UN & Global Citizenship Grade 12: International Law Treaty Making and Enforcement

Study Guide: International Law – Treaty Making and Enforcement Grade 12 | UN & Global Citizenship

1. The Driving Question

If countries are supposed to follow the same rules, why do some ignore treaties while others get punished for breaking them? How do a bunch of diplomats in a room in Geneva or New York actually turn a handshake into a law that stops wars, protects refugees, or bans chemical weapons—and what happens when a country says, "No thanks, we’re doing our own thing"?

2. The Core Idea – Built, Not Listed

Imagine a high school student council trying to create a rule that no one can use the gym after 6 PM without a teacher present. The council debates, drafts a proposal, and votes—majority wins. But then the basketball team says, "We need the gym for practice," and the debate starts again. Finally, the principal signs off, and the rule is official. Now, what if the soccer team ignores it? The principal could take away their funding, but what if the soccer team is the principal’s favorite? That’s the messy reality of treaty-making: it’s not just about writing rules—it’s about who agrees, who enforces, and who gets away with breaking them.

International treaties work the same way, but on a global scale. Countries (called states in international law) negotiate in places like the United Nations Headquarters in New York or the Palace of Nations in Geneva, where diplomats haggle over every word. Once enough countries sign and ratify (formally approve) the treaty, it becomes binding—but only for those who signed. Enforcement is trickier. There’s no global police force, so countries rely on peer pressure (diplomatic shaming), economic sanctions (like freezing a country’s bank accounts), or even military action (rare, but it happens). The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) is the closest thing to a global enforcer, but its five permanent members (the U.S., China, Russia, France, and the U.K.) can veto any action—meaning powerful countries often get away with more.

Key Vocabulary: - Treaty Definition: A legally binding agreement between two or more states, governed by international law. Example: The Paris Agreement (2015) is a treaty where countries pledged to reduce carbon emissions to limit global warming. The U.S. signed, then withdrew under Trump, then rejoined under Biden—showing how domestic politics can override international commitments. College Note: In international law, treaties are considered pacta sunt servanda ("agreements must be kept"), but scholars debate whether this is a moral principle or a legal obligation when no enforcement exists.

• Ratification Definition: The formal process by which a state confirms its consent to be bound by a treaty, usually through its legislature or executive branch. Example: The Rome Statute (1998), which created the International Criminal Court (ICC), was signed by 120 countries, but the U.S. signed and then "unsigned" it under Bush, while China and Russia never ratified it at all. College Note: Ratification can be delayed for decades (e.g., the U.S. took 40 years to ratify the Genocide Convention), and some treaties include "reservations" where countries opt out of specific clauses.

• Customary International Law Definition: Rules that become binding on all states over time through consistent practice and a sense of legal obligation (opinio juris), even if they’re not written in a treaty. Example: The prohibition against torture is part of customary international law—even countries that haven’t signed the UN Convention Against Torture (like North Korea) are still expected to follow it. College Note: Customary law is tricky to prove in court; scholars argue over how much state practice is needed and whether opinio juris can exist if a state denies it.

• Veto Power (UN Security Council) Definition: The ability of the five permanent members of the UNSC (P5) to block any substantive resolution, even if the other 10 members support it. Example: In 2022, Russia vetoed a UNSC resolution condemning its invasion of Ukraine, while China abstained—showing how vetoes can paralyze the UN’s ability to act. College Note: The veto was a Cold War compromise to ensure great-power cooperation, but critics argue it makes the UNSC ineffective against P5 misconduct (e.g., U.S. in Iraq, Russia in Syria).

3. Assessment Translation

AP Comparative Government & Politics / AP U.S. Government & Politics / IB Global Politics: Treaty-making and enforcement appear in free-response questions (FRQs) and document-based questions (DBQs) in three ways:
1. Conceptual Analysis: "Explain how the veto power in the UN Security Council affects the enforcement of international law. Use one example from the past 20 years." - Proficient Response: Defines veto power, explains its role in enforcement (or lack thereof), and cites a specific case (e.g., Russia’s veto on Syria chemical weapons resolutions). - Developing Response: Mentions the veto but doesn’t link it to enforcement or gives a vague example (e.g., "Russia vetoed something").

1. Document-Based: "Using the provided excerpts from the UN Charter and the Rome Statute, compare the enforcement mechanisms of the UN Security Council and the International Criminal Court."
2. Proficient Response: Contrasts the UNSC’s political enforcement (sanctions, peacekeeping) with the ICC’s judicial enforcement (prosecutions), noting the ICC’s lack of police power.

3. Developing Response: Lists features of each but doesn’t compare or explain limitations.

4. Argument Essay: "To what extent do international treaties effectively regulate state behavior? In your response, use evidence from at least two treaties."

5. Proficient Response: Takes a nuanced position (e.g., "Treaties work when enforcement aligns with state interests, as in the Montreal Protocol on ozone depletion, but fail when powerful states ignore them, as with the NPT and North Korea’s nuclear program"). Uses specific examples and counterarguments.
6. Developing Response: Overgeneralizes (e.g., "Treaties don’t work because countries break them") or uses only one example.

