Citizen Perceptions of International Human Rights Agreements: Evidence from Iran

• In Event: International Law, Human Rights, and Non-State Actors

Abstract

Many of our theories about how international human rights agreements ‘work’ hinge on the assumption that some population — international or domestic — perceives the decision to join positively. Yet, this assumption has rarely been tested, and when it has, the evidence has been mixed. Proof that international audiences reward countries for ratifying these agreements is fairly inconclusive. Furthermore, in the domestic arena, scholars simply have little information on whether citizens care much about these activities. This paper explores the latter question of how the domestic populace perceives decisions to join international agreements. To test idea that citizens perceive treaty participation favorably, I present results from a survey experiment conducted in Iran. Iran was selected because it has not ratified the Convention Against Torture, and because it has relatively good internet penetration, making an online survey more likely to be externally valid than in other countries that have not joined. Crucially, the experiment finds very strong evidence that citizens who are informed that the government has recently ratified the Convention are substantially more supportive of President Rouhani’s job performance. This result holds regardless of whether citizens think torture is actually being eradicated. This finding sheds important light on the question of why leaders of autocracies join international human rights agreements. While international acclaim is likely part of the story in some contexts, domestic kudos are also fundamental — even when citizens have low expectations of compliance.

Author

• Jana von Stein, The Australian National University