International treaties can influence state behavior even in an anarchic world system. The classic realist position argues that states will comply with international treaties only insofar as it is in their interest (Mearsheimer 1994). Chayes and Chayes (1993) counter the realist position with the observation that in the realm of security, economic, and environmental treaties, noncompliance is the aberration. States often go to extreme measures to appear compliant even if it would be in their best interests to
abrogate. Treaties, they argue, are the result of timely and well-considered negotiations that reflect how seriously states consider the terms. Compliance itself may also be in the best interest of the state. Noncompliance can threaten other agreements by making an administration appear untrustworthy. Even where states have no intention of following through with obligations, merely the act of signing can invigorate local and global civil society, putting pressure on leaders to improve human rights practices (Hafner-Burton and Tsutsui 2005). International norms derive from these treaties and other widely- accepted international agreements.
The power of international norms to shape state behavior is well-documented. Social pressures of inclusion and the desire to avoid being seen as a deviant member can be very strong. Japan originally resisted the international ban on ivory sales, for example, but relented “to avoid isolation in the international community” (Chayes and Chayes 1993: 201). Actors who fail to comply with such widely accepted norms and openly
flaunt abrogation risk near universal scorn and will be viewed with suspicion and treated as pariahs. Norms often become entrenched because they serve as external signals of good behavior (Hyde 2011). Election monitoring is now a prerequisite for democracy. Even the pseudo democrats feel pressured to allow observers in order to avoid the stigma that comes with being an autocrat.
Finnemore (1996) suggests that norms represent a change in the international system whereby IOs and NGOs provide states with direction concerning appropriateness of action. The case of global opinion against apartheid South Africa illustrates how norms can redefine national interests (Klotz 1995). Here, global sentiments about racial equality superseded strategic interests. Tannenwald (1999) demonstrates how the opposition to nuclear weapons is so high that since Hiroshima and Nagasaki no states have used them in aggression. This norm is so strong that deterrence often fails even against nonnuclear states because they know such weapons will not be used in retaliation. In effect, the options available to international actors have changed due to accepted norms. Thus, norms can constrain state behavior. Such effects should not be limited to state actors alone. In the next two sections, I demonstrate how non-state actors are also aware of many of the same signals that state actors are, and that these signals can alter behavior.
International relations can affect the behavior of groups in the run up to, and during, civil war (Thyne 2009). Governments and rebels alike are subject to international signals of support or disapproval. During the 1970s, presidential succession in the White House dramatically altered the likelihood of civil war in Nicaragua by changing the expectations of the actors. Under the Nixon administration, the rhetoric from the White House was that the US was firmly anti-communist. This had the effect of giving a free
pass to the Samoza regime to crack down on the Sandanista insurgents. United States foreign policy shifted under the Carter administration. The new rhetoric championed human and civil rights, and this sent hostile signals to the Samoza regime. Managua changed course and made moderate concessions. However, the Sandanistas used the signals from Washington to rally support against the repression of Samoza. Events unfolded rapidly and by 1979, Samoza succumbed to the rebellion and resigned his post.
Non-state actors are aware of international mood and change their behavior based on rational expectations about the international community. Such was the case in
evidence with Hutu extremists during the Rwandan Genocide. After the Battle of Mogadishu in Somalia 1994, the international community pulled out of the country virtually cutting off all aid to the region and letting the warlords have free reign over the civilian populations. This was tragic for Somalis, but it also sent a signal that the global conglomerate of would-be interveners did not have the appetite for sustained
humanitarian missions. This specific event was later cited by many Rwandan Interhamwe as a reason they did not fear international intervention to stop the Genocide. The
Interhamwe believed their actions would be ignored by world leaders reluctant to get involved in a local African conflict (Dallaire 2003: 240). Conversely, in another example, Kuperman (2008) finds evidence that Bosnian Muslims and Kosovars acted as a result of beliefs about the international community. In the dissolution of Yugoslavia, vulnerable groups attacked much stronger state institutions because they believed that it would provoke a harsh backlash by the government, but, more importantly, this response would promote international intervention on the side of the weaker party.
Non-state actors can be influenced by accepted norms in the similar ways as state actors. Bob (2005) finds that rebels are willing to alter their message, goals, and tactics to attract support from transnational NGOs. For example, the Zapatista separatists framed theirs as a movement against globalization rather than the initial fight for indigenous rights. Further, at least since September 11, terrorist tactics have severely hindered secessionists’ ability to rally international support for their cause (Hannum 2005: 69). Recent CIA accounts of Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) members struggling to balance the attention-grabbing acts of terror with the negative publicity that follows are, therefore, unsurprising (Coll 2005). Ultimately, the PLO reduced the intensity of their attacks because of the public-relations value of adopting less coercive tactics. If non-state actors are aware of the international enviornment and subject to the same signals of appropriateness, they are, in many ways, under the same social pressures as states.
Treaties can also serve as signals to non-state actors. The Conventions on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and the Optional Protocol (OPCAC) are just two of the most prominent documents of which non-state actors may be aware. Equally important are the monitoring programs of the Special Representative of the UN Secretary General and the various UN Security Council Resolutions addressing child soldiers. These include high profile indictments, such as Charles Taylor in 2006. Perhaps more telling, a number of rebel groups have indicated their commitments to these treaties. In 2007, the Karen National Liberation Army in Myanmar instituted recruitment ages in its "Deeds of Commitment." Both the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka and the SPLA in South Sudan made strong pledges of demobilizing their child soldiers throughout the 2000s. Further,
rebellions have even expressed explicit support for OPCAC, including the ONLF in Ethiopia and Hezbollah in Lebanon. They likely think this is important because child soldiering is condemned by numerous treaties and NGO forums.
Rebels operate in the same world system as state actors. The audience for treaty relations is not always those intended. Simmons (2010) suggests that even non-ratifiers may be internalized and practice norms contained in treaties (274). Just as rebellions change their message and behavior in seeking approval from NGOs, they can become both informed and emboldened by legitimizing effect of compliance with the
international human rights regime. However, this depends on the value they place on that external environment. Rebel leaders most concerned with social pressures are the ones likely to comply. As non-state actors, they are limited in their actions to appear compliant to international norms. There is no treaty to sign or convention to attend. Instead, they must actually demonstrate they are willing to act as the community acts. Therefore, child soldiers will be avoided by rebels wishing to signal a legitimate claim for statehood.