SAT/ACT Note: While not directly tested, treaty-related passages may appear in Reading/Writing sections (e.g., a passage on the Kyoto Protocol or Geneva Conventions). Look for: - Author’s purpose (e.g., is the author arguing for stronger enforcement or critiquing hypocrisy?). - Tone shifts (e.g., from hopeful about a treaty’s potential to cynical about its failures).

Model Proficient Response (FRQ): "The veto power in the UN Security Council significantly weakens the enforcement of international law because it allows the five permanent members (P5) to block actions against themselves or their allies. For example, in 2014, Russia vetoed a resolution to refer the Syrian conflict to the International Criminal Court, shielding its ally, Bashar al-Assad, from prosecution for war crimes. This demonstrates how the veto prioritizes great-power politics over accountability. However, the UNSC can still enforce treaties when P5 interests align, such as the 2015 Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA), where the U.S., China, and Russia all supported sanctions relief in exchange for Iran’s compliance. Thus, enforcement depends less on the rule of law and more on whether powerful states see it in their interest to act."

4. Mistake Taxonomy

Mistake 1: Overstating Treaty Effectiveness - Prompt: "How do international treaties prevent human rights abuses?" - Common Wrong Response: "Treaties like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) stop countries from violating human rights because they’re legally binding." - Why It Loses Credit: The UDHR is not a treaty—it’s a declaration, so it’s not legally binding. Even binding treaties (e.g., the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) lack enforcement unless states agree to it. - Correct Approach: Acknowledge that treaties create norms and provide frameworks for accountability (e.g., the ICC can prosecute war crimes), but enforcement depends on political will. Example: China ignores the UN Convention Against Torture but faces no consequences because it’s a permanent UNSC member.

Mistake 2: Ignoring Domestic Politics - Prompt: "Why did the U.S. withdraw from the Paris Agreement in 2017?" - Common Wrong Response: "Because the U.S. doesn’t care about climate change." - Why It Loses Credit: Oversimplifies—domestic politics (e.g., Trump’s base opposing environmental regulations) and institutional checks (Congress’s role in ratification) matter. The Paris Agreement was an executive agreement, not a treaty, so Trump could withdraw without Senate approval. - Correct Approach: Explain that treaties are political tools—the U.S. withdrew because Trump prioritized economic nationalism over global cooperation, but rejoined under Biden due to a shift in administration priorities. Mention that the U.S. also never ratified the Kyoto Protocol due to Senate opposition.

Mistake 3: Confusing Customary Law with Treaties - Prompt: "Is the prohibition against genocide a treaty or customary international law?" - Common Wrong Response: "It’s a treaty because the Genocide Convention exists." - Why It Loses Credit: The Genocide Convention (1948) is a treaty, but the prohibition against genocide is also customary law—meaning even countries that haven’t ratified the treaty (like Myanmar) are still bound by it. Customary law fills gaps where treaties don’t exist. - Correct Approach: Clarify that the prohibition is both—the treaty codifies it, but customary law ensures it applies universally. Example: The ICC prosecuted Sudan’s Omar al-Bashir for genocide in Darfur even though Sudan never ratified the Genocide Convention.

5. Connection Layer

1. Within UN & Global Citizenship-Human Rights Law Understanding treaty enforcement helps explain why human rights treaties often fail. The International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) requires states to provide healthcare and education, but there’s no enforcement mechanism—so countries like the U.S. (which hasn’t ratified it) or Saudi Arabia (which has) can ignore it without consequences. Treaty-making reveals the gap between legal obligations and real-world power.

2. Across Subjects-U.S. Government (Checks and Balances) The treaty ratification process mirrors the U.S. system of checks and balances. The president negotiates treaties, but the Senate must approve them with a 2/3 majority (e.g., the START Treaty with Russia). This slows down global cooperation but prevents one branch from unilaterally binding the country—just like how the UNSC’s veto power prevents one country from dominating international law.

3. Outside School-Sports Diplomacy Treaties work like sports agreements—rules exist, but enforcement depends on who’s watching. The Olympic Truce is a UN resolution calling for ceasefires during the Games, but it’s not legally binding. In 2022, Russia ignored it and invaded Ukraine during the Beijing Olympics. Similarly, FIFA’s rules against racism in soccer are often broken with minimal penalties—showing how even in sports, "laws" are only as strong as the will to enforce them.

6. The Stretch Question

"If the UN Security Council’s veto power makes it ineffective, why don’t countries just create a new international organization without vetoes—and would it work?"

Pointer Toward the Answer: The veto exists because powerful countries won’t join an organization that can punish them. The League of Nations (the UN’s predecessor) failed partly because the U.S. never joined, and major powers like Germany and Japan left when it tried to enforce rules against them. A veto-free UNSC would face the same problem: China and Russia might refuse to participate, leaving it as toothless as the International Court of Justice (which only hears cases if states consent). However, some argue that regional organizations (like the African Union or EU) are more effective because they have shared interests and fewer veto-wielding members. The real question is whether global cooperation is possible without great-power buy-in—or if the system is designed to fail when those powers disagree.