What Factors Explain Why Countries Sign Human Rights Agreements and Violates Them - Research Paper Example

What Factors Explain why Countries Sign Human Rights Agreements and Violates them? The research willadopt a qualitative approach in a bid to determine why states ratify human rights agreements and fail to exhibit the required commitment of respecting such agreements. Human rights agreements are a common aspect in the twentieth and twenty-first century to establish binding treaties that will facilitate the implementation of the international law on human rights. Many countries have willingly ratified human rights agreements, but some of them have not exhibited any form of compliance. There are many reasons why states ratify human rights agreements. In many cases, states are likely to ratify human rights agreements as only an outward show, but without any domestic frameworks that support the states commitment. Data will be collected from the twenty participants identified through purposive sampling using semi-structured interviews. Although the study is highly subjective, it will provide a wealth of knowledge on why nations ratify treaties that they cannot honor. Introduction Background to the Study Many states are members in agreement to numerous treaties that they have signed in the past. Many of the international treaties conform to existing international law and forbid states from acting in a certain manner. Signing the treaty demonstrates the willingness to comply with the treaty. However, a close analysis of many international treaties reveals that countries easily sign them, but fail to demonstrate the required commitment to respecting such treating. It has been ironical for states to sign treaties that they are well aware that they will not keep. Scholars have been interested in understanding why states would be so willing to sign treaties without intending to comply with them. Several international treaties focus on the protection of human rights. In conformity with international law, that promotes the protection of human rights, many states have willingly signed the treaties. However, it appears that complying with human rights agreements may not be so easy for states that may be forced to act in contravention of the signed treaties. Problem Statement As mentioned above, there has been a common trend of signing human rights agreements that countries do not respect. In the past, researchers have given attention to the processes involved in the signing of the different agreements. However, only a few researchers have stopped to consider why countries sign agreements without exhibiting the relevant commitment of keeping and respecting the agreements. There is minimal evidence giving the reasons why countries do not strive to keep the agreements and treaties they sign (Ryals 13). This study will focus on this issue by adopting a specific approach that seeks to identify the reasons why countries have been signing human rights agreements and failed to comply with them. The study will identify the factors that have compelled states to sign such agreements. Significance of the Research The significance of this research is to determine why states have been more willing to sign agreements related to human rights than they are willing to comply with them. The study will focus on understanding the factors that may potentially compel states to sign agreements. In addition, the study will highlight the factors that hinder states from having the expected commitment when it comes to keeping the agreements. The findings from the study will be influential in understanding why the trend of signing human rights treaties and not keeping them has become evident. Research Objectives 1. To determine human rights agreements that have been signed in the past 2. To determine the factors that compelled states or convinced them to sign the treaties 3. To evaluate the factors that make it difficult for states to comply with human rights agreements that they have signed Research Question The main research question in this study will be: Why do states sign human rights agreements and easily violate them? Literature Review Many legal scholars have explored issues related to international treaties. Some scholars have focused on understanding why there have been more than 50,000 international treaties in the globe. More specifically, human rights agreements have become a critical aspect in the global arena. Although countries have signed the human rights agreements, it is evident that only a few of them strive to protect and comply with the agreements they signed. Many states are likely to violate such agreements without considering why they signed them (Cole 574). Worth noting is the fact that human rights agreements only become binding when a state chooses to ratify them. The international community does not compel states to ratify the treaties. There are states that prove to be reluctant to signing any treaties to avoid the binding aspect of international human rights agreements. On the contrary, some states willingly ratify human rights agreements without having second thoughts. There are numerous studies that focus on understanding how states comply with the treaties they ratify. The increased scholarships on compliance with human rights agreements have increased immensely in the twenty-first century. As different forms of governance change in the twenty-first century, many states are willing to comply with international law and establish domestic institutions that promote compliance with human rights agreements. Evidently, there are costs and benefits associated with either compliance or violating the existing human rights agreements. States have different expectations and perspectives regarding the