Philosophical and Institutional Discrepancies in UN Treaty Regimes: The Case of Human Rights in Pakistan under EU Influence

What if the guardians of rights become their most relentless violators? This study investigated this critical question by examining the effectiveness of human rights treaty regimes as a potential remedy for such a situation, focusing on the EU-Pakistan dynamic. Despite Pakistan's commitment to UN treaties and bilateral agreements like the EU-Pakistan Cooperation Agreement and the 2019 Strategic Engagement Plan, it remains allegedly a significant violator of human rights. With the EU’s GSP + status under threat, the study explores why these treaties fail to ensure compliance. Using a theory-testing approach and grounded in elite interviews with academics, NGOS, legal experts, and state actors, reveals that allegedly abusive states like Pakistan eagerly ratify treaties for their incentives but falter in implementation due to philosophical and institutional discrepancies. The research tests Oona A. Hathaway’s integrated theory of international law , and findings highlight that treaty regimes alone are insufficient in altering state behaviour without congruent domestic institutional and philosophical alignment. These insights are crucial for understanding the limits of international law in third-world hybrid regimes and for refining strategies to enhance treaty effectiveness in states with entrenched abusive tendencies.