Why do Authoritarian Regimes Sign the Convention Against Torture? Signaling, Domestic Politics and Non-Compliance
51 Pages Posted: 1 Oct 2010 Last revised: 11 Jun 2011
There are 2 versions of this paper
Why Do Authoritarian Regimes Sign the Convention Against Torture? Signaling, Domestic Politics and Non-Compliance
Date Written: September 29, 2010
Abstract
Traditional international relations theory holds that states will join only those international institutions with which they generally intend to comply. Here we show when this claim might not hold. We construct a model of an authoritarian government’s decision to sign the UN Convention Against Torture (CAT). Authoritarian governments use the signing of this treaty – followed by the willful violation of its provisions – as a costly signal to domestic opposition groups of their willingness to employ repressive tactics to remain in power. In equilibrium, authoritarian governments that torture heavily are more likely to sign the treaty than those that torture less. We further predict that signatory regimes survive longer in office than non-signatories, and enjoy less domestic opposition – and we provide empirical support for these predictions.
Keywords: Human Rights, Treaties, Non-Compliance, Signaling, Authoritarian Regimes
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation
Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?
Recommended Papers
-
The Constraining Power of International Treaties
By Beth A. Simmons and Daniel J. Hopkins
-
Domestic Judicial Institutions and Human Rights Treaty Violation
-
The Puzzle of Abu Ghraib: Are Democratic Institutions a Palliative or Panacea?
By Christian Davenport, Will H. Moore, ...
-
By Rich Nielsen and Beth A. Simmons
-
Emergency and Escape: Explaining Derogation from Human Rights Treaties
-
Legal Institutions and the Democratic Order
By Jeffrey K. Staton, Christopher M. Reenock, ...
-
Who Cares About International Human Rights? The Supply and Demand of International Human Rights Law