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

Philosophical and Institutional Discrepancies in UN Treaty Regimes: The Case of Human Rights in Pakistan under EU Influence | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Philosophical and Institutional Discrepancies in UN Treaty Regimes: The Case of Human Rights in Pakistan under EU Influence Fahad Abdullah This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-6538507/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract 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. UN Human Rights Treaty Regimes Philosophical Discrepancies Institutional Discrepancies Civil and Political Liberties State-Led Repression 1. Introduction Oona A. Hathaway, building her analysis on political science and legal scholarship, argues in her integrated theory of international law that states with poor human rights performance are just as likely, or even more likely, to sign treaties as countries with better records. Still, they are less likely to follow through on these obligations (Hathaway 2005 , 474). It has been widely discussed whether treaty regimes make a difference in improving the human rights conditions in Abusive states or not (Hathaway 2002 ; Cole 2015 ; Brown 2016 ). Through this deductive, semi-empirical qualitative study, the researcher tested Hathaway’s theory by analyzing to what extent the treaty regimes effectively improve the human rights conditions in allegedly Abusive states with a focus on Pakistan through its international commitments. The findings show that something is profoundly missing in the international human rights treaty regimes and their halfhearted implementation through national institutions; the research argues from the EU-Pakistan dynamics that the missing link is both at the philosophical and institutional levels. Allegedly, Pakistan keeps on abusing human rights even though it is aware that the GSP + Status and linked economic and non-economic incentives can be withdrawn (Escribà-Folch and Wright 2015 ). This study explained the same: Why is that so? As Donnelly asserted, the state is the principal violator and essential protector of human rights (Donnelly 1986 ). But what if the line between protection and violation blurs, making the state a perpetual violator? 1.1. Theoretical and Empirical Contextualization Pakistan has been a signatory to the UN-led International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) since June 23, 2010. However, there has been insufficient progress in protecting these rights. Additionally, Pakistan is engaged in several bilateral agreements and treaties, with the EU-Pakistan Cooperation Agreement being a notable example, overseen by the European External Action Service (EEAS). The bilateral relations are further reinforced by the Strategic Engagement Plan (SEP), established in 2019, which includes several cooperation areas, with a particular emphasis on promoting and protecting human rights. Within this framework, the Multi-annual Indicative Programmes have been developed. The MIP's Priority Area 3 (MIP 2021–2027) explicitly mandates improvements in human rights standards in Pakistan in alignment with international norms (EEAS, 2021 ). In December 2013, the European Commission granted Pakistan the EU's Generalized Scheme of Preferences Plus (GSP+) status. It is crucial to note that this status is contingent upon Pakistan's adherence to 27 international conventions outlined in the GSP + Regulation (Consult Appendix C for the list of conventions ratified by Pakistan for GSP Plus qualification). The GSP + offers extensive tariff reductions on imports to the EU from vulnerable developing nations, aiming to assist in poverty reduction, promote sustainable development, and encourage their integration into the global economy while also strengthening good governance. Countries like Pakistan, which qualify for GSP+, can export goods to the EU with zero duties on 66% of tariff lines (Malik, 2020). 1.2. Research Gap and Study Objectives Analytical research on human rights treaty performance, especially from the EU-Pakistan dynamics, is limited in Pakistan. The existing literature only provides descriptive accounts of the EU-Pakistan bilateral relations; thus, more analytical research was required, and this study attempted to do the same. The research comprehensively analyzes 27 conventions reinforced by the GSP + agreement, rather than focusing on a single right or treaty. The relationship between trade and human rights has been widely debated, with various scholars offering different perspectives (Alston 1982 ; Lim 2001 ; Cottier 2002 ; Hafner-Burton 2005 ; Abbott 2006 ). Srinivasan critiques the idea of linking trade policies with labor standards, arguing that this approach often serves protectionist interests and is not the most effective way to improve working conditions in developing countries (Srinivasan 1998 , 31). Similarly, Lang points out that the current trade and human rights literature is overly simplistic, failing to consider the complex ways in which trade regimes influence state behavior beyond mere regulation (Lang 2006 , 87). Chyzh introduces the idea that states with Abusive regimes can exploit indirect trade channels to enjoy the benefits of international trade without facing pressure to improve human rights, highlighting the inverse relationship between trade network embeddedness and human rights protection (Chyzh 2016 , 410). But this study contributes a new perspective by examining how hybrid or pseudo-democratic states, like Pakistan, navigate international human rights commitments differently from other states, while previous studies have primarily focused on either fully democratic or authoritarian regimes. Specifically, this research analyzed the EU-Pakistan dynamics in the context of Pakistan's GSP + status, which offers unique insights into the relationship between trade and human rights. This paper sheds light on how Pakistan balances the economic benefits of the GSP + with its often-questionable human rights practices, offering a fresh angle on the debate. This research fills the gap in two ways: first, it highlights the philosophical discrepancies involved in the treaty interpretation, and then documents their impact on treaty performance. Philosophical discrepancies refer to distinctions in how Pakistan views, philosophizes, interprets, or conceptualizes key aspects of the idea of human rights. The understanding of the philosophical discrepancies resolves the puzzle that why Pakistan is allegedly a primary human rights abuser in freedom of thought, conscience, religion, freedom of the press, ensuring civil liberties, and so on. Hence, it informs our analyses of why the treaties are not effective in their true spirit when executed through a national institutional framework. Second, it highlights the institutional discrepancies involved regarding the treaty implementation. The term institutional discrepancies refers to distinctions in how Pakistani institutions are structured and assembled differently in comparison to how they should be for successful treaty compliance. Discrepancies in institutional organization mean the imbalances in legal frameworks, financial resources, administrative structures, and operational methods. These institutional distinctions greatly impact the capacities and effectiveness in achieving their shared goals, in our case, it is protecting the established human rights of its masses. 1.3. Scholarly Contribution and Relevance of the Study This study not only tested Oona A. Hathaway’s integrated theory of international law but also contributed to the existing theoretical framework on treaty performance in Abusive states, particularly from EU-Pakistan dynamics (Hathaway 2002 ; Hathaway 2005 ; Hathaway 2007 ). This deductive research established that the more Abusive the state is towards its citizens (allegedly Pakistan), the more enthusiastic it is to reinforce the ratification of the human rights treaties (ICCPR and others) because of attached incentives (GSP + status) and hence faces profound challenges in treaty implementation because of the inherent philosophical and institutional discrepancies . This study is significant because it claims to produce generalizable findings and argues that they must be relevant to other abusive or low-performing states, generally in the context of UN-led treaty regimes and particularly for the low-performing states that are engaged in similar agreements as Pakistan is with the EU. This study was driven by a profound concern for the erosion of constitutional protections for fundamental rights in Pakistan, a concern that resonates deeply amidst the daily abuses that have been meticulously documented in numerous reports. The haunting question discussed in this study is: What if the guardians of these rights become their most relentless violators? While human rights treaty regimes hold promise as a potential remedy, the study argues that they grapple with formidable philosophical and institutional discrepancies. 2. Research Methodology Table 1 Summarizing all the methods in one collective view Method Details Research Philosophy Ontological Subjectivism Epistemological Constructivist-Interpretivism Theoretical Paradigm Interpretative Social Science (ISS) Data Collection Elite Interviewing Expert Sampling (a non-probability purposive sampling technique) Data Analysis Interview Transcription Using Descript Software Analyzing and Coding Through NVivo software Source: Developed by the researcher 2.1. Research Philosophy Given the nature of the research, the researcher has adopted a nominalist position in ontology and epistemology based on ontological subjectivism and an epistemological constructivist-interpretive approach (Djamba & Neuman, 2002). Nominalism is like looking at a rug and asking, ‘What is it?’ It asks what it is made of, how it was made, what it is used for, and how certain historical and cultural contexts have affected the way people use it. In ontology, nominalism denies the existence of objective, universal structures. It says that language and human perceptions are necessary for social phenomena to occur. In terms of epistemology, nominalists contend that there is no objective reality that exists apart from the creations of language and social norms. 2.2. Theoretical Paradigm and Perspective The researcher used the approach of interpretative social science (ISS) for this study. According to ISS, grasping social reality requires engaging in meaningful social action, which is defined as activities that have subjective significance (p.104). The interpretive approach accepts relativism and recognizes the varied contextual meanings of human rights in Pakistan (p.109). This approach's emphasis on understanding the subjective meaning of social and political life helped decode the particulars of the research questions, especially in contrasting the perspectives of allegedly Abusive states like Pakistan. 2.3. Methods of Data Collection & Analysis 2.3.1. Data Collection The researcher employed ‘elite interviewing’ as a method of data collection. This method used semi-structured interviews, which are typical for examining an elite group. Elite interviewing is recognized as a valuable approach, particularly when it is appropriate to treat respondents as experts on the subject (Burnham et al. 2008 , 231). This method proved useful in gathering data about decision-makers and decision-making processes related to treaty implementation. In terms of the interview protocol, the researcher created a questionnaire with two primary questions, each followed by four supplementary questions, to prepare for elite interviews (Refer to Appendix A to review the questionnaire used for interviewing elite respondents). Expert sampling—a non-probability purposive sampling technique—was strategically employed in this process. The researcher approached a diverse sample spread across three countries: Pakistan, the USA, and Belgium, representing the EEAS as the EU, to gain exclusive insights on the topic. Within Pakistan, the sample was collected from various cities depending on the availability of the interviewees, whether online or in person. A total of 15 elite interviews were conducted across multiple groups. The sample included 3 academics (represented as ACs), 5 members of civil society/NGOs (represented as CSOs), 4 international law experts (represented as ILEs), and 3 members of state institutions (represented as SIs), specifically from institutions relevant to international human rights treaties. Approximately 600 minutes of audio interviews were transcribed in total (For classification and detailed information on the interviewees, refer to Appendix D). This diverse sample enriched the research by providing a multidimensional perspective. ACs were chosen to offer insights on human rights treaty compliance due to their direct engagement with emerging research on the global human rights framework. CSOs were included because of their direct involvement in human rights project implementation on the ground and their strong connections with international bodies and local institutions. Given the legal-academic nature of the topic, it was crucial to involve ILEs for a technical-legal perspective on treaty performance. Finally, members of SIs were engaged to provide insider insights on treaty performance, as they are the primary agents responsible for treaty implementation. Through the methodical application of this purposive sampling technique, the researcher ensured that individuals selected for elite interviews possessed the necessary experience and understanding, thereby contributing a range of insightful perspectives to the research findings (Burnham et al. 2008 , 233). 2.3.2. Data Analysis After data collection, the next step was analyzing the data. Formal permission for audio recording was obtained from all interviewees, so all interviews were recorded and saved. The interviewees were numbered from 1 to 5 based on the quality of their interviews, such as for Academics, AC-1, AC-2, AC-3, and so on, for other groups. This numbering was based on the researcher's subjective judgment, considering several criteria: the interviewee's social position, number of publications, and communication throughout the interview process, from invitation to the actual interview. However, these factors were secondary. The most critical criteria were the interviewee's knowledge of the topic and the number of themes generated during the coding process in NVivo. This approach indicated that the interviewee provided diverse and non-repetitive insights, offering a broad range of points. Nearly all interviews were conducted in English, except for the second half of the CSO-5 interview, which was bilingual, primarily in English with some Urdu. For the analysis, NVivo, a premium software for qualitative data analysis, was used throughout the process. 3. Findings on Philosophical Discrepancies in Human Rights Interpretation This section summarizes the total number of themes that emerged for each participant interviewee group and elaborates on what these themes represent. The themes are analyzed across groups, highlighting each theme's similarities, differences, and dominant patterns (See Appendix B for the codebook and Appendix E for the numeric entries derived from NVivo analysis). 3.1. Factors Influencing Treaty Effectiveness There is a consensus among ACs and ILEs that the effectiveness largely depends on the domestic integration of these treaties. On the other hand, CSOs identify the character of the state as the dominant factor, while SIs focus on security concerns. These viewpoints highlight both systemic and situational elements that play significant roles. This perspective emphasizes how the state's religious and cultural identity shapes its policies and laws. In Pakistan, the character of the state as an Islamic Republic profoundly influences its approach to human rights, highlighting the significance of systemic and cultural factors. For SIs, security concerns can lead to restrictions on rights, such as freedom of expression, indicating that situational factors also play a crucial role in how human rights treaties are applied. 3.2. Economic Influence and Human Rights Practice A cross-group analysis of the findings shows that both academics (ACs) and civil society organizations (CSOs) concur that the GSP + status is taken for granted by Pakistan. It suggests that Pakistani officials perceive the threat of losing GSP + status as unlikely to materialize, thereby diminishing its potential impact as a lever for change. A CSO member highlights the ineffective use of the GSP + status to influence civil and political rights. On the other hand, ILEs and SIs have a different stance on the matter. ILEs argues that GSP + works as an effective external pressure tool while the GSP + status alone may not be a sufficient deterrent; its potential withdrawal, coupled with broader international scrutiny, could drive significant policy changes. The reluctance to carry out blasphemy executions, despite the law's existence, illustrates how external pressures can shape state behavior, even in the absence of robust internal mechanisms. 