By Asif A. Sattar
November 28th 2023

Reflection (Click to expand.)

Throughout my studies in college, I have always held an interest in humanitarian action and the global trend of human rights. The question for my literature review also forms the basis of my senior thesis for next semester, giving me the opportunity to delve into the topic, providing me the opportunity to transfer the knowledge and skills I gain from this assignment for the future. A lot of research regarding this topic conflicts on the selection of case studies, method and qualitative understanding. There is a general consensus and understanding for the history of global human rights treaties and their purpose, but not necessarily a consensus on how best to measure their effectiveness. I chose to discard one source that provided context on what UN human rights treaties were and their historical development, which was better established through other sources. I was unable to interview an expert in the field due to scheduling constraints (my senior thesis advisor), but got a chance to briefly speak to them about this topic before submission. A lot of my time for this assignment was spent in synthesizing a well-established understanding of the pieces of literature that I chose. It was important for me to understand the quantitative basis that claims were being made off of, alongside the historical analysis being done on the overall development of these treaties. A lot of work also went into revising the structure of my literature review for the reader to have a better flow of understanding. I met my course learning objective of strengthening my source use practices (including evaluating, integrating, quoting, paraphrasing, summarizing, synthesizing, analyzing, and citing sources).

“All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.”

Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 1.

The question of human rights plays an important role within international discourse, often referenced in regards to a nation’s ideals or a main part of their mission. International human rights treaties exist as a crucial part of this discourse, being formulated as a result of multilateral discussions between peers. Forming the basis of this subject is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, establishing the individual’s right to life and liberty, freedom from torture, freedom of expression, the right to work and the right to education. Much of our understanding of international treaties and their contents have their roots from this document. But to what extent has the modern push for international human rights consideration been actually effective in their mission? Rather, does the existence of human rights treaties in the modern international discourse positively impact the global desire to meet the rights established from the 1948 declaration? By exploring existing scholarship and quantitative analysis on the subject, we can further our understanding of this nuanced topic, fundamentally understanding what methods actually work for humanitarian causes and how they can be improved. This literature review will firstly explore why human rights came to be an international topic. We will first establish a bedrock understanding of what human rights treaties are via the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We will next analyze two quantitative papers that use different methods to arrive at their respective results, using complex models and datasets regarding human rights abuses and state behavior. We will then explore one paper that elaborates upon the underlying historical purpose and meaning of international human rights treaties and their symbolic importance. We will lastly explore potential improvements for treaties moving forward, providing a variety of interpretations as to why nations choose to sign treaties and information that can allow treaties to be better in promoting human rights causes.

The Mission for Internationally Recognized Human Dignity
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) by the United Nations General Assembly was the direct result of two devastating world wars and the recognition of a new global order. In the past, human rights were usually not a foremost concern for state entities. Rather, for most of human history, records show that the rights of the individual and of the collective were ill defined. This is much less true for the rights of a global citizenry. The rights of one populace, therefore, could be significantly stronger than a neighboring counterpart, with no formal bedrock of what was internationally acceptable. Individual nations could have laws and legislation that protected the rights of their citizenry, but these laws historically were sporadic in nature, did not apply to all individuals, and varied greatly depending upon nation, region and time period. The fundamental rights of an American citizen or a French citizen, nations born out of enlightenment ideals, might have been outlined earlier than others. Even so, said ideals often retroactively left out people of color, women, and prevented social advancement. 

