This article contributes to the burgeoning literature on why states ratify human rights treaties. It first analyses why Ireland, the United Kingdom and the United States did not initially ratify or accede to the 1948 Genocide Convention, and then explores why the three countries eventually did accept it, 20–40 years after it was approved by the United Nations General Assembly. The extent to which material costs and benefits, the logic of appropriateness, and acculturation played a role in each of the three cases is assessed. Acculturation is particularly evident in the Irish case, but it also helps to explain the UK and US acceptance of the Convention
On 10 December 2008, the United Nations General Assembly unanimously adopted the Optional Protocol t...
Since it came into force in 1951, the United Nations’ Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of...
In the face of pressure from transnational social groups and increasingly influential human rights o...
This article contributes to the burgeoning literature on why states ratify human rights treaties. It...
Brian Simpson argued that any general explanation for why states accede to international humanitaria...
Closely examining the Darfur, Sudan, genocide, and making reference to other genocides, this Article...
Genocide was declared an international crime in 1946. In response to this declaration, the Conventio...
This article analyses which factors promote or hinder ratification by nation states of the Second Op...
Although the United Nations’ 1948 Genocide Convention was a well-intentioned step toward ending geno...
Over the last half-century, the number of treaties that address issues of human rights has grown fro...
In late August 1968, following a British proposal, Nigeria announced that it would allow an internat...
This article addresses the under-theorized dual-mandate of the United Nations Convention on the Prev...
Next year the world will commemorate twenty years since the Rwandan genocide and the following year ...
A reiteration of Professor Paust\u27s views on the topic, followed by an alternative course of actio...
Since it came into force in 1951, the United Nations’ Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of...
On 10 December 2008, the United Nations General Assembly unanimously adopted the Optional Protocol t...
Since it came into force in 1951, the United Nations’ Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of...
In the face of pressure from transnational social groups and increasingly influential human rights o...
This article contributes to the burgeoning literature on why states ratify human rights treaties. It...
Brian Simpson argued that any general explanation for why states accede to international humanitaria...
Closely examining the Darfur, Sudan, genocide, and making reference to other genocides, this Article...
Genocide was declared an international crime in 1946. In response to this declaration, the Conventio...
This article analyses which factors promote or hinder ratification by nation states of the Second Op...
Although the United Nations’ 1948 Genocide Convention was a well-intentioned step toward ending geno...
Over the last half-century, the number of treaties that address issues of human rights has grown fro...
In late August 1968, following a British proposal, Nigeria announced that it would allow an internat...
This article addresses the under-theorized dual-mandate of the United Nations Convention on the Prev...
Next year the world will commemorate twenty years since the Rwandan genocide and the following year ...
A reiteration of Professor Paust\u27s views on the topic, followed by an alternative course of actio...
Since it came into force in 1951, the United Nations’ Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of...
On 10 December 2008, the United Nations General Assembly unanimously adopted the Optional Protocol t...
Since it came into force in 1951, the United Nations’ Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of...
In the face of pressure from transnational social groups and increasingly influential human rights o...