3.3. Normative Standards and Treaty Implementation The results show that academics do not have any consensus concerning the normative standards for treaty effectiveness. Based on one academic’s perspective, the perceived double standards of the Western world, particularly in its leniency towards Israel, reinforce the belief among Middle Eastern and Muslim-majority countries, like Pakistan, that human rights are being used as a political tool. While SIs suggest that human rights standards should be flexible. This perspective considers the socio-cultural realities on the ground and the practical difficulties in immediate compliance with high standards. Thus, setting excessively high standards may be unrealistic and lead to a backlash. Across more groups, the results show that ILEs advocate for maintaining high standards for human rights, while CSOs argue for the universality of human rights standards. Both groups emphasize the importance of treating human rights as non-negotiable and equal across different regions and states, including allegedly abusive ones. 3.4. Adoption and Internalization of Human Rights Norms The results indicate that CSOs have largely focused on the political economy of Pakistan, particularly the GSP Plus status with the EU. They argue that external pressure from international bodies and internal civil society advocacy can significantly contribute to the internalization of human rights norms. Furthermore, ILEs align with other groups on certain points discussed earlier. They argue that inherent benefits attached to treaty compliance will ultimately propel the process of norm internalization. Compliance also grants international legitimacy to Abusive countries, motivating them to adhere to international standards. Additionally, some ILEs advocate for a paradigm shift in the perception of human rights in Pakistan. They emphasize the importance of constitutional clarity on these rights, suggesting that integrating international norms into the constitution will significantly advance the internalization process. 4. Findings on Institutional Discrepancies in Human Rights Implementation This representation highlights significant patterns and trends among interviewee groups (See Appendix B for the codebook and Appendix E for the numeric entries derived from NVivo analysis). Structural Impediments to Treaty Compliance The findings reveal a clear consensus among International Law Experts (ILEs) and Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) regarding the institutional discrepancies hindering treaty performance. ILEs predominantly argue that the lack of internal integration of treaties is a significant obstacle, while CSOs emphasize bureaucratic inefficiencies, clerical legislation, and lapses in the criminal justice system as the primary hindrances. Moreover, the results reveal a lack of consensus between Academics (ACs) and State Institutions (SIs) regarding the primary factors hindering treaty implementation. Academics argue that there is a significant disregard for policy by the very institutions responsible for implementing treaties. They also highlight that external influence is often perceived as a breach of sovereignty, prompting the state to act independently and focus on outward-looking foreign policy, which creates additional obstacles. Furthermore, Academics point out the absence of institutional inclusivity among the entities involved in treaty implementation, suggesting that the lack of coordination and collaboration among these institutions impedes progress. In contrast, State Institutions emphasize different challenges, notably the lack of resources and the bureaucratic overlap among institutions. They argue that these factors significantly hinder effective treaty implementation. The overlap leads to confusion and inefficiency, as multiple institutions with similar mandates struggle to coordinate their efforts. Additionally, the scarcity of resources limits the capacity of these institutions to fulfil their responsibilities adequately. 4.1. Comparative Analysis of Institutional Frameworks The results indicate a consensus among ACs and CSOs that supranational institutions are likely to be ineffective for treaty implementation in Pakistan. They emphasize that greater grassroots involvement is essential for ensuring the effective performance of treaties. ILEs have emphasized that supranational institutions are more effective when it comes to treaty performance. SIs have largely emphasized issues of state sovereignty and the need for a shift towards strengthening local institutions. 4.2. Domestic Institutional Strength and Treaty Commitment In response to the question, all interviewee groups concur that domestic integration is the most significant step in advancing the discourse on domestic institutions and treaty signing, as highlighted by one academic: 4.3. Treaty Regimes and Domestic Legal Enhancements The results indicate that both ACs and CSOs concur on the normative role of treaties. In addition, CSOs emphasize two additional points. One is the role of treaties as constitutional derivatives International Law Experts (ILEs) and State Institutions (SIs) converge on the viewpoint that treaties serve as crucial benchmarks for assessing human rights progress, as one International Law Expert argues treaties function as a "yardstick" or "checklist" for evaluating compliance and performance over time. 5. Discussion and Analysis 5.1. Integrated Discussion on Philosophical Discrepancies Various supervisory agency reports highlighted the significant regional and national variations in treaty performance. Grounded in broader theoretical debates on universalism and cultural relativism, the following cluster analysis illustrates how philosophical discrepancies undermine the efficacy of treaty regimes (Refer to Appendix E for numeric tables generated from the NVivo matrix coding query) . Oona has argued that domestic enforcement of treaty obligations by national actors and institutions can play a crucial role in ensuring compliance with international legal commitments. However, in states lacking strong rule of law institutions, this reliance on domestic enforcement may result in problematic outcomes (Hathaway 2005 , 535). Building on this theoretical framework, the researcher contends that treaty compliance is significantly obstructed by philosophical discrepancies. Langlois has argued that claims to universality, without substantial consensual agreement, are vulnerable to questioning their universal validity. These claims might still be defensible within the context of specific cultural or human traditions, where normative universality can be consistently upheld. However, this form of universality cannot be effectively contested by those outside the tradition, leading to an unchallenged acceptance among its adherents (Langlois 2002 , 485). Concurring with Langlois's assertions, the researcher argues that when such universal moralities are enforced through treaties, it creates an asymmetry, as the lack of external challenge stalls the broader philosophical discourse. The findings show that a significant cultural disconnect exists with Pakistan, which often views human rights as a Western concept rather than a universal principle. This disconnect is exacerbated by a lack of political will among Pakistani ruling elites, who display indifference or reluctance to prioritize or effectively address human rights issues, reflecting a broader systemic problem. Additionally, resistance from clerical groups further complicates the situation. These groups often demand that human rights be interpreted through religious perspectives, aligning with their understanding of Islamic principles. This resistance is evident in contentious debates over child marriage, temple construction, blasphemy law reforms, and forced faith conversions, where these issues are framed as religious concerns rather than human rights violations. Moreover, the interplay between religious divergence with Western interference and domestic integration with double standards reveals a complex interaction between local and international human rights dynamics. Cultural and religious differences often lead to conflicts with Western human rights standards, which are perceived as politically motivated or selectively enforced. This aligns with de Búrca's human rights experimentalism theory, which also underscores these philosophical discrepancies. De Búrca contends that the absence of an authoritative body, such as a treaty body, that could standardize the interpretation and application of human rights norms across various local contexts, is both compatible with and necessary for experimentalism. However, this lack of hierarchical enforcement has faced significant criticism, with the discursive nature of the treaty body system often being a point of contention (De Búrca 2017 , 312). On top of that, conflictual respect of human rights when societies face severe human rights violations and variations of interpretations in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) are deeply intertwined, as evidenced by regional disparities and interpretative differences. Despite the African Union's rigorous approach to human rights amidst significant challenges, there are substantial variations in how different regions, such as Asia and the Americas, interpret and implement these rights. The UDHR's flexible nature, allowing for diverse interpretations and reservations, highlights these discrepancies, as different states adapt their principles based on their unique cultural, historical, and contextual factors. This results in asymmetrical application and respect for human rights globally. Recognizing this discrepancy raises the question of how it can be addressed. Cerna offers an answer by suggesting that the universal acceptance of international human rights norms is an ongoing process, with different norms at various stages along this continuum. She argues that change and acceptance must originate from within the region itself and cannot be effectively imposed by external forces (Cerna 1994 , 752). To further this, Corradetti contends that if relativist challenges were to prevail, the construction of a notion of public reason within democratic deliberative processes, particularly those concerning human rights, would become unfeasible (Corradetti 2009 , 78). This suggests that overcoming relativism is essential for meaningful discourse on human rights in democratic settings, and findings depict that Human rights education and moral relativism are interconnected, reflecting the challenges in aligning universal human rights standards with local practices and beliefs. While there is a growing urge by concerned circles to include human rights education in school curricula in Pakistan, this progress contrasts with persistent cultural relativism, where human rights are interpreted through local moral and cultural lenses. This divergence often leads to conflicts in the application of human rights principles, as seen in the differing conceptualizations of rights such as gender equality and freedom of speech across various regions. Considering these discrepancies, several contemporary human rights scholars have revisited the philosophical foundations of the human rights concept. As Leib has argued, while engaging with the assertions of Gearty that highlight the waning strength of these philosophical bases and emphasize the urgent need to establish a solid foundation for the future. Without a robust theoretical grounding, the concept of human rights risks being co-opted by ideas that diverge from its essence. To address this, the notion of 'compassion' is proposed as a new justification, replacing the religious and rational bases of the past. Compassion, viewed as a virtuous disposition, is suggested as a powerful means to frame and mobilize responses to suffering and atrocities (Leib 2011 , 42) The effectiveness of human rights treaties can be significantly influenced by economic incentives and disincentives. Cole argues that human rights treaty regimes lack direct mechanisms to enforce compliance, requiring external incentives from third parties like other states to influence behavior, which in the case of Pakistan is available in the form of GSP Plus (Cole 2012 , 1135). Insights from the interviewees suggest that this is partially true, as legislative reforms in Pakistan, driven by GSP Plus conditionalities, have led to significant legal changes, particularly in areas like transgender rights, violence against women, and forced conversions. This progress reflects the impact of consistent engagement with UN and EU mechanisms, which have pressured the parliament and cabinet to meet international standards. However, the potential withdrawal of GSP Plus would have a negative impact, as it would reduce the platform for dialogue and recommendations between Pakistan and EU bodies, thereby hindering further legislative improvements and human rights protection. Connecting these legislative reforms and their potential negative impacts to the character of the state reveals deeper complexities. Economically weaker states prioritize basic human rights such as affordable housing and healthcare, while economically stronger states focus more on civil and political rights, including free speech and gender equality. The withdrawal of GSP Plus would exacerbate these differences, as economic incentives play a crucial role in Pakistan's engagement with human rights improvements. This situation underscores the importance of understanding state character in the implementation of treaties and prioritization of human rights. Research on treaty ratification indicates that treaties have positively influenced states' attitudes toward their citizens' rights, leading to significant reductions in practices such as torture, religious restrictions, and child labor in many countries. This underscores the role of treaties in enhancing human rights protections globally.(Adewusi and Kocadal 2022, 25). However, when it comes to accountability, the findings reveal that Pakistan's ability to manipulate the international system and its strategic alliances significantly undermines human rights protections. By leveraging its geopolitical importance and placing sympathetic figures within key UN bodies, Pakistan effectively circumvents meaningful scrutiny and criticism. This manipulation is exacerbated by the EU's weak monitoring mechanisms and internal governance imbalances, which allow Pakistan to retain GSP Plus benefits despite serious human rights issues. This dynamic reveals a broader issue: Pakistan's perceived entitlement and strategic leverage lead to superficial compliance with human rights standards. The GSP Plus status is seen as a given rather than a conditional benefit, reflecting a broader disregard for genuine human rights improvements. The effectiveness of human rights treaties in allegedly Abusive states can be significantly influenced by the standards of norms that these treaties embody. High norm standards typically entail stringent human rights protections and robust enforcement mechanisms, while low norm standards may involve more lenient protections and weaker enforcement. For making sense of philosophical discrepancies, understanding the impact of these varying standards is crucial for assessing how human rights treaties perform in different contexts, considering the perceptions and observations of various stakeholders. The analysis reveals whether stringent norms serve as a stronger deterrent against human rights violations or if more flexible standards facilitate better compliance and adaptation in challenging environments. Local contexts significantly influence the application of human rights standards, as seen in the discussion about contextual standards and flexibility. High standards can be counterproductive when local practices and societal norms vary widely, such as in Pakistan, where traditional practices may clash with international norms. Flexibility in standards allows for adjustments that align with local realities, which can facilitate better implementation and acceptance of human rights measures. The adaptability of standards is crucial for reconciling international norms with domestic conditions. Effective human rights policies require a balance between maintaining high standards and accommodating local contexts, ensuring that implementations are practical and culturally sensitive. In a greater philosophical sense, it needs to be seen what Buchanan has emphasized that a comprehensive approach to human rights should ensure both the opportunity for all to lead a minimally good life and protection from being perceived as morally inferior. He suggests that a robust human rights theory must encompass both a concept of the good and a concept of the right, highlighting the dual aspects of well-being and moral equality (Buchanan 2010 , 708). On a related note, the distinction between high and universal human rights standards highlights a complex interplay between ideal aspirations and practical realities. High standards, often seen as ambitious, can potentially clash with local capacities and contexts. For instance, while high standards set by international norms are meant to guide states towards optimal human rights protections, their applicability can be challenging in environments with varying levels of institutional capacity and societal readiness, as highlighted by the interviewees. These high standards are discussed in local contexts. Proponents of the backsliding theory argue that setting lower standards may be more effective in improving human rights records, as stricter treaties are less likely to achieve meaningful progress. (Guzman and Linos 2014, 631). The trouble with this theorization is that the states with uniform behavior do not perform well in improving human rights records if high-performing states do not pertain to the pull-up effect and force high standards, so backsliding does not occur. On the same ground, theorists argue that tougher treaty regimes are important to at least maintain the minimum human rights standards. There are significant philosophical discrepancies in this norm internalization process. The findings indicate that political economy and political will significantly influence human rights implementation. Economic ties, such as the EU's GSP + status, can pressure states like Pakistan to reform laws (e.g., blasphemy laws) to retain economic benefits, showing how political decisions impact economic relations. Similarly, domestic integration and empowering the grassroots are deeply interconnected in shaping effective internal processes. The views expressed by the interviewees are consistent with the spiral model, where Shor stresses the interaction between internal and external forces for human rights change, which they suggest using a constructivist perspective. This concept highlights the importance of grassroots movements and international networks in promoting change and is included in their influential work known as the ‘boomerang effect.’ It explains how local movements exert external pressure on oppressive states with the support of foreign allies. Initially, this pressure leads to strategic concessions, but over time, it supports the internalization of universal norms, resulting in sustainable change (Shor 2008 , 121–122). Moving forward, the power of religious factions, often protected by influential local patrons, creates significant barriers to implementing human rights norms, as these groups can obstruct necessary reforms and undermine social cohesion. Concurrently, external pressure from international bodies, like trade incentives and diplomatic dialogue, acts as a catalyst for states to introduce reforms, albeit often in a superficial manner aimed at meeting international standards rather than a genuine commitment. Diverse tactics have been used in the field of human rights framework monitoring and enforcement methods to increase the effectiveness of the treaty regimes (Goodman and Jinks 2004, 687–698). They consist of disseminating best practices, keeping an eye on, and reporting violations, chastising offenders, and enforcing material sanctions and legally enforceable decisions. Scholars have suggested altering the current arrangements, such as boosting transnational adjudication or changing the institutional design of treaty organizations to resemble courts. These strategies vary in their efficacy, too, with some supporting more gentle methods and others advocating for aggressive ones like military intervention. Finally, civil society advocacy significantly drives the progress of human rights by exerting pressure on governments to comply with international treaties, as seen in the consistent push for legislative changes following treaty ratifications. This advocacy is complemented by vibrant watchdogs who play a crucial role in monitoring and ensuring the implementation of these rights, with their effectiveness directly linked to the strength and visibility of their role. The interaction between advocacy efforts and watchdog activities ensures that human rights standards are not only adopted but actively enforced and maintained. 5.2. Integrated Discussion on Institutional Discrepancies The interplay between external influence and the impact of foreign policy reveals how the EU's foreign policy, particularly its neighborhood policies, exerts influence on the internal enforcement of human rights rules in other states. This influence is not just about imposing standards but also about convincing other states to internalize these norms, although the success of this approach often depends on the methods used, whether persuasive or coercive, which can lead to varying levels of effectiveness. When it comes to supranational effectiveness, institutional discrepancies are evident, as highlighted by the findings and supported by the broader theoretical framework. Éva’s stance also confirms these institutional discrepancies that Europe had autonomous individuals who democratically identified themselves with the multilevel supranational identity in terms of culture, economics, and politics, which is a unique phenomenon in the whole world. On the contrary, the idea of ‘South Asian Identity’ is still vague; it lacks the greater myth, the common story, unlike Europe. Some consider South Asia a foreign term invented by European and North American residents to group the South Asian states, so for them, no organic South Asian identity exists (Bóka 2012 , 395). Institutional inclusivity, the degree to which various state institutions, such as the legislative, executive, and judiciary, are involved in these processes, is crucial. The more these institutions are integrated into the dialogue and enforcement mechanisms, the more likely it is that external influences, like those from the EU, will be internalized effectively, leading to a richer and more sustainable integration of human rights norms. This inclusivity ensures that the impact of foreign policy is not merely superficial but contributes to lasting institutional change. Moving forward, the arbitrary implementation of treaties by nation-states reflects a broader issue where decisions about treaty participation and compliance are often made based on convenience rather than a systematic approach, highlighting the challenges these states face in maintaining consistent and transparent international commitments. This erratic behavior is symptomatic of deeper nation-state challenges, where the legitimacy and functionality of the nation-state itself are questioned, leading to inconsistent engagement with international norms and agreements. This arbitrary approach and the inherent challenges of the nation-state are further complicated by bureaucratic overlap, where multiple institutions with overlapping mandates create inefficiencies and confusion. The proliferation of commissions and departments, often without clear coordination, exacerbates the problem, leading to a fragmented and ineffective implementation of human rights obligations. Expanding on that, the lack of streamlined, autonomous institutions hinders the consistent enforcement of international treaties, making the system more prone to arbitrary decisions and undermining the overall efficacy of human rights protections. Alongside this, it is important to note that the EU is integrated along two axes, as reflected in this dual supervision mechanism: supranational governance that goes beyond national sovereignty and intergovernmental collaboration among sovereign nations. The Council's decision-making process is still intergovernmental, but as integration has grown, qualified majority voting has been implemented in several areas, partially offsetting the loss of national parliamentary oversight with the EP's expanded authority (Hoon, 2019, p. 5). This shows a strong system of supranational supervision over member nations in the EU, something that is absent from groups such as SAARC, of which Pakistan is a member. Based on this, the researcher argues that the human rights treaty regimes within SAARC are ineffectual because of this institutional discrepancy. Responses from the interviewees also confirm that corporate accountability in Pakistan, especially concerning human rights standards within industries, faces significant challenges due to the lack of resources. While there is a push for legal frameworks to enforce corporate responsibility, the financial and human resource constraints make it difficult to implement and monitor these standards effectively. This resource scarcity hinders the development of mechanisms necessary for ensuring that corporations comply with international human rights obligations, thereby limiting the impact of corporate accountability measures. Schmidt argues that federal states have seen fewer changes due to European integration than unitary states. This is mainly because of the existence of semi-autonomous subnational authorities and the division of powers as stipulated by the constitution; these have been further strengthened by European institutional frameworks and capabilities. To adjust to European integration, federal states such as Germany have made sure that national and subnational authorities continue to play a crucial role in the integration process. As such, the changes resulting from European integration do not pose a major threat to national concepts of combined representation and joint responsibility. Furthermore, the notions of compounded representation and shared accountability at both levels of governance are reinforced by the alignment of these national principles with analogous EU-based conceptions of democratic legitimacy (Schmidt 1999 , 43). In the context of Pakistan, Schmidt’s argument is further established by the perspectives offered by the interviewees, where accessibility issues and disregard for policy are interconnected, as poor accessibility to legal remedies often exacerbates the disregard for existing laws. When policies and legal mechanisms are difficult to reach or poorly implemented at the local level, it leads to a greater tendency for state actors to ignore these regulations. The lack of effective local enforcement and the challenges in accessing international remedies reinforce the tendency of authorities to bypass or neglect their own policies, compounding the overall inefficacy of the legal system. Moreover, there are key institutional discrepancies that hinder success. Dhaliwal argues that the real issue is not between regionalism and universalism but rather regionalism within a universal framework. It is further contended that while fundamental human rights should be universally respected, it is important to recognize that cultures have their own institutional mechanisms for promoting and protecting these rights (Dhaliwal 2011 , 638). But in contrast to Dhaliwal’s assertions, the interviewee's insights reveal that local institutional shifts, such as resistance due to sovereignty concerns and ineffective administrative structures, often hinder human rights progress. Meanwhile, supranational effectiveness, exemplified by well-functioning regional structures like the Inter-American Court and the EU's human rights jurisprudence, enhances enforcement and scrutiny. The interlinking factor is the necessity for robust local systems to effectively integrate and benefit from supranational mechanisms, as ineffective local institutions limit the impact of international oversight and support. In contrast to the EU, Singh notes that the competition between India and Pakistan in South Asia, which has its roots in national identity quests, colonial legacies, and inadequate control mechanisms, encompasses a range of contentious issues. These include lingering colonial effects, ideological and political disagreements, strategic confrontations, spillovers from internal unrest, and resource-related tensions. Broader cooperation is hampered by India's political difficulties and regional supremacy (Singh 2009 , 246–247). The assertions from the interviewees align with Singh's assertions and confirm the existence of institutional asymmetries, particularly in the context of Pakistan, where political will significantly influences the ability of a government to address human rights challenges effectively, often justifying inaction through sovereignty issues. Sovereignty concerns, such as reluctance to accept supranational oversight or restrictions on international cooperation, can be used to deflect from implementing necessary changes. The interplay between political commitment and sovereignty underscores how genuine efforts to improve human rights can be hampered by a prioritization of national autonomy over international obligations and reforms. Oona notes that the direct effect of ratification on state action was frequently highlighted in earlier evaluations of treaty compliance. According to rationalists, compliance happens when actions support domestic, geopolitical, or reputational national interests. The persuasive force of legal responsibilities is given precedence above self-interest by normative researchers. They fail to see, nevertheless, how ratification conveys a state's obligations to other parties. Further, her study contends that acknowledging the two functions of human rights treaties—creating legally enforceable norms and articulating official positions—is essential to comprehend the relationship between ratification and practices. This paradigm clarifies contradictory tendencies in human rights interactions and offers fresh insights into compliance models (Hathaway 2002 , 2002 ). However, in the context of Pakistan, the insights from data show that cultural resistance often stems from viewing human rights as a foreign concept, hindering local acceptance and integration of these principles. This resistance is compounded by a lack of educational foundation in human rights, as the absence of comprehensive civic education perpetuates ignorance and undermines efforts to instill these values from a young age. This interplay between cultural resistance and inadequate education is influenced by hybrid state dynamics, where military and authoritarian elements disrupt the development of a robust civic framework. The state's hybrid nature reinforces both cultural resistance and educational deficiencies, perpetuating a cycle that obstructs meaningful human rights progress and integration. Moving forward, the findings indicate that economic considerations often drive states like Pakistan to sign treaties, especially when linked to tangible benefits such as financial incentives or trade advantages, and this confirms the initial assertions made by Oona in her integrated theory (Hathaway 2002 ; Hathaway 2005 ; Hathaway 2007 ). This external reliance is evident as countries may sign agreements primarily to meet conditions for economic support or trade status, rather than a genuine commitment to the treaty's principles. This reliance on external incentives and economic considerations affects the pursuit of good governance, as states may prioritize compliance with international standards only to achieve specific economic gains. Thus, the pursuit of good governance is often influenced by these economic motivations, which may overshadow genuine efforts towards public accountability and institutional integrity. Expanding on that, robust democracies often drive international human rights agendas and are more likely to be vocal about human rights commitments. However, their actions on the global stage are also shaped by geopolitical considerations, where the interplay of international trade and political interests influences their approach to treaty commitments and human rights advocacy. This dynamic reflects how democratic values and geopolitical strategies converge to shape a state's international behavior. Alongside this, diplomatic engagement often provides countries with opportunities for institutional recognition and technical benefits, such as training and accreditation. By participating in international mechanisms, states not only enhance their diplomatic relations but also gain access to resources and support that bolster their institutional standing and capacity. In addition, states often justify deviations from international norms through exceptionalism, asserting unique conditions or historical contexts as reasons for their actions. This subjective approach allows for flexibility in adherence to international standards, accommodating varying interpretations and justifications while maintaining a façade of compliance. Lastly, all interviewee groups agreed that treaties should exist, although they differed on how these treaties affect domestic legal enforcement mechanisms in allegedly Abusive states like Pakistan. Constructivists argue that international institutions play an essential role in disseminating global norms, emphasizing the significance of normative discourse within these institutions. However, it is crucial to recognize that these institutions are not merely external forces; they are deliberately created by states, with some influence from interest groups and corporations (Koremenos et al. 2001 , 762). This perspective highlights the dual nature of international institutions as both norm promoters and entities shaped by the very states they aim to influence. The insights from the data concur with constructivist assertions and show that moderation processes within international forums help balance political interests, allowing for a degree of relative equality and adherence to legal standards. These processes are complemented by the normative role of international treaties, which set standards and provide benchmarks for local and international actors to strive towards, thus influencing domestic policy and international diplomacy. This interplay ensures that even as political dynamics shape treaty implementation, the normative frameworks continue to guide and inspire global and local practices. Taking this