The UDHR attempts to take a first step internationally in outlining an internationally recognized document of fundamental human rights, allowing us to better understand international human rights treaties and legislation after its creation. Adopted by the General Assembly in December 1948, the document received forty-eight to zero votes in the affirmative and eight abstensions. It exists as a non legally binding declaration that promotes civil and political rights, the right to life, liberty, free speech, privacy, the right to work and other inalienable rights. Although unbinding on its own, the document soon formed the basis for a series of international laws, treaties and conventions regarding human rights protections. For example, the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) outlines the rights of children and their associated expectations of standard safeguards. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) protects speech, religion, the right to a fair and speedy trial, and other individual liberties.  The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) aims to promote gender equality and equity in all forms. These conventions are just a few of global commitments that most of the globe have signed and ratified. There are often notable exceptions to these treaties. The United States is the only nation in the United Nations that has not ratified the CRC. Seven nations in the United Nations have signed but not ratified the ICCPR, while fifteen have done neither. Two nations in the United Nations—Palau and the United States—have signed but not ratified the CEDAW, while four (five including the Holy See) have done neither. The United States, although seen as a global leader, often refrains from fully signing and ratifying major treaties often as a matter of national sovereignty. Regardless, they are in theory steps towards a stronger recognition of individual human rights in the modern age. The UDHR and its associated treaties provide us a bedrock understanding of what exactly human rights are and how they can be violated. 

Qualitative analysis shows that international treaties and convents are not universally effective and particularly dependent upon region.

Are Human Rights Treaties Actually Effective?
Do Human Rights Treaties Make a Difference by Oona A. Hathaway explores whether being a signatory of a human rights treaty actually brings a nation into the fold of following basic human rights law. The paper utilizes 166 countries and extrapolates 40 years of history to categorize genocide, torture, the level of fair and public trials, the level of civil liberties, and the level of political representation for women. Qualitative analysis shows that international treaties and convents are not universally effective and particularly dependent upon region. Ratifiers of the American Torture Convention, for instance, have a higher average of torture than non-signatories. Averages across the board do not showcase a significant shift between non-ratifiers and ratifiers as one may expect. Similar results exist in a model only focusing on democratic nations, disproving that democracies may be more likely to follow through with international legal commitments than non-democracies. It is not clear whether treaties cause conformity to their obligations or whether nations signing said treaties would already voluntarily follow these rules; rather, it is unclear whether treaties have effectively caused positive change as they often lack enforcement strategies and international law.

Estimating the Effects of Human Rights Treaties on State Behavior by Daniel W. Hill is another qualitative analysis. Hill notes that previous research has suggested that international treaties have done little to actually curb repressive regimes from committing human rights abuses. Much of this research has left out the surrounding aspects of statehood that are relevant to the conversation. There is a clear connection between states that show signs of being likely to commit human rights abuses and the likelihood of a state signing a human rights treaty to begin with. A state that signs a human rights treaty is a part of a group of nations that are more likely to not be willing to break human rights virtues even without a treaty. Those who refuse to sign a treaty are a part of a group that is more willing, in comparison, to jeopardize these rights. Hill accounts for this by matching similar nations together and performing case studies on three of the five core UN treaties. Ratification of the Convention against Torture and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights was somewhat associated to a lower degree of respect towards physical human rights. Meanwhile, ratification of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women suggested a positive impact and correlation in regards to women’s rights. Hill suggests that this may be due to the specific wording of these treaties, with more treaty-specific study being necessary to fully understand the phenomenon. Hill develops a potential nuance necessary to better understand the question of human right treaty effectiveness, and further goes on to show that the overall effectiveness of a treaty will depend upon the treaty on a case by case basis. Data analysis points towards signs that international human rights treaties have been mixed in their results for lowering levels of human rights abuse on the global stage.

The global community has evolved from basic unilateral declarations of intent and a small number of conventions to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, multiple international agencies dedicated to a variety of human rights causes, and the many conventions and treaties that have been created in the modern world.