human rights agreements as they ratify them. States are keen to highlight some of the costs associated with compliance. In many cases, states will easily sign agreements that do not place numerous demands on the state during compliance. Since human rights agreements can limit a state’s freedom, countries have the responsibility of calculating the risk before they can ratify such agreements. On the other hand, commitment to the agreements as well as compliance with the agreement is determined by the potential benefits associated with compliance. Worth mentioning is the fact that each agreement or treaty has some indirect effects that states recognize with time (Dutton 1). Scholars have opined that such factors can discourage states from complying with the human rights agreements. In the case of human rights agreements, they determine how different states are to treat their citizens. Human rights agreements provide specific guidelines on different aspects of the rights of persons. A state that ratifies such an agreement gains a new obligation to not only the international society, state parties, but also to the citizens. Some of the human rights agreements that have been commonly discussed include the 1987 Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment (CAT), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). The convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment was signed and ratified by different states in 1987 (Cole 568). Ratifying the Convention translated to state’s willingness to protect the rights of people and stay away from inflicting pain to the public. In accordance with the Convention, states have an obligation of filing a report annually to the United Nations. On the other hand, the international covenant on civil and political rights serves to ensure that states promote the liberty and security of citizens, equality of all the citizens in different institutions of the justice system, the freedom to exercise the right to thought, conscience and religion. Similarly, the agreement requires states to submit annual reports that highlight the strategies implemented by the states to comply with the conventions. The convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women (CEDAW) does not condone any form of exclusion or discrimination occurring based on gender. The convention promotes the rights of women to have equal opportunities be recognized, and exercise their rights in different sectors. The ratification of human rights agreements places states in a position that compels them to create a balance between the international enforcement of the laws as well as the role of domestic institutions in the enforcement of the convention. If ratified agreements are to be complied with, there must be powerful actors who can ensure that all the states are accountable. Without the presence of such actors, then compliance may be taken for granted. When compliance is taken for granted, states can easily violate the agreement they ratified. Effective compliance with human rights agreements requires the presence of domestic legal enforcement. Some states do not take the time to establish such legal frameworks. Therefore, the treaties lack any form of enforcement at the domestic level, leading to the violation. The purpose of human rights agreements is to ensure that international law can exert a measure of order by influencing the behaviors of states. Even in states that understand the role of human rights agreements, there are certain complexities associated with the compliance process (Hafner-Burton 265). Some of the internal factors at the domestic level may not give attention to the enforcement of the human rights agreements. States have the responsibility of addressing the complexities involved and offering a firm decision on the states commitment to comply with human rights agreements. In many cases, states ratify human rights agreements as an outward show of their commitment to protecting human rights. However, states view such moves as a strategy of demonstrating a commitment to the agreement. However, such states only do it to make a statement to the rest of the world while knowing perfectly well that they will not implement the treaty at the domestic level. Some states believe that ratifying human rights agreements can speak positively of them. In other cases, states may easily ratify human rights agreements if they have minimal costs associated with them. In many cases, states consider the costs lower if the agreements do not introduce unavoidable obligations. Some collateral effects associated with human rights treaties may motivate certain states to ratify the treaties. In cases whereby the collateral effects favor the states, it is easy for the states to assume the costs associated with the treaty and immediately ratify it. Eventually, states that sign treaties to benefit from the collateral effects are less likely to comply with them. In any case, their ratification is not genuine, but rather motivated by self-interest (Hathaway 588). Previous studies have highlighted that countries such as Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Uzbekistan have signed human rights agreements that they have eventually violated. For example, Syria ratified the United Nations Convention on the rights of the child. However, Syria has been reported to be constantly torturing children an evident contravention of the agreement. On the other hand, Saudi Arabia ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, but still practices discrimination against women. Uzbekistan is a signatory to the Convention Against Torture, but faces charges of exposing prisoner to extreme torture. The cases of these three countries are not isolated (Ryals 7). Many other