After Ratification

Twenty-one years after the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court was adopted, state noncompliance with politically-costly legal obligations remains the main barrier to international justice. This article explores two sequential questions: First, why do states ratify the Rome Statute? And second, how likely are their governments to genuinely comply with its provisions? This article employs an original methodology to explore these questions, combining a survey of diplomats posted to the UN Headquarters with thirty-seven structured interviews. Study results show that the (in)sincerity of state commitment reliably predicts future compliance with treaty obligations. Three main conclusions can be drawn from this study. First, it is crucial to distinguish between the moment of ratification and that of actual obligation. Second, the lawyerly assumption that state motives do not matter lacks empirical support. Third, the role of regional actors in enhancing compliance from state authorities deserves further recognition

Compliance (psychology · Economic Justice · International law · Obligation · Political science · Politics · Public international law · Ratification · Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court · Sincerity · State (computer science · Statute · Statute of limitations · Treaty · Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties · Global Peace and Security Dynamics · International Arbitration and Investment Law · International Law and Human Rights · Law · Psychology · Social Psychology

• Does the Inter-American Court of Human Rights affect the development of human rights norms in El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala

  Open Access•Melissa Martinez•International Studies•2023

  Add to list