Universal Rights, Uneven Impacts: The Domestic Politics of Treaty Incorporation
Book Manuscript
When a state joins a human rights treaty, it must incorporate its international treaty obligations into domestic law by creating domestic regulations and legislation that match the international standards. Why do some treaty members change their domestic laws to align them with treaty standards, while other members do not? I theorize that incorporation—the adoption of specific treaty provisions containing human rights standards into domestic laws—results from political battles between competing domestic interest groups. Most political science research emphasizes how civil society advocates use human rights treaties to hold governments accountable for rights violations. In contrast, I argue that many human rights treaties activate social conflict over distribution or competing moral values. These conflicts spur interest groups to pressure governments both in favor of and against treaty incorporation. Consequently, governments that face competing pressures from international and domestic interest groups often fail to incorporate international treaties. I test this argument by examining legislation adopted in Latin America to incorporate treaties against child labor and marriage. I analyze two original datasets of the national legislation adopted in the region to prohibit these practices, including the loopholes that provide exceptions to the human rights standards. I complement these analyses with qualitative evidence from over 60 in-depth interviews with policymakers, civil society leaders, and representatives of international organizations in six Latin American countries. The book has significant implications for the fields of international law, human rights, and transnational activism and valuable lessons for those in the field working to improve respect for human rights around the world.
Book Manuscript
When a state joins a human rights treaty, it must incorporate its international treaty obligations into domestic law by creating domestic regulations and legislation that match the international standards. Why do some treaty members change their domestic laws to align them with treaty standards, while other members do not? I theorize that incorporation—the adoption of specific treaty provisions containing human rights standards into domestic laws—results from political battles between competing domestic interest groups. Most political science research emphasizes how civil society advocates use human rights treaties to hold governments accountable for rights violations. In contrast, I argue that many human rights treaties activate social conflict over distribution or competing moral values. These conflicts spur interest groups to pressure governments both in favor of and against treaty incorporation. Consequently, governments that face competing pressures from international and domestic interest groups often fail to incorporate international treaties. I test this argument by examining legislation adopted in Latin America to incorporate treaties against child labor and marriage. I analyze two original datasets of the national legislation adopted in the region to prohibit these practices, including the loopholes that provide exceptions to the human rights standards. I complement these analyses with qualitative evidence from over 60 in-depth interviews with policymakers, civil society leaders, and representatives of international organizations in six Latin American countries. The book has significant implications for the fields of international law, human rights, and transnational activism and valuable lessons for those in the field working to improve respect for human rights around the world.
Publications
“Internal Dynamics of Transnational Advocacy Networks” (with Kelebogile Zvobgo). In Forum: Challenges and Opportunities for Transnational Advocacy, edited by Nina Hall and Nina Reiners. Forthcoming in International Studies Review.
In this essay, we explore internal challenges (and opportunities) that transnational advocacy networks must navigate to advance their causes. First, we consider unequal or asymmetric power and influence within networks, which can, but do not always, raise representational dilemmas and engender conflicts over whose ideas should be pursued and whose ideas should be set aside. Second, we address differences in values, strategies, and tactics among network members, which can create conflicts, on the one hand, and can spur growth, on the other hand. Third, we draw attention to individuals, who possess moral authority, technical expertise, and power and influence in their own right, but whose impact is not always highlighted in the networks in which they work. Fourth, we note that not all potential partners come together and collaborate within networks: some potential partners may be unaware of a network and therefore do not join it, while others may intentionally not join it. Others, still, may be excluded, while yet others may strategically hide their connection to a network. Individually and jointly, these internal dynamics of transnational advocacy networks raise conceptual, theoretical, methodological, and inferential challenges for researchers. We offer some possible solutions and invite continued scholarly engagement and progress.
"Global Norms and Local Conflict" (with Lucrecia García Iommi). In Orchard, Phil, Wiener, Antje and Sassan Gholiagha (Editors). Forthcoming in The Oxford Handbook on Norms Research in International Relations. Oxford University Press.
