The central theme of this chapter has been that international laws, regulations, norms, and organizations may help induce respect for human rights but they cannot be counted on to do so. Rules, regulations, and structure are likely to be the product of strategic maneuvering. As such, they are more likely to reflect national or individual interests as defined at a given moment than they are to be the factor that shapes national or individual interests. Still, organizations are sticky. Once created, they are hard to get rid of, so they can help tie the hands of leaders or increase the costs of deviant behavior.

A high level of compliance with international rules and regulations should not be mistaken for evidence that law or norms are inherently effective in altering behavior. Selection effects permeate international treaties and declarations on human rights. Prior revealed preferences about human rights—as indicated by prior treaty agreements—are more powerful predictors of compliance with human rights treaties than is the ratification of the treaty itself. The level of compliance, just like the design of monitoring and enforcement mechanisms, is likely to be endogenous. Treaties are unlikely to include rules that members are unwilling to follow unless the organization designed to enforce the treaty has few effective means to monitor compliance and punish deviant behavior. As a consequence, many human rights agreements are likely to be shallow or weak, either making compliance easy or punishment difficult. Decisions that would effectively alter behavior undoubtedly exist, but they may be relatively rare.

Arguments that offer poverty as an explanation for limited respect for human rights are bogus. They are the self-serving propaganda of dictators. Core freedoms are not luxury goods to be enjoyed only after attaining prosperity. Rather, we saw that respect for core freedoms help promote prosperity and accountable government. Free people almost universally enjoy good health, good nutrition, and prosperity. People with the bad luck of living in places governed by small-coalition autocrats rarely enjoy any of these social and economic goods. International law helps when it emphasizes the personal integrity of individuals and promotes individual civil liberties and political rights rather than thinking of states as undifferentiated, unitary actors. We should encourage those who forge international human rights treaties to emphasize individuals over the state.