Replication data for: \"Do Human Rights Treaty Obligations Matter For Ratification?\"

International relations scholarship assumes that states weigh the costs and benefits of treaty ratification. In human rights, the worse a particular state’s record, the higher the presumptive costs of ratification and the lower the likelihood of ratification. But prior work neglects variation in the extent of obligation that different treaties create. In this article, we argue and demonstrate that (1) human rights treaties differ substantially in the scope and scale of the obligations they contain, (2) this variation can be measured, and (3) it matters for ratification. Treaties that create a larger number of demanding obligations imply greater potential costs of compliance for states. The larger the number of demanding obligations, the more grounds various actors will have to challenge a state’s practices. We analyze innovative data on treaty obligations and commitments for the 10 core global human rights treaties to test our propositions, and we find strong support.国际关系学界的主流研究假设认为，各国会审慎权衡条约批准的成本与收益。在人权研究领域，一国的人权记录越恶劣，其批准相关条约的推定成本便越高，获批的可能性也就随之降低。但既往相关研究均忽略了一个关键细节：不同人权条约所设定的义务范围存在显著差异。本文主张并通过实证验证了以下三项核心命题：其一，各项核心人权条约在所承载义务的范畴与强度上存在显著差异；其二，此类差异具备可量化性；其三，该差异对一国的条约批准决策具有实质性影响。设定了更多严苛义务的条约，意味着各国履约的潜在成本将进一步提升。且严苛义务的数量越多，各类行为主体就越具备质疑该国相关实践的法理与现实依据。我们针对10项核心全球人权条约的义务与承诺构建了创新性研究数据集，并以此检验本文提出的研究命题，最终得到了强有力的实证支持。