by Adam S. Chilton & Eric A. Posner
VOLUME 56 :: No. 2
VOLUME 56 :: No. 2
Victim Testimony in International and Hybrid Criminal Courts: Narrative Opportunities, Challenges, and Fair Trial Demands
In their essay, The Influence of History on States’ Compliance with Human Rights Obligations, Adam Chilton and Eric Posner draw on development economics to note that modern human rights practices are partially a function of phenomena from distant history: colonization patterns, geography, and old institutions. They contrast the predictive power of these factors with that of participation in the modern international human rights legal regime. They conclude that ratified human rights instruments in the aggregate have had little effect on governments’ rights practices and that researchers should therefore turn to factors other than treaties for robust explanations (if not solutions) for the wide variation in human rights practices across states. In this response essay, we disaggregate several aspects of the human rights regime that much of the existing scholarship—including The Influence of History—has largely aggregated. In doing so, we show that Chilton and Posner’s aggregation obscures nuances of treaty engagement and effects that might meaningfully implicate the normative role ofthe human rights regime. We argue that the “treatment” of a human rights institution is not synonymous with the point of ratification. As others have noted, ratification commonly works through international and domestic processes and institutions and operates over a long time-horizon, extending well before and after the moment of legal obligation. We conclude that, to understand the process by which treaty engagement might influence rights conditions, scholars should build on those studies that recognize and take advantage of this insight.
| VIEW PDF
NEWS & EVENTS
NEWSLETTERSign up to join our newsletter
Although this organization has members who are University of Virginia students and may have University employees associated or engaged inits activities and affairs, the organization is not a part of or an agency of the University. It is a separate and independent organization which is responsible for and manages its own activities and affairs. The University does not direct, supervise or control the organization and is not responsible for the organization’s contracts, acts or omissions.