Testing Conventional Wisdom

In a recent article, Do Human Rights Treaties Make a Difference?, 111 Yale Law Journal 1935 (2002), 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 have argued 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' skepticism toward my empirical results is misplaced and that their claims 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 analyzing state behavior. 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 behavior and then carefully consider how to make treaties more effective