Kiribati
How well is Kiribati respecting people's human rights?
Use the tabs below to explore the scores.
Kiribati at a glance
Quality of Life
Economic and Social Rights
(2021)
Summary score
N/A
How well is Kiribati doing compared to what is possible at its level of income?
Right to
0
% of income adjusted benchmark achieved
HRMI score
100%
Very bad
Bad
Fair
Good
Safety from the State
Civil and Political Rights
(2021)
Summary score
7.9
How well is Kiribati's government respecting each right?
Right to freedom from
0
Score
10
Very bad
Bad
Fair
Good
Empowerment
Civil and Political Rights
(2021)
Summary score
6.9
How well is Kiribati's government respecting each right?
Right to
0
Score
10
Very bad
Bad
Fair
Good
Source: HRMI 2024 rightstracker.org
Quality of Life
Compared with the other countries in the Pacific, Kiribati is performing close to average when we look across the rights for which we have data (this comparison is calculated using the 'Income adjusted' benchmark).
To change the performance benchmark or assessment standard, please click on ‘Switch view’ above
Safety from the State
Kiribati's Safety from the State score of 7.9 out of 10 suggests that a significant number of people are not safe from one or more of the following: arbitrary arrest, torture and ill-treatment, forced disappearance, execution, or extrajudicial killing.
Compared with the other countries in the Pacific, Kiribati is performing close to average on the right to be safe from the state.
Empowerment
Kiribati's Empowerment score of 6.9 out of 10 suggests that a significant number of people are not enjoying their civil liberties and political freedoms (freedom of speech, assembly and association, democratic rights, and religion and belief).
Compared with the other countries in the Pacific, Kiribati is performing close to average on empowerment rights.
Quality of Life - overview
(2021)
How well is Kiribati doing compared to what is possible at its level of income?
Summary score
0
% of income adjusted benchmark achieved
HRMI score
100%
Right to
Very bad
Bad
Fair
Good
Source: HRMI 2024 rightstracker.org
Compared with the other countries in the Pacific, Kiribati is performing close to average when we look across the rights for which we have data (this comparison is calculated using the 'Income adjusted' benchmark).
To change the performance benchmark or assessment standard, please click on ‘Switch view’ above
Quality of Life - full details
See more detail on how Kiribati performs on the
?Right to
0
% of income adjusted benchmark achieved
HRMI score
100%
Right to
Very bad
Bad
Fair
Good
Source: HRMI 2024 rightstracker.org
By sex
How does Kiribati perform by sex for
?By sex
0
% of income adjusted benchmark achieved
HRMI score
100%
Very bad
Bad
Fair
Good
Source: HRMI 2024 rightstracker.org
Over time
How does Kiribati perform over time for
?Source: HRMI 2024 rightstracker.org
People at risk
(2021)
Which people in Kiribati were identified by human rights experts to be particularly at risk of having their
violated?Interpretation: Larger text = more human rights experts identified this group as being at risk.
Source: HRMI 2024 rightstracker.org
We are sorry. This information is not yet available in your language
Safety from the State - overview
(2021)
How well is Kiribati's government respecting each right?
Summary score
0
Score
10
Right to freedom from
Very bad
Bad
Fair
Good
Source: HRMI 2024 rightstracker.org
Kiribati's Safety from the State score of 7.9 out of 10 suggests that a significant number of people are not safe from one or more of the following: arbitrary arrest, torture and ill-treatment, forced disappearance, execution, or extrajudicial killing.
Compared with the other countries in the Pacific, Kiribati is performing close to average on the right to be safe from the state.
Over time
Source: HRMI 2024 rightstracker.org
People at risk
(2021)
Which people in Kiribati were identified by human rights experts to be particularly at risk of having their
violated?Interpretation: Larger text = more human rights experts identified this group as being at risk.
Source: HRMI 2024 rightstracker.org
We are sorry. This information is not yet available in your language
Empowerment - overview
(2021)
How well is Kiribati's government respecting each right?
Summary score
0
Score
10
Right to
Very bad
Bad
Fair
Good
Source: HRMI 2024 rightstracker.org
Kiribati's Empowerment score of 6.9 out of 10 suggests that a significant number of people are not enjoying their civil liberties and political freedoms (freedom of speech, assembly and association, democratic rights, and religion and belief).
Compared with the other countries in the Pacific, Kiribati is performing close to average on empowerment rights.
Over time
Source: HRMI 2024 rightstracker.org
People at risk
(2021)
Which people in Kiribati were identified by human rights experts to be particularly at risk of having their
violated?Interpretation: Larger text = more human rights experts identified this group as being at risk.
Source: HRMI 2024 rightstracker.org
We are sorry. This information is not yet available in your language
Which people are most at risk?
