Advertisement

Human Rights Review

, Volume 20, Issue 1, pp 23–45 | Cite as

Adjusted Ratification: Post-Commitment Actions to UN Human Rights Treaties

  • Audrey L. ComstockEmail author
Article

Abstract

A rich literature examines human rights treaty commitment and compliance. A subset of this literature has begun to examine the international legal actions states make following treaty ratification. I argue that the ways that states legally engage with treaties following commitment to UN human rights treaties is much more nuanced and differentiated than scholars have thus far presented via Reservation, Understanding, and Declaration. I introduce a first descriptive analysis of what I term Post-Commitment Actions (PCAs) to UN human rights treaties and generate varying hypotheses of why different PCAs have different relationships with expected human rights practices. I conduct a preliminary statistical analysis of the effect of PCAs on human rights practices and find that they are varied and important. Some PCAs result in improved human rights, while others result in worse human rights. I conclude by calling for further future study into these treaty actions.

Keywords

Treaties United Nations Ratification RUDs ICCPR 

References

  1. Baratta, Roberto, 2000. Should invalid reservations to human rights treaties be disregarded? European Journal of International Law, 11(2), pp.413–425.Google Scholar
  2. Bradley, Curtis A. and Jack L. Goldsmith. 2000. Treaties, Human Rights, and Conditional Consent. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 149(2): 399–468.Google Scholar
  3. Brooke, James. 1989. For Argentina, Inflation and Rage Rise in Tandem. The New York Times. June 4 1989. Accessed at https://www.nytimes.com/1989/06/04/weekinreview/the-world-for-argentina-inflation-and-rage-rise-in-tandem.html
  4. Cole, Wade M. 2005. Sovereignty Relinquished? Explaining Commitment to International Human Rights Covenants, 1966-1999. American Sociological Review 70(3): 472–95.Google Scholar
  5. Cole, Wade M. 2012. Human rights as myth and ceremony? Reevaluating the effectiveness of human rights treaties, 1981–2007. American Journal of Sociology 117(4):1131–71.Google Scholar
  6. Diehl, Paul F. and Charlotte Ku. 2010. The Dynamics of International Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Fariss, Christopher J. 2014. Respect for Human Rights has Improved over Time: Modeling the Changing Standard of Accountability. The American Political Science Review. 108(2): 297–318.Google Scholar
  8. Finnemore, Martha and Stephen J. Toope. 2001. Alternatives to “legalization”: Richer Views of Law and Politics. International Organization 55(3): 743–58.Google Scholar
  9. Fisher, Roger. 1981. Improving Compliance with International Law. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia.Google Scholar
  10. Forsythe, David P. 2000. Human Rights in International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Goodman, R., 2002. Human rights treaties, invalid reservations, and state consent. American Journal of International Law, 96(3), pp.531–560.Google Scholar
  12. Goodman, Ryan and Derek Jinks. 2003. Measuring the Effects of Human Rights Treaties European Journal of International Law 14(1): 171-83.Google Scholar
  13. Goldsmith, Jack L. and Eric A. Posner. 2005. The Limits of International Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Hafner-Burton, Emilie M. and Kiyoteru Tsutsui. 2007. Justice Lost! The Failure of International Human Rights Law to Matter Where Needed Most. Journal of Peace Research. 44(4): 407–25Google Scholar
  15. Hafner-Burton, Emilie M., Laurence, R. Helfer, and Christopher J. Fariss. 2011. Emergency and Escape: Explaining Derogations from Human Rights Treaties. International Organization 65: 672–707.Google Scholar
  16. Hathaway, Oona A. 2005. Between Power and Principle: An Integrated Theory of International Law. University of Chicago Law Review 72:469–536.Google Scholar
  17. Henkin, Louis. 1995. U.S. Ratification of Human Rights Treaties: The Ghost of Senator Bricker. The American Journal of International Law: 89.Google Scholar
  18. Hill, Daniel W. Jr. 2016. Avoiding Obligation: Reservations to Human Rights Treaties. Journal of Conflict Resolution 60(6): 1129–58.Google Scholar
  19. Human Rights Watch. 1989. Annual Report: Argentina. Available at https://www.hrw.org/reports/1989/WR89/Argentin.htm
  20. ICJ. 1951. Advisory Opinion, 1951 I.C.J. 15.Google Scholar
  21. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). 1966. United Nations Treaty Series, vol. 999, p. 171.Google Scholar
  22. Keith, Linda Camp. 1999. The United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Does it Make a Difference in Human Rights Behavior? Journal of Peace Research 36(1):95–118.Google Scholar
  23. Kim, Hunjoon and Kathryn Sikkink. 2010. Explaining the Deterrence Effect of Human Rights Prosecutions for Transitional Countries1. International Studies Quarterly 54(4): 939–963.Google Scholar
  24. Kumar, Akshaya. 2016. A Midlife Crisis for the Treaty-Based Human Rights System? UN Chronicle: The Magazine of the United Nations 52(4). Available online at https://unchronicle.un.org/article/midlife-crisis-treaty-based-human-rights-system