further, Dai observes that the influence of International Human Rights Institutions (IHRIs) largely depends on the engagement and actions of domestic stakeholders. Their effectiveness is tied to how well these stakeholders resonate with IHRIs, utilize them, and leverage their support in interactions with governments. Essentially, IHRIs serve as tools, and their impact is contingent on the ability of local actors, such as human rights activists, to use them strategically. IHRIs do not directly alter state policies or behaviors; instead, their success depends on whether these stakeholders can translate institutional support into tangible human rights improvements. This process is complex, varies across countries, and is not guaranteed to produce consistent results (Dai 2014 , 589). The assertions of the interviewees also indicate that international treaties shape constitutional provisions by providing foundational principles that influence the drafting of laws and frameworks, which then impact judicial decisions. These decisions often reference both domestic and international standards, showing how constitutional derivatives drawn from global norms inform the judiciary’s interpretation and application of the law. 6. Conclusion This study critically examined a fundamental question in state behavior: What happens when the very guardians of human rights become their most relentless violators? Recognizing human rights treaty regimes as a potential remedy for such situations, this research evaluated the performance of 27 UN-led human rights treaties. The study employed the European Union (EU), recognizing its role as an additional external check alongside the United Nations (UN). Consequently, the research did not engage with Pakistan's direct reporting to the UN but rather focused on its interactions with the EU. This study deliberately refrained from concentrating on a specific human right, individual treaty, or the Abusive behavior of the state towards groups, such as minorities. Instead, it provided a comprehensive analysis of the 27 human rights covenants that are reinforced following the grant of GSP Plus status, as outlined in the GSP Plus protocol. This broader approach allowed for a more holistic understanding of how these treaties collectively impact the protection and promotion of human rights in Pakistan under the EU's oversight. The study employed a deductive approach within the Interpretative Social Science (ISS) paradigm, grounded in ontological subjectivism and constructivist-interpretivism. Primary data was gathered through elite interviews with 15 key stakeholders, analyzed using NVivo for systematic coding and various visualizations, such as bar charts, radar charts, and cluster analysis. This methodological framework ensured a comprehensive exploration of the complexities surrounding UN-led human rights treaties in Abusive contexts. Given Pakistan's poor performance in treaty compliance, this research sought to examine two key themes that might explain this outcome: philosophical discrepancies and institutional discrepancies. The study was guided by two primary research questions, the first of which explored how philosophical discrepancies impact the performance of human rights treaty regimes. These discrepancies, referring to divergences in the understanding and application of human rights, were analyzed to understand their influence on the implementation of UN-led human rights treaties. Moreover, this research critically examined the role of institutional discrepancies—variations in the evolution and structural design of institutional mechanisms—in shaping the implementation and efficacy of UN-led human rights treaties in allegedly Abusive states, particularly focusing on Pakistan. The integrated findings on philosophical discrepancies in the interpretation of UN-led human rights treaties in Pakistan are deeply intertwined with the broader theoretical lenses of universalism, cultural relativism, backsliding, and the spiral model. The tension between universalism and cultural relativism is particularly evident in how Pakistan navigates the application of human rights. Universalism advocates for a consistent application of human rights across all cultures, yet the findings reveal that Pakistan’s approach is heavily influenced by cultural and religious norms, aligning more closely with cultural relativism. The strong resistance from the clergy, the government's deflection of accountability, and the selective enforcement of rights underscore the country's reluctance to fully embrace a universalist perspective. These discrepancies highlight the fundamental clash between the imposition of universal human rights standards and Pakistan's culturally rooted interpretations, which challenge the uniform application of these norms. The findings also align with the theory of backsliding, particularly in the context of economic incentives like the GSP + status. While such incentives have led to some progress in human rights practices, the underlying philosophical discrepancies rooted in conservative and religious values limit their long-term impact. The progress achieved is fragile and often superficial, with Pakistan exhibiting a pattern of regression or resistance once external pressures wane. This mirrors the concept of backsliding, where initial compliance driven by external factors does not translate into lasting commitment, revealing the state's ambivalence towards fully internalizing human rights norms. Furthermore, the findings resonate with the spiral model, which describes the process through which Abusive states can gradually move towards greater compliance with international human rights norms. In Pakistan’s case, while external pressures and incentives have led to some tactical concessions, the deep-seated philosophical discrepancies hinder further progression. The resistance from religious and cultural institutions, coupled with selective rights enforcement and a lack of political will, suggests that Pakistan remains in the early stages of this spiral, where compliance is more performative than substantive. The study highlights that without addressing these philosophical discrepancies, the transition towards genuine internalization of human rights norms, as outlined in the spiral model, remains elusive. Collectively, the findings underscore how philosophical discrepancies—manifested through cultural relativism, conservative values, and ideological resistance—pose significant challenges to the universal application and effective implementation of human rights treaties in Pakistan. These discrepancies not only limit the efficacy of external incentives and pressures but also contribute to the state’s hesitancy to fully internalize and embrace international human rights norms. The study thus provides a nuanced understanding of how deeply ingrained cultural and ideological differences can hinder progress and perpetuate a cycle of superficial compliance and backsliding, with broader implications for the global human rights regime. Furthermore, the integrated findings of the study reveal significant institutional discrepancies in the implementation of UN-led human rights treaties within Pakistan, reflecting broader challenges faced by allegedly Abusive states. Pakistan's institutional framework is marked by a lack of accessibility, bureaucratic inefficiencies, and a complex overlap between federal and provincial human rights bodies. These issues hinder the effective implementation of human rights treaties, demonstrating the critical gaps in institutional capacity. The arbitrary behavior of the state in treaty signing and implementation, characterized by minimal parliamentary consultation and public transparency, further exacerbates these discrepancies. This arbitrary approach underscores the state's selective compliance with international norms, driven more by external pressures than by genuine internal commitment. Clerical legislation and religious influence within the legislative process pose additional challenges, impeding the domestication of international human rights instruments. This conservative interpretation of human rights is a direct result of Pakistan's institutionalized power struggles, where competing factions prioritize their interests over the public good. The lack of democratic accountability and disregard for policy, where authorities neglect their own laws and regulations, also reflect the systemic weaknesses that undermine the efficacy of human rights implementation. In linking these findings to the broader theoretical frameworks, the theories of supranationalism and moral nationalism provide valuable insights. Supranationalism, which emphasizes the importance of strong, multi-level governance structures like those within the EU, contrasts sharply with Pakistan’s fragmented and overlapping institutions. The lack of a coherent, unified approach to human rights implementation reflects the difficulties in adopting supranational principles within a nation-state framework that is heavily influenced by moral nationalism. This nationalism prioritizes sovereignty and cultural identity over external human rights standards, leading to institutional discrepancies that hinder the effective implementation of international treaties. Moreover, Oona Hathaway's integrated theory of international law offers a lens through which to understand the limitations of international human rights treaties in altering state behavior. While these treaties provide a crucial framework for promoting human rights, their impact is contingent upon domestic institutions' ability to internalize and enforce these norms. In Pakistan, the findings suggest that while international treaties have influenced judicial decisions and legislative transformations, their integration into domestic law remains inconsistent. This inconsistency reflects the broader institutional discrepancies where domestic enforcement mechanisms are often weak, under-resourced, and subject to external influences. Overall, the study underscores those institutional discrepancies in Pakistan are deeply embedded within its legal and political structures, reflecting broader challenges in the global implementation of human rights treaties. The findings suggest that without addressing these foundational institutional weaknesses, the efficacy of UN-led human rights treaties will remain limited, and the broader goals of international human rights law will be difficult to achieve in Abusive states like Pakistan. This analysis highlights the need for a more nuanced approach that considers both the external pressures of supranational governance and the internal dynamics of moral nationalism and domestic institutional capacity. 6.1. Practical Implications of The Study The study’s implications extend to a range of stakeholders, including policymakers, international legal scholars, and practitioners involved in human rights advocacy and treaty implementation. For policymakers, particularly within the EU and Abusive states, these findings suggest a need for a more nuanced approach to the enforcement and internalization of international human rights norms. The study reveals that the imposition of external human rights standards without sufficient consideration of domestic institutional capacities and cultural contexts leads to significant implementation challenges. Policymakers in allegedly abusive states like Pakistan should focus on strengthening domestic institutions, ensuring that they are not only capable of implementing international treaties but also align with local cultural and political realities. This requires a shift from a top-down approach to one that is more inclusive of domestic stakeholders, ensuring that human rights norms are domesticated in a manner that is both effective and culturally sensitive. Additionally, international organizations and institutions, including the UN and the EU, must recognize the limitations of their current strategies. The study suggests that international law and its institutions must evolve to address the complex realities of Abusive states, where institutional capacity and political will often fall short of the standards required for effective human rights implementation. A potential policy implication is the need for international bodies to provide tailored support to Abusive states, focusing on capacity building and the development of robust, context-specific implementation mechanisms. This may involve providing technical assistance, fostering greater collaboration between international and domestic institutions, and promoting legal reforms that are both internationally aligned and locally grounded. For researchers and scholars, this study highlights the importance of further investigation into the interplay between international human rights norms and domestic legal systems. The findings suggest that a more granular understanding of institutional and philosophical discrepancies is necessary to develop more effective strategies for human rights advocacy and treaty enforcement. Researchers should focus on exploring alternative frameworks that might better accommodate the unique challenges faced by Abusive states, possibly drawing on interdisciplinary approaches that integrate insights from political science, law, and cultural studies. Stakeholders, including civil society organizations and human rights practitioners, can benefit from these findings by advocating for reforms that address both the philosophical and institutional barriers to human rights implementation. These stakeholders should work to bridge the gap between international norms and domestic practices, promoting greater awareness and understanding of human rights within local communities and institutions. By fostering a more bottom-up approach to human rights advocacy, they can help ensure that international treaties are not only signed and ratified but also meaningfully implemented on the ground. In summary, while this study was not solution-oriented, its findings have significant implications for the efficacy of UN-led human rights treaties. The identified philosophical and institutional discrepancies highlight the need for a more context-sensitive approach to human rights implementation, one that acknowledges the complexities of Abusive states and seeks to address them through tailored locally-informed strategies. By focusing on the root causes of these discrepancies, policymakers, international institutions, and stakeholders can work towards more effective and sustainable human rights outcomes. 6.2. Limitations The study's nature limits the generalizability of the findings, as it was semi-empirical qualitative research focused on understanding contextual hindrances in treaty performance with specific reference to Pakistan. While this approach provided in-depth insights, it inherently lacks the broader applicability found in quantitative studies, such as Oona Hathaway’s integrated theory of international law , which offers more generalizable conclusions. Furthermore, the sample size in this study was not comprehensive, with unequal representation among the groups: 3 academics, 4 international law experts, 5 civil society/NGO members, and 3 state institution representatives. This imbalance in representation poses a limitation to the study's comprehensiveness. Regarding the sample of state institutions, the researcher encountered significant challenges. Numerous institutions were contacted, but the majority did not respond. This reflects a broader issue of communication disconnect between citizens and state institutions in Pakistan, particularly in the context of the underutilization of email as a communication tool. The researcher also engaged with officials from the Ministry of Human Rights (MOHR) in Punjab (Lahore), but they were inadequately prepared to address the questionnaire. 