Needs or Symbols? The Logic of United Nations Counterterrorism Treaty Ratification

Why do states commit to UN counterterrorism treaties? This article posits that state accession to UN counterterrorism treaties is likely informed by the nature of the terrorist threats a state faces, and consequently, the pressures that such threats generate from domestic and international audiences on the state to address (or appear to address) them. As such, we hypothesize that states ratify UN CT treaties for either material, needs-based reasons—to gain external assistance for counterterror capacity building—or for symbolic reasons—to visibly signal their commitment to fight terrorism in order maintain legitimacy, and mitigate reputational costs to both domestic and international audiences. To test these hypotheses, we use a newly compiled dataset of state accessions to the 19 UN counterterrorism treaties from 1970–2016, testing both our needs-based versus symbolic hypotheses, as well as more “traditional” explanations for state treaty accession. Across the universe of 19 UN counterterrorism treaties, our study implies that states may be more likely to ratify treaties as mechanisms to signal intent to address terror threats rather than to build threat-specific counterterrorism capacity. This research thus broadens both academic and policy-related understandings of state counterterror treaty ratification.

Does Legal Origin Matter for Arms Control Treaty Ratification?

This chapter examines whether the legal origin of a country influences the likelihood of ratification of multilateral international treaties concerning arms control. We theorize that ratification of an arms control treaty signals a country’s intention to avoid arms races and wars. We know only little about the variation in the ratification of such agreements. One possible element that may explain this variation is the legal origin or tradition of a country. Since treaties are legally binding agreements between two or more states and/or international governmental organizations, they cannot be adapted to local needs and circumstances. Treaties are therefore generally an uneasy fit with the gradual, organic evolution of law that is essential in the common-law system. By contrast, the civil-law tradition neatly distinguishes between legally binding obligations and non-binding guidelines or directives. Consequently, civil-law countries are expected to be more likely to ratify treaties than common-law countries. The empirical results clearly confirm this expectation. In particular, civil-law countries have ratified about nine percent more treaties than common-law countries.

Part IV Normative Development, Ch.25 Soft Law

This chapter reviews how soft law has become a significant part of the evolutionary system of environmental law-making for three main reasons. First, it may be easier to reach agreement when the form is non-binding. The soft law approach allows states to tackle a problem collectively at a time when they do not want to shackle their freedom of action too firmly. Secondly, soft law instruments will normally be easier to supplement, amend, or replace than treaties, since all that is required is the adoption of a new resolution by the relevant international institution. Thirdly, it may be easier for some states to adhere to non-binding instruments because they can avoid the domestic treaty ratification process, and perhaps escape democratic accountability for the policy to which they have agreed. Whether soft law instruments have the same effect as a treaty, or any legal effect at all, will depend on the particular instrument and its relationship to customary international law and to specific treaties.

Methodological considerations

Evidence for the existence of customary law is compiled, using the rights in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a template. The pattern of treaty ratification is examined along with materials from the Universal Periodic Review, especially concerning States that are not parties to relevant treaties. The list is supplemented with rights omitted from the Declaration, such as the rights of minorities and indigenous peoples, as well as with so-called peoples’ rights, to development, peace, and self-determination. Particular attention is directed to the customary nature of economic, social, and cultural rights.

Offshore Processing Arrangements: Effect on Treaty Ratifications of Receiving States

This article examines offshore processing arrangements of four different time-periods and geo-political regions—the Safe Havens of the United States with Jamaica and the Turks and Caicos Islands; the 2001 and 2012 Pacific Solutions of Australia with Nauru and Papua New Guinea; and the EU–Turkey deal. In examining these arrangements, the article attempts to ascertain whether each of these arrangements had an impact on the ratification of refugee and human rights-related treaties by the states receiving the asylum seekers and refugees for processing and/or settlement. It does so by first assessing the contents of the offshore processing agreements for refugee and human rights clauses and obligations. The article then looks at the general patterns of treaty ratification of each receiving state, prior to its entering into offshore processing arrangements. After the general patterns of treaty ratifications of each state are established, the article goes on to investigate whether offshore processing arrangements had any effect on these patterns. This is based on the analysis of the contents of the agreements, together with an examination of the timing of the refugee and human rights treaty ratifications of the receiving state, at the time of the arrangements. The article finds that the effect, although minimal, is quite nuanced.

Domesticating Treaties in the Legal System of South Sudan – A Monist or Dualist Approach?

This article examines the approach for the domestication of treaties in South Sudan. Such examination is undergone in light of the theories for the domestication of international law norms into the domestic legal systems of state members of the international community. The article establishes that the approach in South Sudan is not clearly indicated, and seems to be inconsistent with regard to the practice of various institutions linked to the domestication of treaties process in South Sudan. However, the article expands on two foundations: the status quo and the ‘ought to be’ approach. The article argues that the approach as it exists seems to be a monist rather than a dualist approach. This is evident from the indicators of South Sudan's constitutional, legislative and judicial settings such as the text of the Transitional Constitution of South Sudan 2011, the treaty ratification process, the practices of the National Legislative Assembly in respect of international conventions and a judicial circular issued by the Supreme Court of South Sudan. Furthermore, the article advances that the ‘as ought to exist’ approach needs to be a clearly mixed approach, partly monist and partly dualist. Such approach combines the advantages associated with each approach in one place. The article recommends that there is a need to have a well informed, well established and clear status in respect of the domestication approach guided by the various arrangements and settings highlighted above. It may also take account of the various states’ attitudes towards international law and the legal school of thought which forms the basis of South Sudan legal system. Such recommendation could be materialised via an act of parliament, a regulation or a practice manual.

Democratizing Foreign Policy: Parliamentary Oversight of Treaty Ratification in Pakistan

Treaties are agreements between States negotiated by government executives. They are primarily meant to govern the relationship between States, but may have implications for the economic, political, and fundamental rights of citizens. As treaties create binding legal obligations for States enforceable under international law, this article primarily argues that Parliamentary oversight of treaties is necessary for their democratic legitimacy. It analyses the Ratification of Foreign Agreements by Parliament Bill (the ‘Bill’) which is currently being debated in the Senate of Pakistan. Offering critical overview of the existing treaty making procedures in Pakistan, the article evaluates several aspects of the Bill including its definition of foreign agreements and the proposed treaty ratification procedures in comparison with international law of treaties and relevant laws of the UK, Australia, and Kenya. Based on the comparative examination of the Bill, the article makes proposals for changes in the Bill's substantive provisions and make further suggestions for improvement, such as guiding principles on treaty negotiations and procedure for treaty withdrawals. The article concludes by giving a comprehensive package of practical recommendations for further development of the Bill's provisions on treaty ratification in accordance with international best practices.