To what extent do states comply with their international commitments
As a result, complying with international commitments minimizes conflict and influences peace. It would be ideal to fully understand the extent to which states comply with their international commitments so that it would be easy to influence more international commitments especially among states that are rebellious. However, in theory, the essay asserts that there is no definite causal link that highlights why or to what extent states are compelled to comply with these commitments. Instead, it asserts that the most common patterns of commitment are influenced by ongoing interaction of the different states, reputational concerns, continuous dialogue among the key negotiators and the individual interests of states that are socially constructed to compel them to these international commitments. My expectations on what I would find if an empirical analysis was to be taken is that some factors are predictably correlated to the compliance levels of the different states.
Chapman & Chaudon also hold that the individual interests of a state influence their commitment to international law (Chapman & Chaudon 2013, 400). For example, they assert that it is easiest for democracies with very little internal violence to comply with rules and prosecution by the International criminal court. On the other hand, those countries with weak legal systems and those with intense histories of political violence tend to avoid compliance and ratifications. Because of the issue of interest is very relative, researchers such as Stasavage highlight that over the years, outside observers, scholars, and activists seek to make these international negotiations more transparent so that the deliberations and bargaining can be clear to the citizens on whether their officials or chief negotiators ac on public interest (Stasavage 2004, 667).
Putnam highlights that many international negotiations are usually a two-level game whereby the two levels are international and domestic. Additionally, the continuous dialogue among key negotiators influences growing bonds, shared interests and the formation of treaties that also influence how states comply with international commitments. These findings indeed inform my argument which holds that there is no true measure that can define this extent to which states comply with international agreements, norms, and rules. In my theoretical argument, I shall highlight why it is difficult to provide particular extents to which states may comply with their international commitments. Theoretical Argument It is difficult to determine the extent to which states comply with their international commitments. Socially constructed individual interests have a significant impact on whether a policy will even by an accepted by a state.
Alternatively, the states may comply with the international commitments so that they have a good reputation which would, in turn, benefit the states when the time would come for them to seek international aid and assistance to sort out some of their domestic issues. On the other hand, the utilization of the naming and shaming strategy may be used to force states to comply with international commitments. To maintain a good reputation the states may choose to comply rather than get shamed on the international level. This particular strategy typically is utilized to deal with human right issues or issues of the ICC. However, as much as this strategy may be utilized, it may be ignored, indicating that some particular countries cannot be strong-armed or influenced by public shaming.
Further, continuous discussions allow for the negotiators to nurture shared interests amongst themselves. The shared interests may influence the creation of policies that are acceptable amongst the negotiators in that the national goals and aspirations for the future tend to be aligned. Finally, continuous dialogue creates an environment where the key negotiators form treaties amongst themselves. These treaties also influence how states comply with international commitments over the course of time in that the nations would be obliged to make certain decisions that would not upset their treaty agreements. Based on this, it is evident that continuous dialogue may have significant impacts on whether a state complies with their international commitments. Research Design In this section I shall be utilizing a time-series cross-sectional analysis to test the arguments that I hold, it would be appropriate to utilize the time period between 1975 to 2015 because I would like to determine if there are shifts in patterns or factors that affect how states comply to their international commitments during those four decades.
In particular, I shall concentrate on the last decade, between 2005 and 2015 so that I can see how technological evolutions and improvements in communication have influenced decision making. I shall utilize approximately 50 units from the samples states that are party to the state statutes, as well as the Commonwealth nations that have memberships from a number of countries across the globe. This is to ensure that underestimates of parameter variability in the different research situations do not occur. In a different light, these two samples are also important because they are political organizations’ that tend to influence one another with continuous dialogues as well as their “treaties” or agreements, their common interests, and based on the importance of reputation among members in these communities.
In this way, the study would allow us to look at all other correlated factors that influence compliance and how these have evolved over the course of four decades. Conclusion Considering the various factors that influence the negotiations and commitment to international laws and policies, it is difficult to pinpoint one way that can be used to determine the extent to which states comply with their International commitments. The factors include the continuous dialogue among the nations, the socially constructed interests of the individual states as well as reputational concerns. These factors cannot be used as a standard measure since they are different and unique to each nation. Interactions and advancements in technologies, however, will enhance communication and dialogue among people and it will lead to significant shifts in beliefs and interests such that eventually, new factors will determine the extent to which states comply with their international commitments.
From $10 to earn access
Only on Studyloop