Democracy: Rewards For Ratification

Good Essays
Rewards for Ratification Democracy is a complex idea in that it can be used to describe a form of government, a method of choosing a government, a way to judge the way a state exercises their political power, a political culture, or a term applied to a whole society. However, for this paper, democracy will not be viewed as an event or process but rather a journey, involving several transitional phases before it can reach maturity over a period of time. Democratizing states and established democracy states are at different stages in the transition phase making their political decisions and actions differ greatly, but for now this argument will be focused on the issue of international human rights treaties. It is argued that newer democracies …show more content…
Jeffery Frieden, author of World Politics, supports this when he argues established democracies are less likely to ratify treaties because human rights are already secured through constitutional protections (Frieden). In other words, established democracies already respect human rights. Emilie M. Hafner-Burton, Political scientist professor at Princeton University, claims mature democracies and dictatorships have less reason to sign treaties because membership infringes on their sovereignty and requires them to commit resources, with few benefits (Burton). Established states feel that they have nothing to prove. They don’t have an interest in choosing to enter regimes designed to establish and monitor compliance with human rights standards because they know international legal arrangements are weak, enforcement is unlikely, and any costs of noncompliance are …show more content…
Similar to other democratic nations, The United States has the Constitution to help protect citizens and their rights. However, the reason they are reluctant to ratify treaties is due to Article II and VI. These two articles are written in a way that make ratifying treaties difficult and unappealing. Article II is written so that the President can only make Treaties with the consent of two-thirds of the Senate. Similarly, Article VI would cause treaties to trump national law, giving them the same status of power as the Constitution (U.S constitution). Ian Murray, vice president at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, argues the difference between the U.S. and European countries is that, in most countries, treaties are ratified by a vote of Parliament or by an executive decision. They then supposedly have the force of law, but few countries have the means of citizen enforcement of such law, which is why they can be safely ignored when convenient (Murray). Other nations don 't play by the rules of the game, whereas the U.S. is forced to. Ratifying treaties has less to do with the stage of democracy a state is in and more to do with what the State can gain from it. For a state to want to give up its power, they must feel that the benefits out way the cost which most often applies to democratizing states. Overall, the ratification of treaties not only depends on the

Related Documents

  • Decent Essays

    It became clear soon after the Articles of Confederation were implemented that the document had certain flaws that weakened the newly created United States. A new document, the Constitution, was drafted to replace the Articles. Many people supported the Constitution, but some disagreed with it. Both the Federalists and the anti-Federalists provided valuable insight into the creation of the Constitution. Some of the arguments presented by the anti-Federalists were that it lacked a Bill of Rights, which would guarantee citizens freedoms; that the strong central government would be unable to govern such a large territory; and that the government that was established was too close to the British system they had just overcome.…

    • 1330 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    It gave them a chance to start a new form of government without a king. The only problem was Hamilton and Jefferson did not have the same idea of the type of government they wanted to accomplish for their new nation. Hamilton wanted to accomplish a strong central government. He wanted a government that would be able to control the people’s behavior. He understood that “sometimes good people do bad things and bad people do good things”, this gave Hamilton an advantage because Jefferson did not recognize this.…

    • 829 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    On one hand, the argument for a world government is like an argument for state governments. It is beneficial to have one to prevent injustice, disasters, and to protect freedom in exchange for following laws. To be free and get the benefits of government, people must give some freedoms in exchange and it is not a bad deal. But on the other hand, there is no perfect form of government and not everyone will be satisfied with the results. Balance of power has put states on check with each other, but there is nothing to put a world government on check because it would be the top authority.…

    • 1363 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    This government provides an ideal balance between personal rights and federal power. Terrorists and white supremacy groups such as the KKK reject the values of equality and cause conflicts while attempting to revoke the rights of many Americans. But this dissent is ultimately defeated in the face of a solidified political structure.. Government has an obligation to enforce the rights of all people, meaning that dissenters now have less influence on democracy. Dissent can still cause discord, but because today’s federal government has much more power and stability than its early American counterpart, dissenters are now unable to seriously threaten American…

    • 662 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Yes, they were trying to be different than the British government, but the government needs to have a certain amount of power to be able to enforce the laws it puts out. With these laws in place it would’ve been chaos, and the United States wouldn’t have been united anymore. The Declaration was different. It was thoroughly thought through and was designed with an end goal in mind, while the Articles seemed to be a stand-in. The Declaration supported things like exercising sovereignty between the states and government, a separate federal court system to settle matters between the states, congress has power to lay and collect taxes, and both the central government and state government can act on the people (Comparison of Constitution and Articles of Confederation).…

    • 1565 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    As a Federalist I believe the people of the United States should ratify the Constitution because we would fall to pieces without it. In Federalist paper 84 they say there is no purpose for a bill of rights because it is dangerous and unnecessary in multiple ways, such as allowing the government to gain more power than it is granted. Also in Federalist paper 51, they talk about the importance of maintaining separate branches and protecting the rights of the people. However, anti-federalists strongly disagree with these claims. There shouldn’t be a bill of rights because including a listing of rights would only make the people feel as if those are their only protected rights, which aren’t their only protected rights.…

    • 693 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Some argue that this power is a good thing as it allows the government to deal with problems with very little being able to stop it, which is better than in the USA where the constitution often prevents Congress and the government from acting decisively. On balance, this does not provide a reasonable opposition to codification because the constitution would only prevent the government from taking action that is not in the best interest of the citizens and…

    • 1261 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    I think that the arguments of John Stuart Mill and Karl Marx ultimately fell short of this success because they used democracy to defend almost every point of their political doctrine and did not expand outside of this political school of thought like Hobbes and Rousseau. By failing to do this if you take away the defense of democracy to support their political doctrine then their works just become the opinions of men and their supposed utopias that they had wished to see enacted in the world instead of a concrete doctrine that if implemented could supposedly work in and even have the possibility of making society a better place. So ultimately it is in fact too easy to dismiss J.S. Mill and…

    • 1140 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Examples Of Free Republics

    • 1365 Words
    • 6 Pages

    They no longer had free governments, but now tyrannical ones. I am in strong opposition to the Constitution, specifically, Articles One and Two. In the proposed Constitution the government possesses absolute power. I believe that it gives Congress too much power, it takes power away from local governments, it gives the President (Executive Branch) too much power, and the representation needs to be changed, just to name a few. The central government under the Articles of Confederation was too weak, but the one that…

    • 1365 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Confidence In Congress

    • 1227 Words
    • 5 Pages

    People worry more on opinions than a background, and this is in my opinion why the government has issues with Presidents not protecting the interests of the people. The synopsis is Presidents should represent us, they should be stringently tested, but once they are in office they may be impeached; but they should be able to run the nation and do it unattested. The factors of what a President should be and the testing of his integrity and honor should come far before he reaches…

    • 1227 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays

Related Topics