Traditional international relations theory holds that states will join only those international institutions with which they generally intend to comply. Here we show when this claim might not hold. We construct a model of an authoritarian government’s decision to sign the UN Convention Against Torture (CAT). Authoritarian governments use the signing of this treaty — followed by the willful violation of its provisions — as a costly signal to domestic opposition groups of their willingness to employ repressive tactics to remain in power. In equilibrium, authoritarian governments that torture heavily are more likely to sign the treaty than those that torture less. We further predict that signatory regimes survive longer in office than non-signatories, and enjoy less domestic opposition — and we provide empirical support for these predictions.
Why Do Authoritarian Regimes Sign the Convention Against Torture?: Signaling, Domestic Politics and Non-Compliance* Available to Purchase
We would like to thank James Vreeland and Jennifer Gandhi for their generosity in providing access to their data, and Leslie Johns and two anonymous reviewers for their detailed comments and suggestions. We would also like to thank Bruce Bueno de Mesquita, David Stasavage, Jon Eguia, Fernando Martel Garcia, Art Stein, Johannes Urpelainen, Joanne Gowa, the participants in seminars at Claremont, Columbia, Georgetown, NYU, UCLA, UCSD and USC; the 2009 MPSA Panel on International Human Rights Agreements, the 2009 APSA Panel on the Political Economy of International Regimes and the 3rd annual PEIO conference for helpful comments and suggestions. All remaining errors are our own.
Hollyer JR, Rosendorff BP (2011), "Why Do Authoritarian Regimes Sign the Convention Against Torture?: Signaling, Domestic Politics and Non-Compliance*". Quarterly Journal of Political Science, Vol. 6 No. 3-4 pp. 275–327, doi: https://doi.org/10.1561/100.00010059
Download citation file:
