After the nonbinding Universal Declaration of Human Rights, many global and regional human rights treaties have been concluded. Critics argue that these are unlikely to have made any actual difference in reality. Others contend that international regimes can improve respect for human rights in state parties, particularly in more democratic countries or countries with a strong civil society devoted to human rights and with transnational links. The findings suggest that rarely does treaty ratification have unconditional effects on human rights. Instead, improvement in human rights is typically more likely the more democratic the country or the more international nongovernmental organizations its citizens participate in. Conversely, in very autocratic regimes with weak civil society, ratification can be expected to have no effect and is sometimes even associated with more rights violation.
Achen, Christopher H.2000. Why lagged dependent variables can suppress the explanatory power of other dependent variables. Working paper, University of Michigan, Department of Political Science.
2.
Allred, Celest, Jay Goodliffe, and Darren Hawkins. 2004. Explaining commitment: States and the convention against torture. Working paper, Brigham Young University, Political Science Department.
3.
An-Na’im, Abdullahi A.2001. Human rights in the Arab world: A regional perspective. Human Rights Quarterly23:701-732.
4.
Bayefsky, Anne F.2001. The UN human rights treaty system: Universality at the crossroads. The Hague, the Netherlands: Kluwer Law International.
5.
Cassel, Douglass. 2001. Does international human rights law make a difference?Chicago Journal of International Law2:121-135.
6.
Chayes, Abram, and Antonia Handler Chayes. 1993. On compliance. International Organization47:175-205.
7.
Chayes, Abram, and Antonia Handler Chayes. 1995. The new sovereignty: Compliance with treaties in international regulatory regimes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
8.
Cingranelli, David L., and David L. Richards. 1999. Respect for human rights after the end of the cold war. Journal of Peace Research36:511-534.
9.
Donnelly, Jack. 1998. International human rights. Boulder, CO: Westview.
10.
Downs, George W., David M. Rocke, and Peter N. Barsoom. 1996. Is the good news about compliance good news about cooperation?International Organization50:379-406.
11.
European Commission. 2001. The European Union’s role in promoting human rights and democratisation in third countries. COM(2001) 252 final. Brussels: European Commission.
12.
Finnemore, Martha. 1996. National interests in international society. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
13.
Forsythe, David P.2000. Human rights in international relations. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
14.
Franck, Thomas M.1995. Fairness in international law and institutions. New York: Clarendon.
15.
Freedom House. 2004. Annual surveys of freedom country ratings 1972 to 2003. New York: Freedom House.
16.
Gibney, Mark. 2004. Political terror scales dataset. Asheville: University of North Carolina.
17.
Gleditsch, Nils Petter, Peter Wallensteen, Mikael Eriksson, Margareta Sollenberg, and Håvard Strand. 2002. Armed conflict 1946-2001: A new dataset. Journal of Peace Research39:615-637.
18.
Goldsmith, Jack L.2000. Should international human rights law trump US domestic law?Chicago Journal of International Law1:327-339.
19.
Goldsmith, Jack L., and Eric Posner. 2005. The limits of international law. New York: Oxford University Press.
20.
Goodman, Ryan, and Derek Jinks. 2003.Measuringthe effects of human rights treaties. European Journal of International Law14:171-183.
21.
Goodman, Ryan, and Derek Jinks. Forthcoming. How to influence states: Socialization and international human rights law. Duke Law Journal54.
22.
Hafner-Burton, Emilie M., and Kiyoteru Tsutsui. 2005. Human rights in a globalizing world: The paradox of empty promises. American Journal of Sociology111:1373-1411.
23.
Harff, Barbara. 2003. No lessons learned from the Holocaust? Assessing risks of genocide and political mass murder since 1955. American Political Science Review97:57-73.
24.
Hathaway, Oona. 2002a. Do human rights treaties make a difference?Yale Law Journal111:1935-2042.
25.
Hathaway, Oona. 2002b. The cost of commitment. Stanford Law Review55:1821-1862.
26.
Hathaway, Oona. 2003. Testing conventional wisdom. European Journal of International Law14:185-200.
27.
Hawkins, Darren. 2004. Explaining costly international institutions: Persuasion and enforceable human rights norms. International Studies Quarterly48:779-804.
28.
Heckman, James. 1979. Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica47:153-161.
29.
Helfer, Laurence R., and Anne-Marie Slaughter. 1997. Toward a theory of effective supranational adjudication. Yale Law Journal107:273-391.
