ts. This is often forgotten through legal approaches to human rights as it is assumed that ratifying treaties equates to implementing international norms into domestic legislation.
Further studies on the ratification of CAT supports Vreeland in that states that ratified CAT was more likely to torture than non-ratifying states (Hill, 2010; Cole, 2012). Though the above studies were conducted almost a decade ago, this can still be applied in present times. China, for instance, has ratified CAT but have been under the limelight recently as reports suggest that over one million ethnic Uighurs, Kazakhs, and Hui have been involuntarily subjected to “re-education” centres from which reports of torture and murders have surfaced (Freedom House, 2019). China for decades has also been criticised for their continuous mistreatment of citizens in the Xinjiang and Tibetan regions despite their ratification of CAT in 1988 (Treaties.un.org, 2019). This contradicts the assumption that implementing human rights into society and domestic law occurs gradually and proves for a compelling argument that some states ratify treaties for international acceptance, rather than their willingness to conform to international standards. It is likely that Conservative regimes such as China are less likely to comply with international instruments as they are intransigent in their position of ensuring human rights are protected as power and control can impede. Again, these studies allow insights into whether legal instruments do have an impact on states behaviour and whether or not they exist in reality. Political science, however, fails to acknowledge the arguments that some non-Western states argue. Non-Western governments often imply that international human rights are a product of Western imperialism and fails to acknowledge the cultural relativist approach whereby values and practices should be understood based on individual’s culture rather than what is considered ‘normal’ (Freeman, 2013; Herskovits, 1972). This may explain why some states undermine human rights instruments, as to them human rights are not universal. However, whether this is a viable justification can be disputed as many states can use cultural relativism as a way of upholding a one-way relationship where they are able to maintain power and control allowing them to continue violating human rights. Though research into whether this is accurate may be difficult to obtain, it is worth noting that it is a possibility for government’s refusal to oblige to international human rights instruments.
It is important not to be pessimistic about the all research findings and rather acknowledge that some international human rights instruments have worked in certain states, whereas in others ratification has had no difference in states approach to human rights. Simmons (2009) reaffirms the liberal theory that international human rights law has had a positive role in the realisation of human rights on a global scale. Signatories to the CAT were found to have lower rates of brutal torture or abuse whilst in custody. Though this challenges Vreeland, Hill and Cole’s findings, it is important to look at regime structure. Simmons found that treaty ratification had positive effects in states that were neither repressive nor completely democratic (ibid). Though it could be argued that this contradicts Vreeland’s findings, the states studied in both these observations differ and thus cannot be compared. Political science has therefore extended beyond legal scholars by providing concrete research into whether the law has been successful in protecting and promoting human rights and although findings from research may seem negative, it may pave possible solutions in improving the law in the future. Furthermore, Simmons (2013) also argues that previous empirical studies ignore the fact that some states are unable to improve such as Norway on torture as they were already compliant from the start and that other ratifies had no intention of complying with their ratification anyway e.g. North Korea. Political science thus needs to take into consideration the status of some states and t
