Content area
Full text
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.
Keywords: international law, human rights, democracy, torture, treaties
At the dawn of the twenty-first century, more than 50,000 international treaties cover nearly every aspect of international relations and nearly every facet of state authority.1 Most states have entered into treaties that limit their freedom to act in a variety of ways-from when and how they may wage war, to what tariffs they may charge on imported goods, and even to how they may behave toward their own citizens. Yet we still have much to learn about why treaties exist and why states join them.
For much of the last fifty years, these questions were largely ignored. Legal scholars took the importance of international agreements as a given. Political scientists viewed them as largely epiphenomenal of the interests of the most powerful states. This has begun to change. During the last decade in particular, scholars on both sides of the disciplinary divide have sought answers to long-ignored questions and in the process have opened the door to a deeper understanding of the role of international law in shaping state behavior.2
This article aims to pry the door open even further by examining states' decisions to commit to international human rights treaties. This project serves several purposes. First and foremost, it is of intrinsic value. The treaties examined here constitute a significant part of the core of international human rights law. Yet the treaties have no binding legal...