This article investigates determinants of representation in international human rights bodies. It is argued that socioeconomic factors shape whether human rights abuses translate into complaints to international human rights mechanisms. To seek international remedy, victims of human rights abuse must be aware of remedies, and they require complaint literacy to file complaints. Alternatively, they need ties to skilled networks that might represent their cases. Such complaint resources are systematically shaped by socioeconomic factors, implying that international human rights remedies tend to represent a self-selection of economic elites. The theoretical claims are tested both on the national and individual levels with novel data on the human rights complaint mechanisms operated by the UN Special Procedures (UNSP). While this mechanism is universally open, the follow-up statements of the UNSP reflect socioeconomic disparities both on the national and individual levels. On the national level, human rights abuses translate into more UNSP statements directed at richer countries. On the individual level, lawyers and professors tend to be more likely to be covered by the UNSP. The findings contribute to our understanding of representation in international human rights remedies, suggesting that these mechanisms struggle to reach marginalized groups in low-income countries.

中文翻译：

---

精英疗法？国际人权机构中的投诉资源和代表

本文探讨了国际人权机构中代表性的决定因素。有人认为，社会经济因素决定了侵犯人权行为是否会转化为向国际人权机制提出申诉。为了寻求国际补救，侵犯人权的受害者必须了解补救措施，并且他们需要具备投诉素养才能提出投诉。或者，他们需要与可能代表他们案件的熟练网络建立联系。此类投诉资源是由社会经济因素系统性塑造的，这意味着国际人权补救措施往往代表经济精英的自我选择。这些理论主张在国家和个人层面上都通过联合国特别程序（UNSP）运作的人权投诉机制的新数据进行了检验。虽然这一机制是普遍开放的，但 UNSP 的后续声明反映了国家和个人层面的社会经济差异。在国家层面上，侵犯人权行为转化为更多联合国SP针对富裕国家的声明。就个人而言，律师和教授往往更有可能受到 UNSP 的保护。研究结果有助于我们理解国际人权补救措施中的代表性，表明这些机制很难惠及低收入国家的边缘化群体。