Following a brief review of norm conflict in the literature, we argue that understanding domestic conflict around norms requires considering the perspective of traditionally marginalized actors. To illustrate the potential of this approach, we rely on Wiener’s theory of contestation to analyze how working children contest normative interpretations of children’s labor exploitation.
"Looking beyond Ratification: Autocrats' International Engagement with Women's Rights" (with Audrey L. Comstock). 2024. Politics & Gender, 20(1): 223-228. doi.org/10.1017/S1743923X22000472
Although authoritarian regimes often repress the rights of women, many autocrats have committed to international treaties protecting women’s human rights. Scholars have typically overlooked this engagement, focusing instead on autocrats’ commitment (and violation) of treaties protecting civil, political, and physical integrity rights. Yet existing explanations for autocrats’ ratification of these treaties—such as appeasing domestic opposition groups—do not necessarily apply to women’s rights (von Stein 2013). As authoritarian international law is increasingly viewed as an important area of study (Ginsburg 2020), scholars should explore how authoritarian regimes navigate participation regarding women’s rights issues, including their engagement with the main women’s rights treaty, the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). After taking a closer look at how autocracies shape, commit, and challenge women’s rights internationally, we suggest several research directions to build this area of study.
"The Evolution of the Global Movement to End Child Marriage." 2022. Journal of Human Rights, 21(2): 227-244. doi.org/10.1080/14754835.2022.2030208
Although international and domestic laws prohibit child marriage, millions of girls are married every year worldwide, a trend only aggravated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Since the turn of the century, the global advocacy movement to end child marriage has gained momentum by standardizing its framing, using testimonies and symbols to generate empathy and mobilize solidarity, and engaging with policymakers to end the practice. In this article, I draw on newspaper articles, advocacy reports, and interviews with activists in the United States and Latin America to identify the reasons behind its success. I also discuss several challenges activists are grappling with as the movement evolves, including intra-network dynamics regarding the centrality of sexuality and the forms child marriage adopts around the world.
Also published in "Human Rights on Edge: The Future of International Human Rights Law and Practice," edited by Heather Smith-Cannoy and Tricia Redeker-Hepner. Routledge.
Also published in "Human Rights on Edge: The Future of International Human Rights Law and Practice," edited by Heather Smith-Cannoy and Tricia Redeker-Hepner. Routledge.
Selected Work in Progress
"Institutional Flexibility and Adaptation: Evidence from the Committee on the Rights of the Child" (with Rachel J. Schoner)
In 2011, twenty-one years after the Convention of the Child (CRC) was adopted, the United Nations added a mechanism that gives children the ability to submit legal complaints. The CRC is a broad, comprehensive treaty that covers a wide range of rights including the right to choose a religion, peaceful assembly, and education; however, most complaints filed---nearly three-quarters---concern migration. We contend that the CRC Committee and UN member states did not foresee how the individual petition mechanism would be used to advance migrants’ rights when it was negotiated and entered into force. Instead, opening access to victims of abuse altered the topics considered by the organization in unforeseen ways. We hypothesize that child migrants respond to a lack of justice in other fora, including regional human rights courts. To test our argument, we use a variety of qualitative and quantitative evidence, including analysis of the negotiation archives, ratification patterns, and text analysis of Committee documents over time. This research speaks to literatures in international relations regarding institutional design and evolution, regime complexity, and non-state actor access.
Presented at: APSA 2024, Biennial Conference on International Law and the Social Sciences (American Society of International Law), PEIO 2025, ISA 2025.
