No abstract

This article examines states' decisions to commit to human rights treaties. It argues that the effect of a treaty on a state—and hence the state's willingness to commit to it—is largely determined by the domestic enforcement of the treaty and the treaty's collateral consequences. These broad claims give rise to several specific predictions. For example, states with less democratic institutions will be no less likely to commit to human rights treaties if they have poor human rights records, because there is little prospect that the treaties will be enforced. Conversely, states with more democratic institutions will be less likely to commit to human rights treaties if they have poor human rights records—precisely because treaties are likely to lead to changes in behavior. These predictions are tested by examining the practices of more than 160 countries over several decades.

10. Indeed, this Article is the first step in a broader project that will include a series of case studies that will test the findings of the statistical analyses and verify, strengthen, and deepen the arguments made in this Article. My earlier study of the impact of free trade agreements in the United States takes just such a case-study approach.

No abstract

and other members of the faculty of Boston University School of Law for their comments and suggestions on earlier drafts of this work. I am also grateful to Paul A. David for providing me with copies of some of his most recent unpublished works on path dependence theory. Jacob S. Hacker deserves special thanks for his contributions at every stage of this project.