Signaling commitments, making concessions: Democratization and state ratification of international human rights treaties, 1966–2006
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
How is the establishment of the international human rights regime possible in the first place? Bringing together theories from international law, political science, and sociology, I revisit the argument that global efforts to institutionalize human rights into international law are mainly driven by states undergoing democratization. Political democratization is crucial to the creation of the international human rights regime, because it generates “commitment” and “concession” mechanisms that motivate states to support human rights treaties. Analyzed by Cox event history models, the data on state ratification of the core United Nations human rights treaties from 1966 through 2006 are consistent with this argument. Improvement in human rights and increased political competition do significantly increase the rate of state ratification of human rights treaties. The ratification-promoting effect of democratization also operates in an immediate fashion. Overall, this study provides empirical support for the dynamic state-oriented explanation for global legalization of human rights and suggests a close connection between global democratization waves and the establishment of the human rights regime.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it