Why States Who Use Torture Sign Human Rights Treaties
Signing human rights treaties isn’t as innocent as it may appear.
International human rights treaties are a puzzle. They fundamentally change how we understand international law.
Treaties in international law usually monitor the relationship between at least 2 states. But human rights treaties are quite unique in only monitoring the responsibility of the state towards its own citizens. This internal relationship is usually one that international law doesn’t interfere in. Domestic matters that don’t affect the international order usually aren’t considered within international law. States voluntarily choosing to give up their domestic sovereignty to international law is surprising.
But that’s not why they’re such a puzzle.
Human rights treaties are puzzling because of the trend that has been found with signing them. Namely, autocratic states that practice more torture, are more likely to sign human rights treaties than autocratic states that practice less torture.
This is an important issue. If signing human rights treaties is related to worse human rights records, then policymakers need to sit down and consider how to make them more effective. At least, they urgently need to consider whether human rights treaties may be doing more harm than good.