  25. Landman, Todd. 2005. Protecting Human Rights: A Comparative Study. Washington, D.C: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Lijnzaad, Elizabeth. 1995. Reservations to UN Human Rights Treaties: Ratify and Run? Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff PublishersGoogle Scholar
  27. McKibben, Heather Elko and Shaina D. Western. 2018. “Reserved Ratification”: An Analysis of States’ Entry of Reservations Upon Ratification of Human Rights Treaties. British Journal of Political Science (online first 09 March 2018).Google Scholar
  28. Millington, Ben. 2016. Queensland Prisons Allowing Incarcerated Mothers to Raise Young Children. Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Available at http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-27/children-living-with-mothers-in-queensland-prisons/8060524
  29. Mitchell, Ronald B. 1994. Regime Design Matters: Intentional Oil Pollution and Treaty Compliance. International Organization 48(3): 425.Google Scholar
  30. Neumayer, Eric. 2005. Do International Human Rights Treaties Improve Respect for Human Rights? Journal of Conflict Resolution 49 (6): 925–953Google Scholar
  31. Neumayer, Eric. 2007. Qualified Ratification: Explaining Reservations to International Human Rights Treaties. Journal of Legal Studies 36(2):397–430.Google Scholar
  32. Powell, Emilia Justyna and Jeffrey K. Staton. 2009. Domestic Judicial Institutions and Human Rights Treaty Violation. International Studies Quarterly 53(1): 149–74Google Scholar
  33. Raustiala, Kal and Anne-Marie Slaughter. 2002. International Law, International Relations, and Compliance. In Handbook of International Relations, edited by Walter Carlsnaes, Thomas Risse, and Beth A. Simmons, 538–558. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Google Scholar
  34. Reed, Robert W. 2015. On the Practice of Lagging Variables to Avoid Simultaneity. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics 77(6): 897–905.Google Scholar
  35. Richards, David L. and K Chad Clay. 2012. An Umbrella with Holes: Respect for Non-Derogable Human Rights During Declared States of Emergency, 1996-2004. Human Rights Review 13(4):443–71.Google Scholar
  36. Schabas, William A., 1995. Invalid Reservations to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: is the United States still a party. Brooklyn Journal of International Law 21(2): 277–325.Google Scholar
  37. Simmons, Beth A. 2009. Mobilizing for Human Rights: International Law in Domestic Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Sloss, David. 2006. Using International Law to Enhance Democracy. Virginia Journal of International Law 47(1): 1–61.Google Scholar
  39. The Economist. 2014. The Tragedy of Argentina: A Century of Decline. February 17 2014. Available at https://www.economist.com/briefing/2014/02/17/a-century-of-decline
  40. United Nations.1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, United Nations, Treaty Series,vol. 1155, p. 331, available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b3a10.html [accessed 31 May 2018]
  41. United Nations. 1989. United Nations Treaty Series. Vol. 1532, A-14668. Pg. 351–2 available at https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%201535/v1535.pdf.
  42. United Nations. 1996a. United Nations Treaty Series. 1996. Vol. 1927, Pg. 562.Google Scholar
  43. United Nations. 1996b. United Nations Treaty Series. 1996. Vol. 1934, A-24841. Pg. 369.Google Scholar
  44. United Nations. 1999. United Nations Treaty Series. Vol. 2068, A-24841. Pg. 337.Google Scholar
  45. United Nations. 2000. United Nations Treaty Series. 2000. Vol. 1676 pg. 543. Accessible online at https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%201676/v1676.pdf
  46. United Nations. 2005. “Reservations” United Nations Institute for Training and Research.Google Scholar
  47. United Nations. 2007. United Nations Treaty Series. 2007. Vol. 2472, A-14668 pg. 112.Google Scholar
  48. United Nations. 2012. Treaty Handbook. Treaty Section of the Office of Legal Affairs. Available at https://treaties.un.org/doc/source/publications/THB/English.pdf
  49. United Nations. 2018a. Peru: Notification to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Available at https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/CN/2018/CN.384.2018-Eng.pdf
  50. United Nations. 2018b. Portugal: Objection to the Declaration Made by Myanmar upon Ratification to the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. Available at https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/CN/2018/CN.403.2018-Eng.pdf
  51. Vreeland, James Raymond. 2008. Political Institutions and Human Rights: Why Dictatorships enter into the United Nations Convention against Torture. International Organization 62 (1):65–101.Google Scholar
  52. Wallace, Geoffrey P.R. 2014. Martial Law? Military Experience, International Law, and Support for Torture. International Studies Quarterly 58(3): 501–514.Google Scholar
  53. Wohlforth, William C. 1994. Realism and the End of the Cold War. International Security 19(3): 91.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Arizona State University, School of Social and Behavioral SciencesGlendaleUSA

Personalised recommendations