Articles

• Hathaway, Oona A.

Abstract

In my recent article, ‘Do Human Rights Treaties Make a Difference?’, I presented evidence and arguments that called into doubt two widely shared assumptions: (1) that countries generally comply with their human rights treaty commitments and (2) that countries' practices will be better if they have ratified treaties than they otherwise would be. In response, Professors Ryan Goodman and Derek Jinks argue that we must stick with ‘conventional assumptions’ until we ‘know’ the ‘real effects of human rights treaties’. In this reply, I clarify my argument, which Goodman and Jinks misportray, and respond to the central themes of Goodman and Jinks' critique. First, I argue that Goodman and Jinks' scepticism toward my empirical results is misplaced and that their claims that the multiple data sources on which I draw one ‘bod’ are unsubstantiated. Their argument, taken to its logical conclusion, would counsel against any empirical analysis of the effectiveness of human rights treaties. Second, I defend my theoretical account, which argues for looking beyond existing models in analysing state behaviour. Third, I contest Goodman and Jinks' claim that it promotes human rights to continue to rely uncritically upon conventional assumptions. I argue that the international legal community should instead seek to understand better the relationship between treaties and state behaviour and then carefully consider how to make treaties achieve their goals more effectively.