We asked human rights experts to choose from a list of options for which people were particularly at risk of having this right violated. The images below show their answers.
Highlight
in the word clouds below.Quality of Life
People at risk for
Right to education
(2021)
Interpretation: Larger text = more human rights experts identified this group as being at risk.
Source: HRMI 2024 rightstracker.org
People at risk for
Right to food
(2021)
Interpretation: Larger text = more human rights experts identified this group as being at risk.
Source: HRMI 2024 rightstracker.org
People at risk for
Right to health
(2021)
Interpretation: Larger text = more human rights experts identified this group as being at risk.
Source: HRMI 2024 rightstracker.org
People at risk for
Right to housing
(2021)
Interpretation: Larger text = more human rights experts identified this group as being at risk.
Source: HRMI 2024 rightstracker.org
People at risk for
Right to work
(2021)
Interpretation: Larger text = more human rights experts identified this group as being at risk.
Source: HRMI 2024 rightstracker.org
Safety from the State
People at risk for
Right to freedom from arbitrary arrest
(2021)
Interpretation: Larger text = more human rights experts identified this group as being at risk.
Source: HRMI 2024 rightstracker.org
People at risk for
Right to freedom from forced disappearance
(2021)
Interpretation: Larger text = more human rights experts identified this group as being at risk.
Source: HRMI 2024 rightstracker.org
People at risk for
Right to freedom from the death penalty
Expert respondents didn’t select any group of people for this right.
People at risk for
Right to freedom from extrajudicial execution
(2021)
Interpretation: Larger text = more human rights experts identified this group as being at risk.
Source: HRMI 2024 rightstracker.org
People at risk for
Right to freedom from torture and ill-treatment
(2021)
Interpretation: Larger text = more human rights experts identified this group as being at risk.
Source: HRMI 2024 rightstracker.org
Empowerment
People at risk for
Right to assembly and association
(2021)
Interpretation: Larger text = more human rights experts identified this group as being at risk.
Source: HRMI 2024 rightstracker.org
People at risk for
Right to opinion and expression
(2021)
Interpretation: Larger text = more human rights experts identified this group as being at risk.
Source: HRMI 2024 rightstracker.org
People at risk for
Right to participate in government
(2021)
Interpretation: Larger text = more human rights experts identified this group as being at risk.
Source: HRMI 2024 rightstracker.org
On this tab you can find data collected only in Pacific countries, on five themes.
Jump to:
Climate crisis
(2021)
How much has the climate crisis worsened human rights conditions in Kiribati?
4.8
Not at All (1)
Slightly (2)
Somewhat (3)
Moderately (4)
Greatly (5)
Extremely (6)
Due to limited responses, we are unable to provide additional information on this topic.
Indigenous sovereignty
(2021)
To what extent are Indigenous and/or native communities in Kiribati able to exercise self-determination?
4.4
Not at All (1)
Slightly (2)
Somewhat (3)
Moderately (4)
Highly (5)
Completely (6)
When asked to provide more context about Indigenous self-determination in 2022, respondents mentioned the following:
- Kiribati is made up of indigenous I-Kiribati, and a small number of Tuvaluans and Europeans
- Everyone is given equal protection under the law
Indigenous lands
(2021)
To what extent do Indigenous and/or native communities in Kiribati have possession and enjoyment of their traditional lands?
4.0
Not at All (1)
Slightly (2)
Somewhat (3)
Moderately (4)
Highly (5)
Completely (6)
Due to limited responses, we are unable to provide additional information on this topic.
Cultural rights
(2021)
To what extent do people in Kiribati enjoy their cultural rights?
4.4
Not at All (1)
Slightly (2)
Somewhat (3)
Moderately (4)
Highly (5)
Completely (6)
When asked to provide more context about the extent to which communities can practise their cultural rights in 2022, respondents mentioned the following:
- There is protection of different cultural practices and freedom to practise them
Violence
(2021)
To what extent are people in Kiribati free from violence in the community?
Violence against
0
Score
10
Less safe
More safe
Violence against children
When asked to provide more context about violence against children in 2022, respondents mentioned the following:
- Children face violence from their peers, siblings and relatives.
Violence against people with disabilities
Due to limited responses, we are unable to provide additional information on this topic.
Violence against MVPFAFF+/LGBTQIA+
When asked to provide more context about violence against MVPFAFF+ and LGBTQIA+ people in 2022, respondents mentioned the following:
- There are traditional roles and responsibilities for people with diverse gender and sexual identities which are generally accepted
- There is mocking and unfair treatment and abuse of LGBTQIA+ people
Violence against women and girls
When asked to provide more context about violence against women in 2022, respondents mentioned the following:
- Women and wives are often abused and face violence because there is a belief that culture dictates that men own women
- Girls face violence, often as a means of discipline
Behind the numbers
Quality of Life
Under the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, which China has signed, all countries agree to devote their maximum available resources to making things progressively better for their people in these areas.