6.3. Paper Contribution The relationship between trade and human rights has been the subject of extensive debate, with various scholars offering differing viewpoints. Previous studies have critiqued the linkage of trade policies with labor standards, arguing that such connections often serve protectionist interests rather than genuinely improving working conditions in developing countries. Additionally, the existing literature has been criticized for oversimplifying the complex interactions between trade regimes and state behavior, failing to capture the nuanced ways in which trade can influence human rights practices beyond mere regulatory frameworks. Moreover, it has been suggested that Abusive regimes can exploit indirect trade channels to reap the benefits of international trade without facing significant pressure to improve their human rights records. This study contributes a novel perspective by focusing on how hybrid or pseudo-democratic states, like Pakistan, navigate international human rights commitments differently compared to fully democratic or authoritarian regimes. Previous research has largely concentrated on the dichotomy between democracies and authoritarian states, leaving a gap in understanding the unique dynamics of states like Pakistan. This research specifically analyzed the EU-Pakistan relationship within the context of Pakistan's Generalized System of Preferences Plus (GSP+) status, offering unique insights into the intersection of trade and human rights in such settings. By exploring how Pakistan balances the economic incentives of GSP + with its often-problematic human rights practices, this study provides a fresh angle on the ongoing debate, highlighting the complexities and contradictions that arise in these hybrid regimes. Furthermore, this study extends the theoretical discourse on treaty performance, particularly by engaging with and contributing to Oona’s integrated theory of international law . While previous studies have tested this theory in various contexts, this research offers a unique contribution by applying it to the EU-Pakistan dynamics. The findings suggest that allegedly Abusive states like Pakistan, despite their poor human rights records, may exhibit a paradoxical enthusiasm for ratifying international human rights treaties due to the economic incentives attached, such as those provided by GSP+. However, this enthusiasm is undermined by profound challenges in implementing these treaties, stemming from inherent philosophical and institutional discrepancies. This study argues that these findings are not only relevant to Pakistan but could be generalizable to other Abusive or low-performing states engaged in similar international agreements. The research was driven by a deep concern for the erosion of constitutional protections for fundamental rights in Pakistan, raising the troubling question of what happens when the very institutions meant to protect these rights become their most determined violators .? While international human rights treaty regimes hold promise, this study highlights the significant philosophical and institutional challenges they face, particularly in Abusive states. Declarations Funding: The author did not receive any financial support from any funding agency, institution, or organization for this article's research, authorship, or publication. Author Contribution F.A. designed the study, conducted the interviews, performed the data analysis, and drafted and revised the manuscript. F.A. approves the final version of the manuscript. Acknowledgement The author would like to thank Dr. Muhammad Younis for his valuable academic guidance and feedback during the early stages of this research. Appreciation is also extended to Dr. Mudassir Farooqi and Dr. Abeeda Qureshi for their insightful suggestions, particularly in shaping the research methodology at its initial stages. All remaining errors are the sole responsibility of the author. References Abbott, Frederick M. 2006. International trade and human rights: foundations and conceptual issues . Vol. 5. University of Michigan Press. Adewusi, Emmanuel Oluwatosin, and Özker Kocadal. 2022. A Comparative Analysis of Human Rights Protection in European Union and African Union Countries: An fsQCA Approach. Uluslararası İlişkiler / International Relations 19. Uluslararası İlişkiler Konseyi İktisadi İşletmesi: 23–44. Amnesty International. 2022/23. The State of the World’s Human Rights . London: Amnesty International Ltd. https://doi.org/978-0-86210-502-0. Alston, Philip. 1982. International trade as an instrument of positive human rights policy. Hum. Rts. Q. 4. HeinOnline: 155. Bóka, Éva. 2012. The European Idea of a Supranational Union of Peace. Society and Economy 34. Akadémiai Kiadó: 387–397. Brown, Gordon, ed. 2016. 6. Implementation of Human Rights. In The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the 21st Century: A Living Document in a Changing World , 81–104. Open Book Publishers. https://doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0091.11. Buchanan, Allen. 2010. The Egalitarianism of Human Rights. Ethics 120. The University of Chicago Press: 679–710. https://doi.org/10.1086/653433. Burnham, Peter, Karin Gilland Lutz, Wyn Grant, and Zig Layton-Henry. 2008. Research Methods in Politics . London: Macmillan Education UK. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-230-36556-8. Cerna, Christina M. 1994. Universality of Human Rights and Cultural Diversity: Implementation of Human Rights in Different Socio-Cultural Contexts. Human Rights Quarterly 16. Johns Hopkins University Press: 740–752. https://doi.org/10.2307/762567. Chyzh, Olga. 2016. Dangerous liaisons: An endogenous model of international trade and human rights. Journal of Peace Research 53. SAGE Publications Sage UK: London, England: 409–423. Cole, Wade M. 2012. Human Rights as Myth and Ceremony? Reevaluating the Effectiveness of Human Rights Treaties, 1981–2007. American Journal of Sociology 117: 1131–1171. https://doi.org/10.1086/662706. Cole, Wade M. 2015. Mind the Gap: State Capacity and the Implementation of Human Rights Treaties. International Organization 69: 405–441. https://doi.org/10.1017/S002081831400040X. Corradetti, Claudio. 2009. Relativism and Human Rights . Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9986-1. Cottier, Thomas. 2002. Trade and Human Rights: a relationship to discover. J. Int’l Econ. L. 5. HeinOnline: 111. Dai, Xinyuan. 2014. The Conditional Effects of International Human Rights Institutions. Human Rights Quarterly 36. The Johns Hopkins University Press: 569–589. De Búrca, Gráinne. 2017. Human Rights Experimentalism. American Journal of International Law 111: 277–316. https://doi.org/10.1017/ajil.2016.16. Dhaliwal, Shveta. 2011. CULTURAL RELATIVISM : Relevance to Universal and Regional Human Rights Monitoring. The Indian Journal of Political Science 72. Indian Political Science Association: 635–640. Djamba, Yanyi K., and W. Lawrence Neuman. 2002. Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Teaching Sociology 30: 380. https://doi.org/10.2307/3211488. Donnelly, Jack. 1986. International human rights: a regime analysis. International Organization 40: 599–642. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818300027296. EEAS. 2021. "Multi-Annual Indicative Programme (MIP) 2021–2027." European External Action Service (EEAS). Accessed February 13, 2024. https://ec.europa.eu Escribà-Folch, Abel, and Joseph Wright. 2015. Human Rights Prosecutions and Autocratic Survival. International Organization 69: 343–373. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818314000484. Goodman, Ryan, and Derek Jinks. 2004. How to Influence States: Socialization and International Human Rights Law. Duke Law Journal 54. Duke University School of Law: 621–703. Guzman, Andrew T., and Katerina Linos. 2014. Human Rights Backsliding. California Law Review 102. California Law Review, Inc.: 603–654. Hafner-Burton, Emilie M. 2005. Trading Human Rights: How Preferential Trade Agreements Influence Government Repression. International Organization 59. [MIT Press, University of Wisconsin Press, Cambridge University Press, International Organization Foundation]: 593–629. Hathaway, Oona A. 2002. Do Human Rights Treaties Make a Difference? The Yale Law Journal 111. The Yale Law Journal Company, Inc.: 1935–2042. https://doi.org/10.2307/797642. Hathaway, Oona A. 2005. Between Power and Principle: An Integrated Theory of International Law. The University of Chicago Law Review 72. University of Chicago Law Review: 469–536. Hathaway, Oona A. 2007. Why Do Countries Commit to Human Rights Treaties? The Journal of Conflict Resolution 51. Sage Publications, Inc.: 588–621. Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP). 2023. Mob-led Destruction of Churches in Jaranwala, Punjab . Lahore: HRCP. Accessed November 15, 2023. Human Rights Watch (HRW). 2023. Human Rights World Report . New York: Human Rights Watch. Accessed November 19, 2023. Koremenos, Barbara, Charles Lipson, and Duncan Snidal. 2001. The rational design of international institutions. International organization 55. Cambridge University Press: 761–799. Lang, Andrew TF. 2006. Re-thinking trade and human rights. Tul. J. Int’l & Comp. L. 15. HeinOnline: 335. Langlois, Anthony J. 2002. Human Rights: The Globalisation and Fragmentation of Moral Discourse. Review of International Studies 28. Cambridge University Press: 479–496. Leib, Linda Hajjar. 2011. An Overview of the Characteristics and Controversies of Human Rights. In Human Rights and the Environment , 41–68. Philosophical, Theoretical and Legal Perspectives. Brill. Lim, Hoe. 2001. Trade and Human Rights What’s at Issue? Journal of World Trade 35. Ministry of Human Rights (MOHR). 2016. Action Plan for Human Rights . Islamabad: Ministry of Human Rights, Pakistan. Accessed February 13, 2023. Ministry of Human Rights (MOHR). 2019. Action Plan Against Religious Persecutions . Islamabad: Ministry of Human Rights, Pakistan. Accessed February 13, 2023. Schmidt, Vivien A. 1999. European “Federalism” and Its Encroachments on National Institutions. Publius 29. [CSF Associates Inc., Oxford University Press]: 19–44. Shahroo Malik. 2020. EU-Pakistan Trade Relations: The Role of GSP Plus Status and Pakistan’s Enhanced Access to EU Markets. Strategic Studies 40: 20–38. https://doi.org/10.53532/ss.040.01.0084. Shor, Eran. 2008. Conflict, Terrorism, and the Socialization of Human Rights Norms: The Spiral Model Revisited. Social Problems 55. [Oxford University Press, Society for the Study of Social Problems]: 117–138. https://doi.org/10.1525/sp.2008.55.1.117. Singh, Rajkumar. 2009. Relevance of Saarc in South Asian Context. The Indian Journal of Political Science 70. Indian Political Science Association: 239–248. Srinivasan, Thirukodikaval N. 1998. Trade and human rights. Constituent interests and US trade policies 1. University of Michigan Press Ann Arbor: 225–253. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files Appendices.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-6538507","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":466058531,"identity":"d56ae6fe-d1ca-4495-8e32-5a0c4b8a5854","order_by":0,"name":"Fahad Abdullah","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Forman Christian College","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Fahad","middleName":"","lastName":"Abdullah","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-04-27 06:53:06","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6538507/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6538507/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":92436732,"identity":"b30f6422-29c7-42df-b194-a45036e4ba76","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-29 17:16:37","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":927779,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6538507/v1/9e972137-6b3e-41d3-9835-3bc8c912bcf1.pdf"},{"id":84077090,"identity":"0c7f3036-0153-47ea-a6be-38e9b3c78ded","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-06-06 13:24:09","extension":"docx","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":43504,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Appendices.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6538507/v1/e4b0a3efaff869b1e5c2d9af.docx"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Philosophical and Institutional Discrepancies in UN Treaty Regimes: The Case of Human Rights in Pakistan under EU Influence","fulltext":[{"header":"1. Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eOona A. Hathaway, building her analysis on political science and legal scholarship, argues in her \u003cem\u003eintegrated theory of international law\u003c/em\u003e that states with poor human rights performance are just as likely, or even more likely, to sign treaties as countries with better records. Still, they are less likely to follow through on these obligations (Hathaway \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e, 474). It has been widely discussed whether treaty regimes make a difference in improving the human rights conditions in Abusive states or not (Hathaway \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e; Cole \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Brown \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). Through this deductive, semi-empirical qualitative study, the researcher tested Hathaway\u0026rsquo;s theory by analyzing to what extent the treaty regimes effectively improve the human rights conditions in allegedly Abusive states with a focus on Pakistan through its international commitments. The findings show that something is profoundly missing in the international human rights treaty regimes and their halfhearted implementation through national institutions; the research argues from the EU-Pakistan dynamics that the missing link is both at the philosophical and institutional levels. Allegedly, Pakistan keeps on abusing human rights even though it is aware that the GSP\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;Status and linked economic and non-economic incentives can be withdrawn (Escrib\u0026agrave;-Folch and Wright \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). This study explained the same: Why is that so? As Donnelly asserted, the state is the principal violator and essential protector of human rights (Donnelly \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1986\u003c/span\u003e). \u003cem\u003eBut what if the line between protection and violation blurs, making the state a perpetual violator?\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec2\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e1.1. Theoretical and Empirical Contextualization\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003ePakistan has been a signatory to the UN-led International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) since June 23, 2010. However, there has been insufficient progress in protecting these rights. Additionally, Pakistan is engaged in several bilateral agreements and treaties, with the EU-Pakistan Cooperation Agreement being a notable example, overseen by the European External Action Service (EEAS). The bilateral relations are further reinforced by the Strategic Engagement Plan (SEP), established in 2019, which includes several cooperation areas, with a particular emphasis on promoting and protecting human rights. Within this framework, the Multi-annual Indicative Programmes have been developed. The MIP's Priority Area 3 (MIP 2021\u0026ndash;2027) explicitly mandates improvements in human rights standards in Pakistan in alignment with international norms (EEAS, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). In December 2013, the European Commission granted Pakistan the EU's Generalized Scheme of Preferences Plus (GSP+) status. It is crucial to note that this status is contingent upon Pakistan's adherence to 27 international conventions outlined in the GSP\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;Regulation \u003cem\u003e(Consult Appendix C for the list of conventions ratified by Pakistan for GSP Plus qualification).\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe GSP\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;offers extensive tariff reductions on imports to the EU from vulnerable developing nations, aiming to assist in poverty reduction, promote sustainable development, and encourage their integration into the global economy while also strengthening good governance. Countries like Pakistan, which qualify for GSP+, can export goods to the EU with zero duties on 66% of tariff lines (Malik, 2020).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e1.2. Research Gap and Study Objectives\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAnalytical research on human rights treaty performance, especially from the EU-Pakistan dynamics, is limited in Pakistan. The existing literature only provides descriptive accounts of the EU-Pakistan bilateral relations; thus, more analytical research was required, and this study attempted to do the same. The research comprehensively analyzes 27 conventions reinforced by the GSP\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;agreement, rather than focusing on a single right or treaty. The relationship between trade and human rights has been widely debated, with various scholars offering different perspectives (Alston \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1982\u003c/span\u003e; Lim \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e; Cottier \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e; Hafner-Burton \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e; Abbott \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e). Srinivasan critiques the idea of linking trade policies with labor standards, arguing that this approach often serves protectionist interests and is not the most effective way to improve working conditions in developing countries (Srinivasan \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1998\u003c/span\u003e, 31). Similarly, Lang points out that the current trade and human rights literature is overly simplistic, failing to consider the complex ways in which trade regimes influence state behavior beyond mere regulation (Lang \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e, 87). Chyzh introduces the idea that states with Abusive regimes can exploit indirect trade channels to enjoy the benefits of international trade without facing pressure to improve human rights, highlighting the inverse relationship between trade network embeddedness and human rights protection (Chyzh \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e, 410). But this study contributes a new perspective by examining how hybrid or pseudo-democratic states, like Pakistan, navigate international human rights commitments differently from other states, while previous studies have primarily focused on either fully democratic or authoritarian regimes. Specifically, this research analyzed the EU-Pakistan dynamics in the context of Pakistan's GSP\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;status, which offers unique insights into the relationship between trade and human rights. This paper sheds light on how Pakistan balances the economic benefits of the GSP\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;with its often-questionable human rights practices, offering a fresh angle on the debate.