Comparación tortura méxico y colombia

THE FLETCHER SCHOOL OF LAW AND DIPLOMACY

The United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment in Mexico

____________________________________________________________

_

International Treaty Behavior

Maria J. Ocampo Vazquez

I. INTRODUCTION

There are many theories about compliance with aninternational treaty, but the one I agree the most with is the one establish by Beth A. Simmons. The author appoints that when a government ratifies an international treaty it has the intention to comply with it, but there might be several unanticipated events that do not let the country continue with the implementation and compliance of the treaty. [1]

The author expresses that the theoriesof self-enforcement cannot be applied in order to understand the international human rights compliance. This can be explained because there is not a mutual gain between two countries that ratify the same treaty. There is no existence of joint gains between the countries. [2]

Also, it is not obvious for her why a government would be too concerned to develop a positive international reputationin the area of human rights. She establishes that a major compliance will be seen within international law in trade and security but is least in environmental and human rights. And there is less interest on the countries to enforce because of reputational consequences; the countries might disagree with the gravity of the violation as well as the value that they place in the positive relation withthe alleged violator.[3]

Beth Simmons established that is it difficult to develop a theory of compliance with international human rights treaties, that many theories that have been developed such as the self-enforcing agreements, credible commitments or reputations, fall short because these types of agreements do not involve joints gain or reciprocity.[4]

For the author, theinternational human rights treaties have an important influence “on the rights practices of governments that commit to them, it is because they have predictable and important effects on domestic politics.”[5] This can be seen because these types of treaties empower individuals, groups or part of the state that were not empower before them.

The international treaties are agreements negotiatedexternally but their influence can be seen in the local polities. This is because they introduce ideas and conceptions that are new, or that were not clearly articulated in the local sphere. [6]

Furthermore, the influence that the international human rights treaties have on the political and cultural practices can never be underestimated. “Ratified treaties reveal new information regarding agovernment’s formal complicity in the rights enterprise…the legitimacy of pursuing rights in the specific cultural and political context.”[7]

Also, social movements are seen as resources that a ratified treaty can bring. For many social movement theorists, the legal rules and the institutions are a type of political opportunity that enables and constrains social movements. For the author it isimportant to empower political mobilization.[8]

The writer establishes three different mechanisms through which treaties will have an effect on domestic politics: altering the national agenda, leveraging litigation and empowering the political mobilization.[9]

Beth Simmons concludes that countries comply with international human rights treaties because of domestic mechanisms, and that mostof the countries lack of interest in enforcing human rights agreements in other countries. The importance of compliance in these types of agreements relays that the ones that care the most in complying are the citizens that are empowered by these treaties. [10]

II. THE UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE AND OTHER CRUEL, INHUMAN OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT.

The United...