rucial questions regarding the ratification of human rights treaties have divided theorists into a number of distinct groups. Realist scholars see states joining such treaties through instrumental self-interested convenience, making cost-benefit analysis based primarily on material incentives. Rational institutionalists, while agreeing with the claim that states act out of self-interest, see that treaty adherence can represent a long-term preference for restraint. These theorists may also recognise the importance of reputation in a functionalist sense, whereby stable expectations of an actor can help further cooperation and material benefits. Liberal scholars highlight the importance of domestic processes, and pressure by NGOs, citizens and norm entrepreneurs. Finally, constructivist theories centre around the social context of shared subjective understandings, and some highlight the way in which at least some types of states might ratify sincerely, as they have internalised the norms that such treaties institutionalise. Other constructivist explanations look to conscious role-playing, as norms constrain behaviour even when actors don’t fully believe in them. This latter explanation looks both at discomfort about being out of step with a certain peer group and the impact on Britain’s social status. Typically constructivist concerns about status and identity thus play into the broader international politics of social competition.

Resolving this debate about ratification is not only complicated by the aforementioned sovereignty costs and lack of retaliatory non-compliance, but by the confidentiality of the process through which decision-making occurs. Drawing broad conclusions about why states accede to human rights treaties is problematized by the lack of data. This issue is compounded by the intimate connection between two processes that must be kept analytically and temporally distinct: the decision to ratify and the decision to comply. While considerations of compliance undoubtedly affect commitment, this reciprocal relationship must be separated to determine the main drivers for ratification.
Furthermore, attempting to isolate a single motivation as superior to ot