30.
Heyns, Christof, and Frans Viljoen. 2001. The impact of the United Nations human rights treaties on the domestic level. Human Rights Quarterly23:483-535.
31.
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 Research36:95-118.
32.
Koh, Harold Hongju. 1996. Why do nations obey international law? Review essay. Yale Law Journal106:2599-2659.
33.
Koh, Harold Hongju. 1998. How is international human rights law enforced?Indiana Law Journal74:1396-1417.
34.
Krasner, Stephen D.1993. Sovereignty, regimes, and human rights. In Regime theory and international relations, edited by Volker Rittberger, 139-167. Oxford, UK: Clarendon.
35.
Landman, Todd. 2002.The evolution of the international human rights regime: Political and economic determinants. Working paper, University of Essex, Department of Government.
36.
Levy, Marc A., Robert O. Keohane, and Peter M. Haas. 1993. Improving the effectiveness of international environmental institutions. In Institutions for the Earth: Sources of effective international environmental protection, edited by Peter M. Haas, Robert O. Keohane, and Marc A. Levy, 397-426. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
37.
Marshall, Monty G., Keith Jaggers, and Ted Robert Gurr. 2003. Polity IV project. College Park: University of Maryland.
38.
Mitchell, Ronald B.1996. Compliance theory: An overview. In Improving compliance with international environmental law, edited by James Cameron, Jacob Werksman, and Peter Roderick, 3-28. London: Earthscan.
39.
Moravcsik, Andrew. 1997. Taking preferences seriously: A liberal theory of international politics. International Organization51:513-553.
40.
Moravcsik, Andrew. 2000. The origins of human rights regimes: Democratic delegation in postwar Europe. International Organization54:217-252.
41.
Neumayer, E.2001. How regime theory and the economic theory of international environmental cooperation can learn from each other. Global Environmental Politics1:122-147.
42.
Nickell, Stephen. 1981. Biases in dynamic models with fixed effects. Econometrica49:1417-1426.
43.
Poe, Steven C., Neal Tate, and Linda Camp Keith. 1999. Repressions of the human right to personal integrity revisited: A global cross-national study covering the years 1976-1993. International Studies Quarterly43:291-313.
44.
Poe, Steven C., Tanya C. Vazquez, and Sabine Carey. 2001. How are these pictures different? A quantitative comparison of the U.S. State Department and Amnesty International human rights reports, 1976-1995. Human Rights Quarterly23:650-677.
45.
Rehman, Javaid. 2003. International human rights law. Harlow, UK: Pearson Education.
46.
Risse, Thomas. 2002. Von der Anerkennung der Menschenrechte zu ihrer Einhaltung. In Menschheit und Menschenrechte, edited by Eckart Klein and Christoph Menke, 41-76. Berlin: Berliner Wissenschafts-Verlag.
47.
Risse, Thomas, Stephen C. Ropp, and Kathryn Sikkink. 1999. The power of human rights: International norms and domestic change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
48.
Schmitz, Hans Peter, and Kathryn Sikkink. 2002. International human rights. In Handbook of international relations, edited by Walter Carlsnaes, Thomas Risse, and Beth A. Simmons, 517-537. London: Sage.
49.
Simmons, Beth. 2000. Why commit? Explaining state acceptance of international human rights obligations. Working paper, University of California at Berkeley, Political Science Department.
50.
Stata. 2003. Fixed effects ordered probit regression. College Station, MD: Stata Corporation. http://www.stata.com/statalist/archive/2003-09/msg00103.html.
51.
Tsutsui, Kiyoteru. 2004. Global civil society and the international human rights movement: Citizen participation in human rights international nongovernmental organizations. Social Forces83:587-620.
52.
Vreeland, James Raymond. 2003. CAT selection: Why governments enter into the UN convention against torture. Working paper, Yale University.
53.
Wiik, R.2002. Democratisation in the name of civil society: A quantitative analysis of the impact of non-government organisations on democratisation. Norwegian University of Science and Technology. http://www.sv.ntnu.no/iss/Robert.Wiik/thesis.pdf.
54.
World Bank. 2003. World development indicators. CD-ROM. Washington, DC: World Bank.
55.
Zanger, Sabine C.2000. A global analysis of the effect of political regime changes on life integrity violations, 1977-93. Journal of Peace Research37:213-233.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
