Despite widespread commitment to the international human rights regime, human rights abuses persist and go unpunished. One prominent explanation for this phenomenon is that states are insincerely committing to treaties they perceive as having weak enforcement mechanisms. Only recently, however, states created an international human rights treaty with a new and much stronger enforcement mechanism. States committing to the newly created International Criminal Court (ICC) grant an independent prosecutor and court permission to try their own citizens should they commit genocide, crimes against humanity, or war crimes in the event the state does not commence a prosecution on its own. Should we expect that states will behave differently in the face of this new and stronger enforcement mechanism and actually conform their policies and practices to those required pursuant to treaty terms? This paper examines the ICC’s deterrence effect as regards states’ torture practices using both quantitative and qualitative analyses.
The ICC is superior to other human rights treaties because it has enforcement powers-it has the ability to arrest and try suspected violators of human rights in conjunction with states.
Written byConor Seyle, Jens Vestergaard Madsenon September 16, 2016
Addressing the developing crisis around irregular migration by sea will require international institutions to work quickly to address the humanitarian, practical, and legal challenges posed by irregular migration. Applying lessons learned from the
Written byCurtis Bell, Patrick W. Keyson August 15, 2016
Few cross-national studies provide evidence of a relationship between environmental scarcity and conflict, although much of the literature claims that destabilizing effects of environmental crises can be mitigated by the right sociopolitical