Qualified Ratification: Explaining Reservations to International Human Rights Treaties

Eric Neumayer ()

Journal of Legal Studies, 2007, vol. 36, pages 397-429

Abstract: The legitimacy and role of reservations to international human rights treaties is a heavily contested issue. From one perspective, reservations, understandings, and declarations (RUDs) are a legitimate means to account for diversity and are used predominantly by those countries that take human rights seriously. From an alternative perspective, RUDs are regrettable at best and detrimental to the international human rights regime at worst. The first account predicts that liberal democracies set up more RUDs than do other countries, whereas the competing account holds the opposite, possibly after distinguishing among the group of liberal democracies. This article puts these hypotheses to an empirical test with respect to six core international human rights treaties. The results suggest that the revealed RUD behavior of state parties to the treaties examined is strongly in line with the first perspective, since liberal democracies have more, not fewer, RUDs than do other countries.

Date: 2007

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/resolve?id=doi:10.1086/511894 (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: http://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:ucp:jlstud:v:36:y:2007:p:397-429

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/JLS/order1.html

Access Statistics for this article

Journal of Legal Studies is edited by Eric A. Posner and Thomas J. Miles

More articles in Journal of Legal Studies from University of Chicago Press
Address: The University of Chicago Press, Journals Division, P.O. Box 37005 Chicago, IL 60637
Series data maintained by Christopher F. Baum ().