Human Rights in a Globalizing World: The Paradox of Empty Promises by Emilie M. Hafner-Burton and Kiyoteru Tsutsui provides us a more nuanced look at the question of international human rights treaties. Although evidence shows that the treaties as written haven’t necessarily been effective across the board, the very existence of human rights treaties as a viable document is a relatively new phenomenon. The authors point out that care for human rights causes were sparse before the Second World War, with its conclusion, and associated horrors, ushering in a new wave of human rights protectionism. The global community has evolved from basic unilateral declarations of intent and a small number of conventions to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, multiple international agencies dedicated to a variety of human rights causes, and the many conventions and treaties that have been created in the modern world. This signals a fundamental shift in international society, which has been caused in no small part due to the mass use of international treaties. However, human rights causes still remain in crisis. As human rights signatories have increased, so too have the percentage of nations that have been reported to repress human rights causes (with the number tapering off in the early 2000’s). 

How Can International Treaties be More Effective?
Hard and Soft Commitments to Human Rights Treaties, 1966-2000 by Wade Cole researches the factors that apply to a country’s willingness to follow certain treaty commitments. Research shows that repressive regimes are often equally as likely to sign onto treaties as liberal regimes. The breaking point for actual follow up on human rights protection can be viewed through four international theories: realism, liberalism, constructivism, and sociological institutionalism. Realism posits that nations will join human rights treaties and follow their stipulations when the benefits outweigh the costs. Liberalism posits that nations will join to reinforce domestic human rights policies. Constructivism posits that nations will join to reaffirm their commitment to past treaty principles, including ideological attachments to certain human rights. Sociological institutionalism posits that nations will join to reaffirm their statehood. Sociological institutionalism seems like the strongest factor for many nations. The same phenomenon occurs with bodies such as the United Nations, with non-cooperative nations joining the organization to receive recognition as a state entity. In the same way, repressive regimes will often sign treaties to be recognized as a player on the world stage, while also connecting their practices to the ideological sentiments of human rights promotion (constructivism).  

All four theories extrapolate upon the dimensions of treaty commitment, a willingness to follow the rules and enforcement measures. Treaties are inherently documents that depend upon the agreement and engagement of sovereign nations. Some treaties hold a level of surveillance over a signatory, which can be established either through self-reporting the promotion of human rights principles, state-to-state complaints, and individual petitions. The ICCPR has an abnormally strong surveillance and enforcement procedure, whereas the Human Rights Committee of the United Nations receives individual petitions from individual citizens that claim state abuse regarding their treaty obligations. This system is generally considered the most effective means of protecting individual human rights, holding states accountable by their own citizenry. The ICCPR is an example of a hard treaty, which has had a much stronger impact than their soft treaty counterparts (treaties that do not have an enforcement mechanism, which does not formally unveil human rights abuses and therefore does not positively impact global humanitarianism). Cole shows how a strong treaty will highlight the sovereignty of a nation, providing it credence and recognition on the world stage. It will further connect human rights practices to inherent ideological values, which also connects to the historical arc of human rights that has started with the passing of the UDHR. Said treaty will also have strong enforcement mechanisms to ensure that signatories are actually incentivized to follow treaty obligations, actually revealing and punishing signatories that refuse to do so. Developing these theories into future treaties and/or amendments to already passed treaties may help promote humanitarian causes in the long run.

Evidence shows that the historical development of international human rights treaties have been an important element in promoting humanitarianism on the global stage. Relevant treaties have brought conversations regarding human rights to the forefront and have provided individuals a better understanding of the legal protections they are to be afforded. Data analysis shows that the specific results of treaties themselves are mixed. Specific causes such as women’s rights or torture are not immediately made stronger from the development of a treaty, and some evidence shows that treaties can actually heighten human rights abuses at times. It should therefore be the mission of the United Nations to develop more comprehensive treaties that meet the standards of more successful treaties. Treaties should be relevant for a nation to be actually recognized and acknowledged by others as a global state. Treaty signers providing each other preferential treatment in diplomacy and trade may incentivize hesitant nations in signing onto human rights protections. Treaties should also have sufficient oversight and supervision to actually promote human rights within each state. More research should be performed on treaties that have been found as effective compared to those that have not, providing writers a better understanding of how best to further establish humanitarianism on the global stage.