HRMI has calculated what China could be achieving at its current level of income. The scores are given as a percentage of that realistic potential achievement. China’s best scores are for the right to health, where it is achieving 98.1% of what we calculate should be possible, and for the right to work (97.2%). For these rights, China is doing nearly as well as it possibly can, given its level of income. China could still afford to make some gains now, but then would need to increase its income to make further improvements.
Of the five quality of life rights we measure, China needs to improve the most in the right to quality education, where it scores 61.4%, which falls in the ‘very bad’ range. Among 17 East Asian countries, this score puts China in the bottom half for quality education, just below Mongolia and Myanmar, and just above Malaysia and Thailand.
Right to Quality Education in East and Southeast Asia
Score
0
% of income adjusted benchmark achieved
HRMI score
100%
China’s other lower score is for the right to housing, where it is currently achieving only 92.3% of what we calculate should be possible at its level of income.
We further break the right to housing down into scores for the right to sanitation and the right to water.
With a GDP per capita of US$12,720 we calculate that China has the resources to ensure all of its people have running water and toilets in their homes.
However, China’s right to sanitation score of 89.5% shows that many people are missing out, even though China could afford to do better. If China efficiently used its available resources, it could achieve a score of 100%, which would mean that 79 million additional people living in China would gain access to basic sanitation in their homes.
If China improved its performance for the right to water from 95.2% to 100%, 51 million more people would have water on their premises.
The good news is that China’s scores for the right to housing have been steadily improving since 2001, when the nation scored 70.0%. The progress from 2020 to 2021 suggests around 23 million people gained access to basic sanitation over that period, and around 15 million people gained access to water in their homes. China’s scores for the right to water are rising more quickly than those for the right to sanitation.
When it comes to the right to food, if China lifted its score to 100%, around 1.9 million more children under five years old would have enough nutritious food to grow well – that would mean all children in China under five would have enough nutritious food to grow well. This is an achievable goal.
With a current score of 96.4%, China has improved a little in respecting people’s right to food over the last 20 years, with its score increasing from 86% in 2000.
On the right to work, China has made dramatic progress in eliminating absolute poverty. It’s score on ensuring people enjoy at least a subsistence income (that is, income above the absolute poverty line of $3.65 per day, measured in 2017 PPP$), has risen from 34.6% in 2000 to 97.2% in 2020, bringing it from the ‘very bad’ band to the ‘good’ band. Still, the latest score means 28 million Chinese are unnecessarily living in absolute poverty.
The bigger challenge China currently faces, however, is eliminating relative poverty. That is, ensuring people enjoy at least half the median income and so can enjoy a decent life. China’s score on a fair (relative) income stood at only 36.3% in 2018 (the most year with data). While 1,115 million people had enough money to enjoy decent lives, 199 million were unnecessarily denied this right.
China comes in second in the world in ensuring people’s right to health is fulfilled, with a score of 98.1%, when using the low and middle income assessment standard (when using the high income standard, China still comes in fifth in the world, when taking countries' income into account). For countries doing this well with their current level of income, an increase of income will be necessary to make significant further improvements. This is the right where China is most constrained by resources – for all of the other rights we measure, China should already be able to do nearly as well as any country in the world, at its current level of income.
However, for the right to health, expert respondents noted inequities in access to healthcare, including regional differences, and differences in access according to wealth and political influence.
People at risk
While China has room for improvement in all the rights we measure, a further consideration is inequity. There are several groups of people who experts identified as being at higher risk of missing out. These include:
- People with lower social or economic status, including farmers and people in rural areas
- Human rights advocates, protesters, and anyone who criticises the government
- People from ethnic minorities
- People in Xinjiang, especially Uyghurs
- Disabled people
- Older people
- Detainees
- People from religious minorities
See the people at risk tab on the Rights Tracker for the full lists. The data also show a strong connection between political activity, especially criticism of the government, and lack of enjoyment of economic and social rights.
Room for improvement
All our Quality of Life scores show that China could make significant improvements to its people’s lives, even without more resources.
If China were using its resources more efficiently to ensure its people’s wellbeing, it could achieve 100% for all the rights we measure. Yet, while its best score is close to that mark — 98.1% on the right to health — its worst score — 61.4% on the right to quality education — is far from that level.
