treaties

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.

This paper asks how bilateral investment treaties (BITs) affect women's rights in host states, arguing that BITs produce divergent effects across types of rights. The authors propose that an initial “locking in” to attract investors and later legal pressures on states reduce enforcement against foreign investors, which they link to declines in women’s economic rights. They further argue that host states may respond to unrest or backlash by improving women’s political rights as a compensatory measure. The paper reports that the authors’ expectations are "broadly and consistently confirmed."

Civil society mobilization and human rights treaty ratifications put pressure on governments. But this can backfire: committed governments may demobilize critics to avoid scrutiny.