This article asks whether variation across human rights treaties in the scope and demandingness of obligations influences states’ decisions to ratify. The authors argue that treaties differ in the number and severity of obligations they impose, that this variation can be measured, and that it affects ratification choices. Using newly compiled data on obligations and commitments across the 10 core global human rights treaties, the article tests whether treaties with more demanding obligations are less likely to be ratified by states that would face higher compliance costs.
Data and methods
The authors assemble innovative data on treaty obligations and commitments for the 10 core global human rights treaties and analyze those measures alongside ratification behavior. The abstract does not specify the exact statistical models or causal identification strategy; it emphasizes measurement of variation in obligations and empirical testing of the relationship between obligations and ratification.
Main findings
The study reports strong support for the authors’ propositions: treaties contain substantial variation in the scope and scale of obligations, this variation is measurable, and it matters for ratification patterns. The abstract frames results cautiously, attributing findings to the analysis of the compiled obligation-and-commitment data rather than claiming broad causal generalizations.
Bold phrases: measured variation in treaty obligations, 10 core global human rights treaties, novel obligations and commitments data
- Treaties differ substantially in how many and how demanding their obligations are.
- Treaties with a larger number of demanding obligations are associated with different ratification outcomes, as supported by the authors’ analysis.