If China better upheld its rights obligations, and achieved a full 100% score on all the rights we measure, we would see millions more Chinese people living lives of dignity, even without income growth. For example, if China reached 100% we would see the following number of extra people benefitting:
-
If China were to operate at its full potential given its current resources, we would expect an additional 1.9 million children under five to grow well and not be stunted.
-
If China were operating at best practice, each year we would expect an extra 33,200 newborn babies to survive until their fifth birthday.
-
If China were to operate at its full potential given its current resources, we would expect an additional 156,000 newborns to be born at a healthy birth weight.
-
If China were reaching its full potential, given its income constraints, an extra 451,000 15-year-olds could eventually reach the age of 60.
-
If China used its resources efficiently, an additional 79 million people could have a toilet at home, and an extra 51 million people could have access to water in their homes.
-
If China were operating at its full potential given its current resources, it could lift 28 million people out of absolute poverty.
Safety from the State
China scores 2.6 out of 10 for our overall Safety from the State category, telling us that many people are at risk of arbitrary or political arrest or detention, torture and ill-treatment, forced disappearance, execution, or extrajudicial killing. This is the lowest score in our sample of 30 countries.
China’s worst score in this category is 1.0 out of 10 for freedom from the death penalty, the lowest score among all the countries we measure.
The human rights experts we surveyed said that people protesting against or criticising the government, and people from ethnic and religious minorities, were at extra risk of being executed. They also noted that women who kill their abusive husbands in self-defense may face the death penalty.
Respondents overwhelmingly agreed that human rights advocates, protesters, and people who criticised the government were at particular risk of a wide range of rights violations, especially arbitrary arrest and detention, forced disappearance, and torture and ill-treatment. Respondents particularly noted risks to political dissidents, detainees, and participants of the New Citizens Movement. Respondents also noted that family members of Chinese citizens who have migrated to other coutries are also at heightened risk of harassment and rights abuses.
People who protest or engage in non-violent political activity were at extra risk for all five Safety from the State rights.
Other vulnerable groups include:
- Detainees and those accused of crimes, especially people suspected of terrorism
- Journalists
- Human rights defenders
- Sex workers
Among other East and Southeast Asian countries and territories where we measure these rights, China has the lowest scores for all five Safety from the State rights.
Right to Freedom from Arbitrary Arrest and Detention in East and Southeast Asia
Summary score
0
Score
10
Right to Freedom from Forced Disappearance in East and Southeast Asia
Summary score
0
Score
10
Right to Freedom from Death Penalty in East and Southeast Asia
Summary score
0
Score
10
Right to Freedom from Extrajudicial Execution in East and Southeast Asia
Summary score
0
Score
10
Right to Freedom from Torture and Ill-treatment in East and Southeast Asia
Summary score
0
Score
10
Empowerment
The Chinese government limits civil liberties and political freedom, with China scoring a very low 1.9 out of 10 in empowerment rights. This is the second lowest score in our sample of 30 countries.
For the rights to assembly and association, opinion and expression, participation in government, and freedom of religion and belief all of China’s scores fall into the ‘very bad’ range. For all four rights, the human rights experts we surveyed agreed overwhelmingly that ‘all people’ were at risk of violations of these rights.
When it comes to the right to assembly and association, China scores 2.3 out of 10, and human rights experts identified a wide range of people not enjoying their rights, including human rights advocates, protesters, and people criticising or opposing the government, as well as those from ethnic and religious minorities.
China’s score for the right to opinion and expression is a very low 2.4 out of 10, with no improvement over the four years we have measured this right. Respondents noted that press freedom does not exist, and expressing a different opinion from the majority can lead to a range of punishments and reprisals.
China also scores in the ‘very bad’ range for the right to participate in government, with a score of 2.8 out of 10. Respondents noted that political organisations are monitored and under government control, and people who participated in the White Paper Protests are restricted from political participation.
For the right to freedom of religion and belief, China scored 2.5. Respondents noted that the government restricts all religious practices, and is particularly repressive towards people following unregistered minority religions such as Christians, Uyghur Muslims, and people who attend house churches.
Groups that are particularly vulnerable to empowerment rights violations include:
- Human rights advocates, protesters, and anyone who criticises the government
- Journalists
- People from ethnic and religious minorities
- Detainees and those accused of crimes
- LGBTQIA+ People
- Sex workers
Right to Assembly and Association in East and Southeast Asia
Summary score
0
Score
10
Right to Opinion and Expression in East and Southeast Asia
Summary score
0
Score
10
Right to Participate in Government in East and Southeast Asia
Summary score
0
Score
10
Right to freedom of religion and belief in East and Southeast Asia
Summary score
0
Score
10
Country details
Population
131.2k (2022)
GDP/capita
$1,702 (2022)
current US dollars
$2,003 (2022)
2017 PPP dollars