Record Details

Replication data for: "Do Human Rights Treaty Obligations Matter For Ratification?"

Harvard Dataverse (Africa Rice Center, Bioversity International, CCAFS, CIAT, IFPRI, IRRI and WorldFish)

View Archive Info
 
 
Field Value
 
Title Replication data for: "Do Human Rights Treaty Obligations Matter For Ratification?"
 
Identifier https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/XM4OID
 
Creator Mulesky, Suzie
Sandholtz, Wayne
Zvobgo, Kelebogile
 
Publisher Harvard Dataverse
 
Description International relations scholarship assumes that states weigh the costs and benefits of treaty ratification. In human rights, the worse a particular state’s record, the higher the presumptive costs of ratification and the lower the likelihood of ratification. But prior work neglects variation in the extent of obligation that different treaties create. In this article, we argue and demonstrate that (1) human rights treaties differ substantially in the scope and scale of the obligations they contain, (2) this variation can be measured, and (3) it matters for ratification. Treaties that create a larger number of demanding obligations imply greater potential costs of compliance for states. The larger the number of demanding obligations, the more grounds various actors will have to challenge a state’s practices. We analyze innovative data on treaty obligations and commitments for the 10 core global human rights treaties to test our propositions, and we find strong support.
 
Subject Social Sciences
Human Rights
International Law
Human Rights Treaties
International Relations
 
Date 2023-11-16
 
Contributor Carbonetti, Benjamin
 
Type Stata files