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis research fills the gap in two ways: first, it highlights the \u003cem\u003ephilosophical discrepancies\u003c/em\u003e involved in the treaty interpretation, and then documents their impact on treaty performance. Philosophical discrepancies refer to distinctions in how Pakistan views, philosophizes, interprets, or conceptualizes key aspects of the idea of human rights. The understanding of the philosophical discrepancies resolves the puzzle that why Pakistan is allegedly a primary human rights abuser in freedom of thought, conscience, religion, freedom of the press, ensuring civil liberties, and so on. Hence, it informs our analyses of why the treaties are not effective in their true spirit when executed through a national institutional framework. Second, it highlights the \u003cem\u003einstitutional discrepancies\u003c/em\u003e involved regarding the treaty implementation. The term institutional discrepancies refers to distinctions in how Pakistani institutions are structured and assembled differently in comparison to how they should be for successful treaty compliance. Discrepancies in institutional organization mean the imbalances in legal frameworks, financial resources, administrative structures, and operational methods. These institutional distinctions greatly impact the capacities and effectiveness in achieving their shared goals, in our case, it is protecting the established human rights of its masses.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e1.3. Scholarly Contribution and Relevance of the Study\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study not only tested Oona A. Hathaway\u0026rsquo;s \u003cem\u003eintegrated theory of international law\u003c/em\u003e but also contributed to the existing theoretical framework on treaty performance in Abusive states, particularly from EU-Pakistan dynamics (Hathaway \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e; Hathaway \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e; Hathaway \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e). This deductive research established that \u003cem\u003ethe more Abusive the state is towards its citizens (allegedly Pakistan), the more enthusiastic it is to reinforce the ratification of the human rights treaties (ICCPR and others) because of attached incentives (GSP\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;status) and hence faces profound challenges in treaty implementation because of the inherent philosophical and institutional discrepancies\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study is significant because it claims to produce generalizable findings and argues that they must be relevant to other abusive or low-performing states, generally in the context of UN-led treaty regimes and particularly for the low-performing states that are engaged in similar agreements as Pakistan is with the EU. This study was driven by a profound concern for the erosion of constitutional protections for fundamental rights in Pakistan, a concern that resonates deeply amidst the daily abuses that have been meticulously documented in numerous reports. The haunting question discussed in this study is: \u003cem\u003eWhat if the guardians of these rights become their most relentless violators?\u003c/em\u003e While human rights treaty regimes hold promise as a potential remedy, the study argues that they grapple with formidable philosophical and institutional discrepancies.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"2. Research Methodology","content":"\u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSummarizing all the methods in one collective view\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e Method\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDetails\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eResearch Philosophy\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOntological Subjectivism\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEpistemological Constructivist-Interpretivism\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTheoretical Paradigm\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInterpretative Social Science (ISS)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eData Collection\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eElite Interviewing\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eExpert Sampling (a non-probability purposive sampling technique)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eData Analysis\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInterview Transcription Using Descript Software\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAnalyzing and Coding Through NVivo software\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"3\"\u003e\u003cem\u003eSource: Developed by the researcher\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.1. Research Philosophy\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eGiven the nature of the research, the researcher has adopted a nominalist position in ontology and epistemology based on ontological subjectivism and an epistemological constructivist-interpretive approach (Djamba \u0026amp; Neuman, 2002). Nominalism is like looking at a rug and asking, \u0026lsquo;What is it?\u0026rsquo; It asks what it is made of, how it was made, what it is used for, and how certain historical and cultural contexts have affected the way people use it. In ontology, nominalism denies the existence of objective, universal structures. It says that language and human perceptions are necessary for social phenomena to occur. In terms of epistemology, nominalists contend that there is no objective reality that exists apart from the creations of language and social norms.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.2. Theoretical Paradigm and Perspective\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe researcher used the approach of interpretative social science (ISS) for this study. According to ISS, grasping social reality requires engaging in meaningful social action, which is defined as activities that have subjective significance (p.104). The interpretive approach accepts relativism and recognizes the varied contextual meanings of human rights in Pakistan (p.109). This approach's emphasis on understanding the subjective meaning of social and political life helped decode the particulars of the research questions, especially in contrasting the perspectives of allegedly Abusive states like Pakistan.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.3. Methods of Data Collection \u0026amp; Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.3.1. Data Collection\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe researcher employed \u0026lsquo;elite interviewing\u0026rsquo; as a method of data collection. This method used semi-structured interviews, which are typical for examining an elite group. Elite interviewing is recognized as a valuable approach, particularly when it is appropriate to treat respondents as experts on the subject (Burnham et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e, 231). This method proved useful in gathering data about decision-makers and decision-making processes related to treaty implementation. In terms of the interview protocol, the researcher created a questionnaire with two primary questions, each followed by four supplementary questions, to prepare for elite interviews \u003cem\u003e(Refer to Appendix A to review the questionnaire used for interviewing elite respondents).\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eExpert sampling\u0026mdash;a non-probability purposive sampling technique\u0026mdash;was strategically employed in this process. The researcher approached a diverse sample spread across three countries: Pakistan, the USA, and Belgium, representing the EEAS as the EU, to gain exclusive insights on the topic. Within Pakistan, the sample was collected from various cities depending on the availability of the interviewees, whether online or in person. A total of 15 elite interviews were conducted across multiple groups. The sample included 3 academics (represented as ACs), 5 members of civil society/NGOs (represented as CSOs), 4 international law experts (represented as ILEs), and 3 members of state institutions (represented as SIs), specifically from institutions relevant to international human rights treaties. Approximately 600 minutes of audio interviews were transcribed in total \u003cem\u003e(For classification and detailed information on the interviewees, refer to Appendix D).\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis diverse sample enriched the research by providing a multidimensional perspective. ACs were chosen to offer insights on human rights treaty compliance due to their direct engagement with emerging research on the global human rights framework. CSOs were included because of their direct involvement in human rights project implementation on the ground and their strong connections with international bodies and local institutions. Given the legal-academic nature of the topic, it was crucial to involve ILEs for a technical-legal perspective on treaty performance. Finally, members of SIs were engaged to provide insider insights on treaty performance, as they are the primary agents responsible for treaty implementation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThrough the methodical application of this purposive sampling technique, the researcher ensured that individuals selected for elite interviews possessed the necessary experience and understanding, thereby contributing a range of insightful perspectives to the research findings (Burnham et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e, 233).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.3.2. Data Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAfter data collection, the next step was analyzing the data. Formal permission for audio recording was obtained from all interviewees, so all interviews were recorded and saved. The interviewees were numbered from 1 to 5 based on the quality of their interviews, such as for Academics, AC-1, AC-2, AC-3, and so on, for other groups. This numbering was based on the researcher's subjective judgment, considering several criteria: the interviewee's social position, number of publications, and communication throughout the interview process, from invitation to the actual interview. However, these factors were secondary. The most critical criteria were the interviewee's knowledge of the topic and the number of themes generated during the coding process in NVivo. This approach indicated that the interviewee provided diverse and non-repetitive insights, offering a broad range of points. Nearly all interviews were conducted in English, except for the second half of the CSO-5 interview, which was bilingual, primarily in English with some Urdu. For the analysis, NVivo, a premium software for qualitative data analysis, was used throughout the process.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"3. Findings on Philosophical Discrepancies in Human Rights Interpretation","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis section summarizes the total number of themes that emerged for each participant interviewee group and elaborates on what these themes represent. The themes are analyzed across groups, highlighting each theme's similarities, differences, and dominant patterns \u003cem\u003e(See Appendix B for the codebook and Appendix E for the numeric entries derived from NVivo analysis).\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.1. Factors Influencing Treaty Effectiveness\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThere is a consensus among ACs and ILEs that the effectiveness largely depends on the domestic integration of these treaties. On the other hand, CSOs identify the character of the state as the dominant factor, while SIs focus on security concerns. These viewpoints highlight both systemic and situational elements that play significant roles. This perspective emphasizes how the state's religious and cultural identity shapes its policies and laws. In Pakistan, the character of the state as an Islamic Republic profoundly influences its approach to human rights, highlighting the significance of systemic and cultural factors. For SIs, security concerns can lead to restrictions on rights, such as freedom of expression, indicating that situational factors also play a crucial role in how human rights treaties are applied.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.2. Economic Influence and Human Rights Practice\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eA cross-group analysis of the findings shows that both academics (ACs) and civil society organizations (CSOs) concur that the GSP\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;status is taken for granted by Pakistan. It suggests that Pakistani officials perceive the threat of losing GSP\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;status as unlikely to materialize, thereby diminishing its potential impact as a lever for change. A CSO member highlights the ineffective use of the GSP\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;status to influence civil and political rights. On the other hand, ILEs and SIs have a different stance on the matter. ILEs argues that GSP\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;works as an effective external pressure tool while the GSP\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;status alone may not be a sufficient deterrent; its potential withdrawal, coupled with broader international scrutiny, could drive significant policy changes. The reluctance to carry out blasphemy executions, despite the law's existence, illustrates how external pressures can shape state behavior, even in the absence of robust internal mechanisms.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.3. Normative Standards and Treaty Implementation\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe results show that academics do not have any consensus concerning the normative standards for treaty effectiveness. Based on one academic\u0026rsquo;s perspective, the perceived double standards of the Western world, particularly in its leniency towards Israel, reinforce the belief among Middle Eastern and Muslim-majority countries, like Pakistan, that human rights are being used as a political tool.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhile SIs suggest that human rights standards should be flexible. This perspective considers the socio-cultural realities on the ground and the practical difficulties in immediate compliance with high standards. Thus, setting excessively high standards may be unrealistic and lead to a backlash. Across more groups, the results show that ILEs advocate for maintaining high standards for human rights, while CSOs argue for the universality of human rights standards. Both groups emphasize the importance of treating human rights as non-negotiable and equal across different regions and states, including allegedly abusive ones.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.4. Adoption and Internalization of Human Rights Norms\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe results indicate that CSOs have largely focused on the political economy of Pakistan, particularly the GSP Plus status with the EU. They argue that external pressure from international bodies and internal civil society advocacy can significantly contribute to the internalization of human rights norms. Furthermore, ILEs align with other groups on certain points discussed earlier. They argue that inherent benefits attached to treaty compliance will ultimately propel the process of norm internalization. Compliance also grants international legitimacy to Abusive countries, motivating them to adhere to international standards. Additionally, some ILEs advocate for a paradigm shift in the perception of human rights in Pakistan. They emphasize the importance of constitutional clarity on these rights, suggesting that integrating international norms into the constitution will significantly advance the internalization process.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"4. Findings on Institutional Discrepancies in Human Rights Implementation","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis representation highlights significant patterns and trends among interviewee groups \u003cem\u003e(See Appendix B for the codebook and Appendix E for the numeric entries derived from NVivo analysis).