countries have violated human rights agreements that they signed in the past becoming accountable to the international community. It becomes evident that there are factors that motivate states to ratify such agreements while in a real sense not intending to comply with them. Methodology The research will adopt a qualitative approach because it seeks to identify some of the reasons why states are willing to ratify human rights agreements without the intention of honoring them. Specifically, the research intends to understand the opinion of government officials as well as other members of the human rights organization on why states violate human rights agreements that they ratified. The reason for adopting a qualitative approach is that it presents the opportunity for the researcher to interpret the opinion of participants and interact with them closely to develop meaning from their opinions and feelings. There is a salient need for the research to include opinions from the human rights experts, as well as government officials (Ryals 17). These participants play a critical role in the processes of the decision-making on whether to ratify a treaty or not. The participants in the research will comprise of two groups. The first group of participants will comprise of government officials identified through purposive sampling. The selected government officials must have an upper hand in the processes of ratifying human rights agreements. The researchers will seek to establish whether the selected government officials have experience in issues related to ratifying human rights agreements. The second group of participants will comprise of members of human rights non-governmental organizations who understand the domestic and international enforcement of human rights agreements. Purposive sampling will also be used in identifying the human rights experts. After identifying the two groups of participants, the researchers will seek to establish contact with them through phone calls. The first call to the participants will enable the researchers to carry out a warm up session. The warm up session introduces the purpose of the study, as well as its significance and confirms the willingness of the participants to participate in the research process. The warm-up session also serves to brief the participants on their role in the research process. After a successful warm-up session, the researchers will arrange an interview date convenient for the participant. All the participants will be informed of the need to sign a consent form that signifies their voluntary participation in the study. The researchers will rely on semi-structured interviews as the most effective data collection strategies. As mentioned previously, all the participants will sign a consent form prior to the interview session. The participants will be ten government officials and ten human rights experts. The main questions in the interviews will require the participants to define the reasons why states may easily ratify the human rights agreement and choose to violate them later. The participants will also discuss the factors stat motivate states to ratify human rights agreements (Zhou 475). The participants will also give their views concerning the potential implications of failing to comply with human rights agreements. Data Analysis The researchers will rely on qualitative approaches to data analysis, specifically the thematic data analysis. The researchers will begin by coding that data and identifying thematic frameworks that can be used in analyzing the data obtained from the interview sessions. The main objective of the data analysis process is to interpret the data from the participants and define the reasons why states are willing to ratify human rights agreements that they eventually violate. Conclusion As highlighted above, the purpose of the study will be to identify the states that motivate the states to ratify human rights agreements that they eventually violate. The qualitative approach appears to be the best design for the search. Since the research will bring together opinions of both government officials and human rights experts. It is difficult to gather empirical data that can address a quantitative approach. Therefore, the research will rely on interview sessions that may prove to be highly subjective, introducing a measure of bias. However, the participants selected for the study have expertise in issues related to human rights agreements and will contribute to addressing the research question effectively. Works Cited Cole, Wade M. "Hard And Soft Commitments To Human Rights Treaties, 1966–2000." Sociological Forum 24.3 (2009): 563-588. SocINDEX with Full Text. Web. 23 May 2015. Dutton, Yvonne M. "Commitment To International Human Rights Treaties: The Role Of Enforcement Mechanisms." University Of Pennsylvania Journal Of International Law 34.(2012): 1. LexisNexis Academic: Law Reviews. Web. 23 May 2015. Hafner-Burton, Emilie M. "International Regimes For Human Rights." Annual Review Of Political Science 15.(2012): 265. Publisher Provided Full Text Searching File. Web. 23 May 2015. Hathaway, Oona A. "Why Do Countries Commit to Human Rights Treaties?." The Journal of Conflict Resolution 2007: 588. JSTOR Journals. Web. 23 May 2015. Ryals, Courtenay. "When Domestic Preferences Differ: Intra-Regime Dynamics And Commitment To International Human Rights Law." Conference Papers -- International Studies Association (2009): 1-23. Political Science Complete. Web. 23 May 2015. Zhou, Min. "Signaling Commitments, Making Concessions: Democratization And State Ratification Of International Human Rights Treaties, 1966–2006." Rationality & Society 26.4 (2014): 475. Publisher Provided Full Text Searching File. Web. 23 May 2015. Read More