Between a (Procedural) Rock and a (Substantive) Hard Place? Exploring Strategies and Current Trends of States’ Acceptance and Compliance with Human Rights Treaty Obligations

International law has been characterized by two interconnected and yet opposite trends. On the one hand, States have demonstrated an increasing commitment to human rights by concluding several multilateral treaties. Along with substantive provisions, these conventions also established courts and quasi-judicial bodies charged with monitoring compliance by States Parties. Given the impact of these supervising mechanisms, States Parties have often refrained from expressing their consent to the treaty- based petition systems. On the other hand, far from benefiting from a special legal regime, human rights treaties are governed by the general principles on the law of treaties. As a result, States Parties can enter reservations, understanding and declarations (RUDs) to avoid certain treaty obligations. Using an empirical approach based on statistical data available, this paper analyses these main ‘strategies’ to which States Parties can resort to circumvent their obligations, assessing their impact vis-à-vis States’ compliance rate with human rights provisions.