"When Treaty Beneficiaries Resist: Working Children and Opposition to Human Rights Norms"
While recent work in international relations has explored social sources of opposition to international human rights norms, little attention has been paid to the resistance from individuals and groups the treaties seek to protect. Why are human rights treaties opposed by their intended beneficiaries, and what are the consequences? I argue that treaty beneficiaries resist the implementation of human rights treaties because of their distributive effects. As opposition from treaty beneficiaries is inherently legitimate, it is harder for policymakers to ignore and can fracture transnational advocacy networks. I illustrate the theory by using legislative records, newspaper articles, and in-depth interviews to trace how an organization of working children, mobilizing with support from transnational advocacy networks, pressured the Bolivian government to adopt a law contravening international treaties against child labor. The case of Bolivia’s child workers highlights normative contestation that can result from the mobilization of treaty beneficiaries, thereby challenging the generalizability of seminal models of transnational activism.
Presented at: APSA 2024, ISA Northeast 2022, IR Theory Colloquium, University of Chicago.
"Monitoring Treaty Incorporation at the UN: The Determinants of Recommendation Precision" (funded by APSA Centennial Grant and Public Affairs & Policy Lab).
"Negotiating the Prohibitions to Child Marriage in International Law" (presented at ISA 2023).
"Mobilizing to Shape International Law: Environmental Defenders v. Economic Interests in Latin America" (with Belén Fernández Milmanda, data collection in progress).
"Mapping Women's International Nongovernmental Organizations: Updating the WINGO Dataset" (with Sumin Lee, data collection in progress).
"Institutional Flexibility and Adaptation: Evidence from the Committee on the Rights of the Child" (with Rachel J. Schoner)
In 2011, twenty-one years after the Convention of the Child (CRC) was adopted, the United Nations added a mechanism that gives children the ability to submit legal complaints. The CRC is a broad, comprehensive treaty that covers a wide range of rights including the right to choose a religion, peaceful assembly, and education; however, most complaints filed---nearly three-quarters---concern migration. We contend that the CRC Committee and UN member states did not foresee how the individual petition mechanism would be used to advance migrants’ rights when it was negotiated and entered into force. Instead, opening access to victims of abuse altered the topics considered by the organization in unforeseen ways. We hypothesize that child migrants respond to a lack of justice in other fora, including regional human rights courts. To test our argument, we use a variety of qualitative and quantitative evidence, including analysis of the negotiation archives, ratification patterns, and text analysis of Committee documents over time. This research speaks to literatures in international relations regarding institutional design and evolution, regime complexity, and non-state actor access.
Presented at: APSA 2024, Biennial Conference on International Law and the Social Sciences (American Society of International Law), PEIO 2025, ISA 2025.
"When Treaty Beneficiaries Resist: Working Children and Opposition to Human Rights Norms"
While recent work in international relations has explored social sources of opposition to international human rights norms, little attention has been paid to the resistance from individuals and groups the treaties seek to protect. Why are human rights treaties opposed by their intended beneficiaries, and what are the consequences? I argue that treaty beneficiaries resist the implementation of human rights treaties because of their distributive effects. As opposition from treaty beneficiaries is inherently legitimate, it is harder for policymakers to ignore and can fracture transnational advocacy networks. I illustrate the theory by using legislative records, newspaper articles, and in-depth interviews to trace how an organization of working children, mobilizing with support from transnational advocacy networks, pressured the Bolivian government to adopt a law contravening international treaties against child labor. The case of Bolivia’s child workers highlights normative contestation that can result from the mobilization of treaty beneficiaries, thereby challenging the generalizability of seminal models of transnational activism.
Presented at: APSA 2024, ISA Northeast 2022, IR Theory Colloquium, University of Chicago.
"Monitoring Treaty Incorporation at the UN: The Determinants of Recommendation Precision" (funded by APSA Centennial Grant and Public Affairs & Policy Lab).
"Negotiating the Prohibitions to Child Marriage in International Law" (presented at ISA 2023).
"Mobilizing to Shape International Law: Environmental Defenders v. Economic Interests in Latin America" (with Belén Fernández Milmanda, data collection in progress).
"Mapping Women's International Nongovernmental Organizations: Updating the WINGO Dataset" (with Sumin Lee, data collection in progress).