International human rights treaties really do work, and they work most effectively against the most repressive governments, argues , associate professor of political science, in a new book called .
Scholars are conflicted about the effectiveness of international human rights treaties because often the governments bound by them will nevertheless commit the kinds of acts the treaties are designed to curb. But that view is too narrow, Ritter said.
鈥淭he central argument of the book is that we can鈥檛 think about how these laws affect just human rights,鈥� Ritter said. 鈥淲hen you think about why governments torture, it鈥檚 to control some sort of challenge to their power鈥攖o keep dissidents down. So what we really need to do is look at how treaties affect dissent.鈥�
She and her coauthor, of the University of California, Merced, have developed a new theory of treaty effects that looks at the broader ecosystem of power, accountability and conflict in a country. Using 25 years鈥� worth of data from more than 140 countries, they were able to analyze how each country would behave with or without the influence of the treaty.
鈥淲e use conflict to predict which states will repress, and then use predictive modeling to determine what changes about repression and dissent if we add the treaty into the picture,鈥� Ritter said. 鈥淎nd what we鈥檝e found is that the countries that would have repressed the most will repress less than we would expect them to once a treaty is in place.鈥� In other words, even if a treaty doesn鈥檛 prevent all human rights violations, it does reduce them.
They calculated a country鈥檚 likelihood of repression by examining certain characteristics of leaders鈥攈ow securely they hold power, how much they personally stand to gain from their power, how long they expect to govern鈥攁s well as the sturdiness of a nation鈥檚 primary mechanism of accountability鈥攖he judiciary.
They found that strong leaders with a lot to lose if they leave office and a weak court system to keep them in check were the most likely to repress their people. 鈥淚n the United States, the president can only hold office for eight years, and we have a strong court system that can check his or her power. So there鈥檚 less incentive to repress from that office,鈥� she said. 鈥淏ut in a country with a leader who personally profits from their country鈥檚 gold mines or oil industry, a weak court system and no term limits, the incentive to repress is high.鈥�
And those are precisely the types of leaders who end up being most constrained by a treaty鈥攂ecause the treaty alters common expectations of what they can get away with, Ritter said. And their citizens know that.
鈥淭reaties do more than just reduce repression, they also increase protest,鈥� Ritter said. 鈥淭hey create this expectation that the leader won’t repress them if they come out to the streets and so people are demanding more. Treaties make it possible for people to ask for what they need and want鈥攖hey actually change what people expect from their government.鈥�
Ritter says the takeaway of her research is that international human rights treaties, even if they don鈥檛 work perfectly, can still greatly benefit some of the world鈥檚 most vulnerable people.