identical. For scores based on the Amnesty International reports, the distribution is quite similar; for the Department of State-derived scores, there is a slight shift to the left. This superficially suggests that AI is overall more critical of state performance than is the US State Department. For discussion see How Are These Pictures Different?, supra note 14.
58. We also calculated the mean difference values by year. The mean values show remarkable stability by year. In only three years does the absolute value of the mean difference exceed 0.05 (1983, 1986, and 2002). In these few cases, the mean values are each between -0.05 and -0.075.
59. The only other case was the less frequent scenario in which states "frequently practiced" political imprisonment but no other abuse (mean=-0.72).
60. These would presumably be based on the differences cited above. As such, we would be required to essentially code for frequency, range, and other components that we feel are aspects of the PTS. We would also need to construct a database of militia and paramilitary groups. This would represent an immense time commitment, and one that is not necessarily warranted for such generally similar scales.
61. The CIRI score places Guatemala in the same category as Singapore, Canada, Greece, and Spain in that year. The PTS, by contrast, places it in the same category as India, Chad, Egypt, and Brazil.
62. U.S. Dep't of State, 2005 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Guatemala (2006), available at http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2005/61729. htm.
63. Id.
64. Id.
65. Project Coding Manual, supra note 24, at 14. CIRI codebook informs coders not to count "typical" kidnappings as disappearances.
66. Id.
67. U.S. Dep't of State, 2006 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Brazil (2007), available at http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2006/78882.htm
68. U.S. Dep't of State, 2006 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, Central African Republic (2007), available at http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/ hrrpt/2006/78725.htm.
69. Id.
70. Amnesty Int'l, Amnesty International Report 1995: The State of the World's Human Rights , Yugoslavi a (1995).
71. Amnesty Int'l, Amnesty International Report 1999: The State of the World's Human Rights , Ethiopia (1999); U.S. Dep't of State, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 1998: Ethiopia (1999) available at http://www.state.gov/www/global/human-rights/1998-hrp-report/ethiopia.html
72. U.S. Dep't of State, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 1996: Tajikistan (1997), available athttp://www.state.gov/www/global/human-rights/ 1996-hrp-report/tajikist.html.
73. Id.
74. Id.
75. Id.
76. Amnesty Int'l, Amnesty International Report 2007: The State of the World's Human Rights , Timor Leste (2007), available at http://archive.amnesty. org/report2007/eng/Regions/Asia-Pacific/Timor-Leste/default.htm
77. U.S. Dep't of State, 2006 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, East Timor (2007), available at http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2006/78772.htm. Both the Department of State and Amnesty International reports also suggest abuse or excessive force were used by state security personnel. This information figured in the PTS scoring for the country, but it is notably absent from the CIRI component scores.
78. AI scores more often trend toward category 3 while USDS scores trend toward category 4.
79. See Gibney & Dalton, The Political Terror Scale, supra note 3, for an earlier discussion.
80. We plan to start making notes publically available beginning with the release of the 2009 PTS scores in the Fall of 2010. See http://www. politicalterrorscale.org.
81. David L. Cingranelli & David L. Richards, The Cingranelli and Richards (CIRI) Human Rights Data Project, 32 Hum. Rts . Q. 401, 407-08 (2010).
82. Cingranelli & Richards, Measuring the Level, Pattern, and Sequence of Government Respect for Physical Integrity Rights, supra note 4, at 409-410
83. Cingranelli & Richards, The Cingranelli and Richards (CIRI) Human Rights Data Project, supra note 59, at 401.
84. Id. at 407.
85. Id. at 408.
86. Id.
87. Id.
88. As a side matter, we did not use the 3,001 figure, but instead, had asked why under the CIRI index countries where 500, 5,000, or even 50,000 individuals were tortured would get the same score as a country where fifty people had been abused in that fashion.
89. In general, according to the PTS coding scheme a country in which fifty persons were killed would in most circumstances not receive a score of 5 but rather a 3 or 4 depending on the extent of other abuses as well as who were the targets of abuse. A state in which 500 persons were killed could possibly receive a score of 4 if the targets were primarily politically active persons rather than apolitical citizens; the state would more likely receive a score of 5 if the abuse was widespread and indiscriminately employed against the populace regardless of its political or social activities. It would be extremely unlikely for a state killing 5,000 or 50,000 persons to receive less than a 5.
90. Cingranelli & Richards, The Cingranelli and Richards (CIRI) Human Rights Data Project, supra note 59, at 413.
91. Id. at 412.
92. Id. at 418.
93. Id.
94. Id. at 420.
95. Id. at 421.