\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eStructural Impediments to Treaty Compliance\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe findings reveal a clear consensus among International Law Experts (ILEs) and Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) regarding the institutional discrepancies hindering treaty performance. ILEs predominantly argue that the lack of internal integration of treaties is a significant obstacle, while CSOs emphasize bureaucratic inefficiencies, clerical legislation, and lapses in the criminal justice system as the primary hindrances. Moreover, the results reveal a lack of consensus between Academics (ACs) and State Institutions (SIs) regarding the primary factors hindering treaty implementation. Academics argue that there is a significant disregard for policy by the very institutions responsible for implementing treaties. They also highlight that external influence is often perceived as a breach of sovereignty, prompting the state to act independently and focus on outward-looking foreign policy, which creates additional obstacles. Furthermore, Academics point out the absence of institutional inclusivity among the entities involved in treaty implementation, suggesting that the lack of coordination and collaboration among these institutions impedes progress. In contrast, State Institutions emphasize different challenges, notably the lack of resources and the bureaucratic overlap among institutions. They argue that these factors significantly hinder effective treaty implementation. The overlap leads to confusion and inefficiency, as multiple institutions with similar mandates struggle to coordinate their efforts. Additionally, the scarcity of resources limits the capacity of these institutions to fulfil their responsibilities adequately.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.1. Comparative Analysis of Institutional Frameworks\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe results indicate a consensus among ACs and CSOs that supranational institutions are likely to be ineffective for treaty implementation in Pakistan. They emphasize that greater grassroots involvement is essential for ensuring the effective performance of treaties. ILEs have emphasized that supranational institutions are more effective when it comes to treaty performance. SIs have largely emphasized issues of state sovereignty and the need for a shift towards strengthening local institutions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec18\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.2. Domestic Institutional Strength and Treaty Commitment\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn response to the question, all interviewee groups concur that domestic integration is the most significant step in advancing the discourse on domestic institutions and treaty signing, as highlighted by one academic:\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec19\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.3. Treaty Regimes and Domestic Legal Enhancements\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe results indicate that both ACs and CSOs concur on the normative role of treaties. In addition, CSOs emphasize two additional points. One is the role of treaties as constitutional derivatives International Law Experts (ILEs) and State Institutions (SIs) converge on the viewpoint that treaties serve as crucial benchmarks for assessing human rights progress, as one International Law Expert argues treaties function as a \"yardstick\" or \"checklist\" for evaluating compliance and performance over time.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"5. Discussion and Analysis","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec21\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e5.1. Integrated Discussion on Philosophical Discrepancies\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eVarious supervisory agency reports highlighted the significant regional and national variations in treaty performance. Grounded in broader theoretical debates on universalism and cultural relativism, the following cluster analysis illustrates how philosophical discrepancies undermine the efficacy of treaty regimes \u003cem\u003e(Refer to Appendix E for numeric tables generated from the NVivo matrix coding query)\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOona has argued that domestic enforcement of treaty obligations by national actors and institutions can play a crucial role in ensuring compliance with international legal commitments. However, in states lacking strong rule of law institutions, this reliance on domestic enforcement may result in problematic outcomes (Hathaway \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e, 535). Building on this theoretical framework, the researcher contends that treaty compliance is significantly obstructed by philosophical discrepancies.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eLanglois has argued that claims to universality, without substantial consensual agreement, are vulnerable to questioning their universal validity. These claims might still be defensible within the context of specific cultural or human traditions, where normative universality can be consistently upheld. However, this form of universality cannot be effectively contested by those outside the tradition, leading to an unchallenged acceptance among its adherents (Langlois \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e, 485). Concurring with Langlois's assertions, the researcher argues that when such universal moralities are enforced through treaties, it creates an asymmetry, as the lack of external challenge stalls the broader philosophical discourse. The findings show that a significant cultural disconnect exists with Pakistan, which often views human rights as a Western concept rather than a universal principle. This disconnect is exacerbated by a lack of political will among Pakistani ruling elites, who display indifference or reluctance to prioritize or effectively address human rights issues, reflecting a broader systemic problem. Additionally, resistance from clerical groups further complicates the situation. These groups often demand that human rights be interpreted through religious perspectives, aligning with their understanding of Islamic principles. This resistance is evident in contentious debates over child marriage, temple construction, blasphemy law reforms, and forced faith conversions, where these issues are framed as religious concerns rather than human rights violations.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMoreover, the interplay between religious divergence with Western interference and domestic integration with double standards reveals a complex interaction between local and international human rights dynamics. Cultural and religious differences often lead to conflicts with Western human rights standards, which are perceived as politically motivated or selectively enforced. This aligns with de B\u0026uacute;rca's human rights experimentalism theory, which also underscores these philosophical discrepancies. De B\u0026uacute;rca contends that the absence of an authoritative body, such as a treaty body, that could standardize the interpretation and application of human rights norms across various local contexts, is both compatible with and necessary for experimentalism. However, this lack of hierarchical enforcement has faced significant criticism, with the discursive nature of the treaty body system often being a point of contention (De B\u0026uacute;rca \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e, 312).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOn top of that, conflictual respect of human rights when societies face severe human rights violations and variations of interpretations in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) are deeply intertwined, as evidenced by regional disparities and interpretative differences. Despite the African Union's rigorous approach to human rights amidst significant challenges, there are substantial variations in how different regions, such as Asia and the Americas, interpret and implement these rights. The UDHR's flexible nature, allowing for diverse interpretations and reservations, highlights these discrepancies, as different states adapt their principles based on their unique cultural, historical, and contextual factors. This results in asymmetrical application and respect for human rights globally. Recognizing this discrepancy raises the question of how it can be addressed. Cerna offers an answer by suggesting that the universal acceptance of international human rights norms is an ongoing process, with different norms at various stages along this continuum. She argues that change and acceptance must originate from within the region itself and cannot be effectively imposed by external forces (Cerna \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1994\u003c/span\u003e, 752).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo further this, Corradetti contends that if relativist challenges were to prevail, the construction of a notion of public reason within democratic deliberative processes, particularly those concerning human rights, would become unfeasible (Corradetti \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e, 78). This suggests that overcoming relativism is essential for meaningful discourse on human rights in democratic settings, and findings depict that Human rights education and moral relativism are interconnected, reflecting the challenges in aligning universal human rights standards with local practices and beliefs. While there is a growing urge by concerned circles to include human rights education in school curricula in Pakistan, this progress contrasts with persistent cultural relativism, where human rights are interpreted through local moral and cultural lenses. This divergence often leads to conflicts in the application of human rights principles, as seen in the differing conceptualizations of rights such as gender equality and freedom of speech across various regions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eConsidering these discrepancies, several contemporary human rights scholars have revisited the philosophical foundations of the human rights concept. As Leib has argued, while engaging with the assertions of Gearty that highlight the waning strength of these philosophical bases and emphasize the urgent need to establish a solid foundation for the future. Without a robust theoretical grounding, the concept of human rights risks being co-opted by ideas that diverge from its essence. To address this, the notion of 'compassion' is proposed as a new justification, replacing the religious and rational bases of the past. Compassion, viewed as a virtuous disposition, is suggested as a powerful means to frame and mobilize responses to suffering and atrocities (Leib \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e, 42)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe effectiveness of human rights treaties can be significantly influenced by economic incentives and disincentives. Cole argues that human rights treaty regimes lack direct mechanisms to enforce compliance, requiring external incentives from third parties like other states to influence behavior, which in the case of Pakistan is available in the form of GSP Plus (Cole \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e, 1135). Insights from the interviewees suggest that this is partially true, as legislative reforms in Pakistan, driven by GSP Plus conditionalities, have led to significant legal changes, particularly in areas like transgender rights, violence against women, and forced conversions. This progress reflects the impact of consistent engagement with UN and EU mechanisms, which have pressured the parliament and cabinet to meet international standards. However, the potential withdrawal of GSP Plus would have a negative impact, as it would reduce the platform for dialogue and recommendations between Pakistan and EU bodies, thereby hindering further legislative improvements and human rights protection. Connecting these legislative reforms and their potential negative impacts to the character of the state reveals deeper complexities. Economically weaker states prioritize basic human rights such as affordable housing and healthcare, while economically stronger states focus more on civil and political rights, including free speech and gender equality. The withdrawal of GSP Plus would exacerbate these differences, as economic incentives play a crucial role in Pakistan's engagement with human rights improvements. This situation underscores the importance of understanding state character in the implementation of treaties and prioritization of human rights.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eResearch on treaty ratification indicates that treaties have positively influenced states' attitudes toward their citizens' rights, leading to significant reductions in practices such as torture, religious restrictions, and child labor in many countries. This underscores the role of treaties in enhancing human rights protections globally.(Adewusi and Kocadal 2022, 25). However, when it comes to accountability, the findings reveal that Pakistan's ability to manipulate the international system and its strategic alliances significantly undermines human rights protections. By leveraging its geopolitical importance and placing sympathetic figures within key UN bodies, Pakistan effectively circumvents meaningful scrutiny and criticism. This manipulation is exacerbated by the EU's weak monitoring mechanisms and internal governance imbalances, which allow Pakistan to retain GSP Plus benefits despite serious human rights issues. This dynamic reveals a broader issue: Pakistan's perceived entitlement and strategic leverage lead to superficial compliance with human rights standards. The GSP Plus status is seen as a given rather than a conditional benefit, reflecting a broader disregard for genuine human rights improvements.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe effectiveness of human rights treaties in allegedly Abusive states can be significantly influenced by the standards of norms that these treaties embody. High norm standards typically entail stringent human rights protections and robust enforcement mechanisms, while low norm standards may involve more lenient protections and weaker enforcement. For making sense of philosophical discrepancies, understanding the impact of these varying standards is crucial for assessing how human rights treaties perform in different contexts, considering the perceptions and observations of various stakeholders. The analysis reveals whether stringent norms serve as a stronger deterrent against human rights violations or if more flexible standards facilitate better compliance and adaptation in challenging environments.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eLocal contexts significantly influence the application of human rights standards, as seen in the discussion about contextual standards and flexibility. High standards can be counterproductive when local practices and societal norms vary widely, such as in Pakistan, where traditional practices may clash with international norms. Flexibility in standards allows for adjustments that align with local realities, which can facilitate better implementation and acceptance of human rights measures. The adaptability of standards is crucial for reconciling international norms with domestic conditions. Effective human rights policies require a balance between maintaining high standards and accommodating local contexts, ensuring that implementations are practical and culturally sensitive. In a greater philosophical sense, it needs to be seen what Buchanan has emphasized that a comprehensive approach to human rights should ensure both the opportunity for all to lead a minimally good life and protection from being perceived as morally inferior. He suggests that a robust human rights theory must encompass both a concept of the good and a concept of the right, highlighting the dual aspects of well-being and moral equality (Buchanan \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e, 708).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOn a related note, the distinction between high and universal human rights standards highlights a complex interplay between ideal aspirations and practical realities. High standards, often seen as ambitious, can potentially clash with local capacities and contexts. For instance, while high standards set by international norms are meant to guide states towards optimal human rights protections, their applicability can be challenging in environments with varying levels of institutional capacity and societal readiness, as highlighted by the interviewees. These high standards are discussed in local contexts. Proponents of the backsliding theory argue that setting lower standards may be more effective in improving human rights records, as stricter treaties are less likely to achieve meaningful progress. (Guzman and Linos 2014, 631). The trouble with this theorization is that the states with uniform behavior do not perform well in improving human rights records if high-performing states do not pertain to the pull-up effect and force high standards, so backsliding does not occur. On the same ground, theorists argue that tougher treaty regimes are important to at least maintain the minimum human rights standards.