Why Do Countries Commit to Human Rights Treaties?

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.

Regulatory Theory

“…Scholars have charted the relationship between treaty acceptance and state behaviour, finding little correlation between the two (Hathaway 2007). Indeed, some studies show that ratification of human rights treaties is sometimes followed by increased violations of human rights (Hafner-Burton and Tsutui 2007).…”

Realizing Social Rights: The Material Impacts of Constitutional Entrenchment

“…Early work in this area tended to focus on "negative" rights such as freedom from torture, respect for civil liberties, and gender representation. It failed to find a relationship between human rights treaties such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and respect for human rights (Hathaway, 2002;Keith, 1999), leading to the conclusion that "international human rights treaties do little to encourage better practices and cannot stop many governments from a spiral of increasing repressive behavior, and may even exacerbate poor practices" (Hafner-Burton;Tsutsui, 2005Tsutsui, : 1398. What these studies did do, was confirm the correlation of several other factors with respect for human rights.…”

Political determinants of efforts to protect victims of human trafficking

“…The international system is characterized by power differentials, as some states are more influential than others. International relations suggest two main reasons for states to comply with international treaties lacking formal enforcement and sanction mechanisms like the UN Anti-Trafficking Protocol: they are either coerced into compliance by other states [32][33][34], or compliance is a strategic choice of states in order to raise their reputation and signal credible commitments [35][36][37][38].…”