Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

Acculturation and the acceptance of the Genocide Convention

By Karen E. Smith

Abstract

This article contributes to the burgeoning literature on why states ratify human rights treaties. It first analyses why Ireland, the United Kingdom and the United States did not initially ratify or accede to the 1948 Genocide Convention, and then explores why the three countries eventually did accept it, 20–40 years after it was approved by the United Nations General Assembly. The extent to which material costs and benefits, the logic of appropriateness, and acculturation played a role in each of the three cases is assessed. Acculturation is particularly evident in the Irish case, but it also helps to explain the UK and US acceptance of the Convention

Topics: HT Communities. Classes. Races, HV Social pathology. Social and public welfare. Criminology, JA Political science (General), JX International law
Publisher: SAGE Publications
Year: 2013
DOI identifier: 10.1177/0010836713482451
OAI identifier: oai:eprints.lse.ac.uk:45081
Provided by: LSE Research Online

Suggested articles

Citations

  1. (2002). A Problem from Hell’: American and the Age of Genocide doi
  2. Alain (1994/95), ‘The Third Genocide’, Foreign Policy, doi
  3. (2003). Britain and the Genocide Convention’, doi
  4. (2006). Complex Socialization”: A Framework for the Study of State Socialisation’, doi
  5. (2006). Explaining State Decisions to Ratify the International Criminal Court Treaty’, paper presented to the American Political Science Association Meeting,
  6. (2010). Genocide and the Europeans (Cambridge: doi
  7. (2009). Genocide in International Law: The Crime of Crimes, 2 nd edition (Cambridge: doi
  8. (2008). Global Human Rights and State Sovereignty: State Ratification of International Human Rights Treaties, 1965-2001’, Sociological Forum, doi
  9. (2004). How to Influence States: Socialization and International Human Rights Law’, doi
  10. (1990). Human Rights Treaties and the Senate: A History of Opposition (Chapel Hill and London: doi
  11. (2001). Making Sense of State Socialisation’, doi
  12. (2011). Mimetic Adoption and Norm Diffusion: “Western” Security Cooperation in Southeast Asia?’, doi
  13. (2009). Mobilizing for Human Rights; International Law in Domestic Politics (Cambridge: doi
  14. (1996). Norms, Identity, and Culture in National Security’,
  15. (2008). Raphael Lemkin and the Struggle for the Genocide Convention (Houndmills: doi
  16. (1984). Reagan will Submit
  17. (1984). Reagan’s Senate Allies Surprised by Move on Genocide Pact’, The New York Times,
  18. (1985). Revised and updated report on the question of the prevention and punishment of genocide, prepared by Mr
  19. (2005). Sovereignty Relinquished? Explaining Commitment to the International Human Rights Covenants, 1966-1999’, doi
  20. (1984). Speech to B’nai B’rith’,
  21. (2006). Stefan Engert and Heiko Knobel doi
  22. (1977). Testimony by Senator William Proxmire before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, doi
  23. (2006). The Genocide Convention: An International Law Analysis doi
  24. (2010). The Last Utopia: Human Rights in History doi
  25. (2011). The Logic of Appropriateness’, doi
  26. (2000). The Origins of Human Rights Regimes: Democratic Delegation doi
  27. (1999). The Power of Human Rights: International Norms and Domestic Change (Cambridge: doi
  28. (1999). The socialization of international human rights norms into domestic practices: introduction’, in Thomas Risse, Stephen C. Ropp and Kathryn Sikkink, eds, The Power of Human Rights: International Norms and Domestic Change (Cambridge: doi
  29. (1991). The United States and the Genocide Convention (Durham and London: doi
  30. (2007). When Do States Comply with International Treaties? doi
  31. (2007). Why do Countries Commit to Human Rights Treaties?’, doi
  32. (2008). Why Ratify? Lessons from Treaty Ratification Campaigns’,

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.