ABSTRACT
Current discourse on international human rights leaves little room for self-satisfaction about near-universal acceptance o f wide-ranging normative frameworks with a global and regional scope. Recent times have witnessed growing academic concern with the “impact” or “effect” o f international human rights treaties on the dejure2Xi& de facto legal position in state parties.1 These concerns are embedded in bigger and more enduring questions about the nature o f state obligations under international law (including those derived from “nonbinding norms”) and compliance with them .2 However, general questions about obedience to international law have been replaced by attempts to answer the question whether human rights treaties in fact “make a difference.”3
