Citation

Avdeyeva O. Int. Stud. Q. 2007; 51(4): 877-900.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2007, John Wiley and Sons)

DOI

10.1111/j.1468-2478.2007.00481.x

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

There is growing evidence that states’ formal ratification of international human rights treaties does not generate changes in states’ domestic human rights practice. This article proposes to investigate a gap between states’ formal commitments to international laws and their domestic practice by careful differentiation of mechanisms of social influence: coercion, persuasion, and acculturation. It is argued that each mechanism has profound implications for rates of ratification of international treaties and the scope of implementation. Two arguments drive the discussion. First, states often ratify international treaties in response to perceived or real social pressures to formally assimilate with other states in the global arena. Thus, they do not have intentions or capacities to implement them. Second, ratification of human rights agreements makes states vulnerable to social pressures of monitoring bodies, which generates different levels of policy compliance. I explore the empirical merits of this approach on the analysis of government compliance with the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women provisions on violence against women in 26 post-Communist countries of Central and Eastern Europe and Central Asia.