Abstract: Many states are now committed to implementing
international human rights standards domestically. In terms of
practical governance, how might effectiveness be measured? A facevalue
answer can be found in domestic laws and institutions relating
to human rights. However, this article provides two further tools to
help states assess their status on the spectrum of robust to fragile
human rights governance. The first recognises that each state has its
own 'human rights history' and the ideal end stage is robust human
rights governance, and the second is developing criteria to assess
robustness. Although a New Zealand case study is used to illustrate
these tools, the widespread adoption of human rights standards by
many states inevitably means that the issues are relevant to other
countries. This is even though there will always be varying degrees of
similarity-difference in constitutional background and developed or
emerging human rights systems.