2005/11/04 by Eric Neumayer · 584 citations
Social Sciences · #Democracy #Fundamental rights #Global Peace and Security Dynamics #Human Rights and Development #Human rights #International Law and Human Rights #International human rights law #Law #Law and economics #Linguistic rights #Political science #Politics #Ratification #Right to property #Sociology #Treaty
paper · open access · doi:10.1177/0022002705281667
published in Journal of Conflict Resolution 49(6), 925-953 (SAGE Publishing)
openalex publication_date 2005/11/04 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/28
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.