Do human rights treaty obligations matter for ratification

Bibliographic Data

ID12720331
AuthorsSuzie Mulesky (0000-0003-1600-7015, Vanguard (United States)), Wayne Sandholtz (0000-0002-8314-0038, University of Southern California, corresponding author), Kelebogile Zvobgo (0000-0001-8701-8016, William & Mary)
Year2023
Volume23
Issue1
Pages1-18
Publication date2023-11-15
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessNo
TypeARTICLE
VenueJournal of Human Rights (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 1475-4835 • E-ISSN: 1475-4843
PublisherTaylor & Francis (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1080/14754835.2023.2267578
OpenAlexW4388694920
LanguageEN
Citations received4
References cited38

International relations scholarship assumes that states weigh the costs and benefits of treaty ratification. In human rights, the worse a particular state's record, the higher the presumptive costs of ratification and the lower the likelihood of ratification. But prior work neglects variation in the extent of obligation that different treaties create. In this article, we argue and demonstrate that (1) human rights treaties differ substantially in the scope and scale of the obligations they contain, (2) this variation can be measured, and (3) it matters for ratification. Treaties that create a larger number of demanding obligations imply greater potential costs of compliance for states. The larger the number of demanding obligations, the more grounds various actors will have to challenge a state's practices. We analyze innovative data on treaty obligations and commitments for the 10 core global human rights treaties to test our propositions, and we find strong support

Human rights · Law and economics · Obligation · Political science · Politics · Ratification · Scholarship · Scope (computer science · Sociology · State (computer science · Treaty · Global Peace and Security Dynamics · Human Rights and Development · International Law and Human Rights · Law

Tools

Open DOI