The Influence of International Human Rights Agreements on Public Opinion: An Experimental Study

Scholars have long speculated that commitments to human rights agreements are unlikely to have an effect on domestic policy because they do not contain a threat of external enforcement. Recent research has challenged that belief by suggesting that ratification of human rights agreements leads democracies to change their policies because international commitments change public support for reform. Although considerable progress has been made, the empirical research in support of that theory has not directly tested the primary causal mechanisms speculated to produce policy changes. Experimental methods present a promising way to do exactly that. To leverage that fact, I have embedded an experiment within a survey in the first effort to explore whether information on the status of international law changes public opinion on a purely domestic human rights issue: the practice of subjecting prisoners to solitary confinement. The results show that, although generic appeals to human rights do not influence public opinion, references to prior treaty commitments do. In other words, the results demonstrate the plausibility of theories of compliance with human rights agreements t hat are based on the idea that international obligations alter the political climate within democracies.

长期以来，学者们一直揣测，对人权协定的承诺不太可能对国内政策产生影响，因为这类协定并未包含外部强制威慑。近期研究对此观点提出了挑战，指出批准人权协定可促使民主国家调整政策，原因在于国际承诺会改变公众对改革的支持度。尽管相关实证研究已取得长足进展，但现有验证该理论的研究尚未直接检验被认为可推动政策变革的核心因果机制。实验方法正是开展此类检验的颇具前景的路径。为此，本文首次尝试将实验嵌入调查问卷，以探究国际法现状相关信息是否会改变公众对纯粹国内人权议题——即对囚犯实施单独监禁的做法——的舆论态度。研究结果表明，尽管泛泛的人权呼吁不会影响公众舆论，但提及既往条约承诺则会产生显著影响。换言之，本研究结果佐证了基于“国际义务会改变民主国家内部政治氛围”这一理念的人权协定遵守理论的合理性。