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThere are significant philosophical discrepancies in this norm internalization process. The findings indicate that political economy and political will significantly influence human rights implementation. Economic ties, such as the EU's GSP\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;status, can pressure states like Pakistan to reform laws (e.g., blasphemy laws) to retain economic benefits, showing how political decisions impact economic relations.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSimilarly, domestic integration and empowering the grassroots are deeply interconnected in shaping effective internal processes. The views expressed by the interviewees are consistent with the spiral model, where Shor stresses the interaction between internal and external forces for human rights change, which they suggest using a constructivist perspective. This concept highlights the importance of grassroots movements and international networks in promoting change and is included in their influential work known as the \u0026lsquo;boomerang effect.\u0026rsquo; It explains how local movements exert external pressure on oppressive states with the support of foreign allies. Initially, this pressure leads to strategic concessions, but over time, it supports the internalization of universal norms, resulting in sustainable change (Shor \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e, 121\u0026ndash;122).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMoving forward, the power of religious factions, often protected by influential local patrons, creates significant barriers to implementing human rights norms, as these groups can obstruct necessary reforms and undermine social cohesion. Concurrently, external pressure from international bodies, like trade incentives and diplomatic dialogue, acts as a catalyst for states to introduce reforms, albeit often in a superficial manner aimed at meeting international standards rather than a genuine commitment. Diverse tactics have been used in the field of human rights framework monitoring and enforcement methods to increase the effectiveness of the treaty regimes (Goodman and Jinks 2004, 687\u0026ndash;698). They consist of disseminating best practices, keeping an eye on, and reporting violations, chastising offenders, and enforcing material sanctions and legally enforceable decisions. Scholars have suggested altering the current arrangements, such as boosting transnational adjudication or changing the institutional design of treaty organizations to resemble courts. These strategies vary in their efficacy, too, with some supporting more gentle methods and others advocating for aggressive ones like military intervention.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFinally, civil society advocacy significantly drives the progress of human rights by exerting pressure on governments to comply with international treaties, as seen in the consistent push for legislative changes following treaty ratifications. This advocacy is complemented by vibrant watchdogs who play a crucial role in monitoring and ensuring the implementation of these rights, with their effectiveness directly linked to the strength and visibility of their role. The interaction between advocacy efforts and watchdog activities ensures that human rights standards are not only adopted but actively enforced and maintained.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec22\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e5.2. Integrated Discussion on Institutional Discrepancies\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe interplay between external influence and the impact of foreign policy reveals how the EU's foreign policy, particularly its neighborhood policies, exerts influence on the internal enforcement of human rights rules in other states. This influence is not just about imposing standards but also about convincing other states to internalize these norms, although the success of this approach often depends on the methods used, whether persuasive or coercive, which can lead to varying levels of effectiveness.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhen it comes to supranational effectiveness, institutional discrepancies are evident, as highlighted by the findings and supported by the broader theoretical framework. \u0026Eacute;va\u0026rsquo;s stance also confirms these institutional discrepancies that Europe had autonomous individuals who democratically identified themselves with the multilevel supranational identity in terms of culture, economics, and politics, which is a unique phenomenon in the whole world. On the contrary, the idea of \u0026lsquo;South Asian Identity\u0026rsquo; is still vague; it lacks the greater myth, the common story, unlike Europe. Some consider South Asia a foreign term invented by European and North American residents to group the South Asian states, so for them, no organic South Asian identity exists (B\u0026oacute;ka \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e, 395). Institutional inclusivity, the degree to which various state institutions, such as the legislative, executive, and judiciary, are involved in these processes, is crucial. The more these institutions are integrated into the dialogue and enforcement mechanisms, the more likely it is that external influences, like those from the EU, will be internalized effectively, leading to a richer and more sustainable integration of human rights norms. This inclusivity ensures that the impact of foreign policy is not merely superficial but contributes to lasting institutional change.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMoving forward, the arbitrary implementation of treaties by nation-states reflects a broader issue where decisions about treaty participation and compliance are often made based on convenience rather than a systematic approach, highlighting the challenges these states face in maintaining consistent and transparent international commitments. This erratic behavior is symptomatic of deeper nation-state challenges, where the legitimacy and functionality of the nation-state itself are questioned, leading to inconsistent engagement with international norms and agreements. This arbitrary approach and the inherent challenges of the nation-state are further complicated by bureaucratic overlap, where multiple institutions with overlapping mandates create inefficiencies and confusion. The proliferation of commissions and departments, often without clear coordination, exacerbates the problem, leading to a fragmented and ineffective implementation of human rights obligations. Expanding on that, the lack of streamlined, autonomous institutions hinders the consistent enforcement of international treaties, making the system more prone to arbitrary decisions and undermining the overall efficacy of human rights protections.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAlongside this, it is important to note that the EU is integrated along two axes, as reflected in this dual supervision mechanism: supranational governance that goes beyond national sovereignty and intergovernmental collaboration among sovereign nations. The Council's decision-making process is still intergovernmental, but as integration has grown, qualified majority voting has been implemented in several areas, partially offsetting the loss of national parliamentary oversight with the EP's expanded authority (Hoon, 2019, p. 5). This shows a strong system of supranational supervision over member nations in the EU, something that is absent from groups such as SAARC, of which Pakistan is a member. Based on this, the researcher argues that the human rights treaty regimes within SAARC are ineffectual because of this institutional discrepancy. Responses from the interviewees also confirm that corporate accountability in Pakistan, especially concerning human rights standards within industries, faces significant challenges due to the lack of resources. While there is a push for legal frameworks to enforce corporate responsibility, the financial and human resource constraints make it difficult to implement and monitor these standards effectively. This resource scarcity hinders the development of mechanisms necessary for ensuring that corporations comply with international human rights obligations, thereby limiting the impact of corporate accountability measures.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSchmidt argues that federal states have seen fewer changes due to European integration than unitary states. This is mainly because of the existence of semi-autonomous subnational authorities and the division of powers as stipulated by the constitution; these have been further strengthened by European institutional frameworks and capabilities. To adjust to European integration, federal states such as Germany have made sure that national and subnational authorities continue to play a crucial role in the integration process. As such, the changes resulting from European integration do not pose a major threat to national concepts of combined representation and joint responsibility. Furthermore, the notions of compounded representation and shared accountability at both levels of governance are reinforced by the alignment of these national principles with analogous EU-based conceptions of democratic legitimacy (Schmidt \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e, 43). In the context of Pakistan, Schmidt\u0026rsquo;s argument is further established by the perspectives offered by the interviewees, where accessibility issues and disregard for policy are interconnected, as poor accessibility to legal remedies often exacerbates the disregard for existing laws. When policies and legal mechanisms are difficult to reach or poorly implemented at the local level, it leads to a greater tendency for state actors to ignore these regulations. The lack of effective local enforcement and the challenges in accessing international remedies reinforce the tendency of authorities to bypass or neglect their own policies, compounding the overall inefficacy of the legal system.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMoreover, there are key institutional discrepancies that hinder success. Dhaliwal argues that the real issue is not between regionalism and universalism but rather regionalism within a universal framework. It is further contended that while fundamental human rights should be universally respected, it is important to recognize that cultures have their own institutional mechanisms for promoting and protecting these rights (Dhaliwal \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e, 638). But in contrast to Dhaliwal\u0026rsquo;s assertions, the interviewee's insights reveal that local institutional shifts, such as resistance due to sovereignty concerns and ineffective administrative structures, often hinder human rights progress. Meanwhile, supranational effectiveness, exemplified by well-functioning regional structures like the Inter-American Court and the EU's human rights jurisprudence, enhances enforcement and scrutiny. The interlinking factor is the necessity for robust local systems to effectively integrate and benefit from supranational mechanisms, as ineffective local institutions limit the impact of international oversight and support.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn contrast to the EU, Singh notes that the competition between India and Pakistan in South Asia, which has its roots in national identity quests, colonial legacies, and inadequate control mechanisms, encompasses a range of contentious issues. These include lingering colonial effects, ideological and political disagreements, strategic confrontations, spillovers from internal unrest, and resource-related tensions. Broader cooperation is hampered by India's political difficulties and regional supremacy (Singh \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e, 246\u0026ndash;247). The assertions from the interviewees align with Singh's assertions and confirm the existence of institutional asymmetries, particularly in the context of Pakistan, where political will significantly influences the ability of a government to address human rights challenges effectively, often justifying inaction through sovereignty issues. Sovereignty concerns, such as reluctance to accept supranational oversight or restrictions on international cooperation, can be used to deflect from implementing necessary changes. The interplay between political commitment and sovereignty underscores how genuine efforts to improve human rights can be hampered by a prioritization of national autonomy over international obligations and reforms.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOona notes that the direct effect of ratification on state action was frequently highlighted in earlier evaluations of treaty compliance. According to rationalists, compliance happens when actions support domestic, geopolitical, or reputational national interests. The persuasive force of legal responsibilities is given precedence above self-interest by normative researchers. They fail to see, nevertheless, how ratification conveys a state's obligations to other parties. Further, her study contends that acknowledging the two functions of human rights treaties\u0026mdash;creating legally enforceable norms and articulating official positions\u0026mdash;is essential to comprehend the relationship between ratification and practices. This paradigm clarifies contradictory tendencies in human rights interactions and offers fresh insights into compliance models (Hathaway \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e). However, in the context of Pakistan, the insights from data show that cultural resistance often stems from viewing human rights as a foreign concept, hindering local acceptance and integration of these principles. This resistance is compounded by a lack of educational foundation in human rights, as the absence of comprehensive civic education perpetuates ignorance and undermines efforts to instill these values from a young age. This interplay between cultural resistance and inadequate education is influenced by hybrid state dynamics, where military and authoritarian elements disrupt the development of a robust civic framework. The state's hybrid nature reinforces both cultural resistance and educational deficiencies, perpetuating a cycle that obstructs meaningful human rights progress and integration.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMoving forward, the findings indicate that economic considerations often drive states like Pakistan to sign treaties, especially when linked to tangible benefits such as financial incentives or trade advantages, and this confirms the initial assertions made by Oona in her \u003cem\u003eintegrated theory\u003c/em\u003e (Hathaway \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e; Hathaway \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e; Hathaway \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e). This external reliance is evident as countries may sign agreements primarily to meet conditions for economic support or trade status, rather than a genuine commitment to the treaty's principles. This reliance on external incentives and economic considerations affects the pursuit of good governance, as states may prioritize compliance with international standards only to achieve specific economic gains. Thus, the pursuit of good governance is often influenced by these economic motivations, which may overshadow genuine efforts towards public accountability and institutional integrity.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eExpanding on that, robust democracies often drive international human rights agendas and are more likely to be vocal about human rights commitments. However, their actions on the global stage are also shaped by geopolitical considerations, where the interplay of international trade and political interests influences their approach to treaty commitments and human rights advocacy. This dynamic reflects how democratic values and geopolitical strategies converge to shape a state's international behavior. Alongside this, diplomatic engagement often provides countries with opportunities for institutional recognition and technical benefits, such as training and accreditation. By participating in international mechanisms, states not only enhance their diplomatic relations but also gain access to resources and support that bolster their institutional standing and capacity. In addition, states often justify deviations from international norms through exceptionalism, asserting unique conditions or historical contexts as reasons for their actions. This subjective approach allows for flexibility in adherence to international standards, accommodating varying interpretations and justifications while maintaining a fa\u0026ccedil;ade of compliance.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eLastly, all interviewee groups agreed that treaties should exist, although they differed on how these treaties affect domestic legal enforcement mechanisms in allegedly Abusive states like Pakistan.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eConstructivists argue that international institutions play an essential role in disseminating global norms, emphasizing the significance of normative discourse within these institutions. However, it is crucial to recognize that these institutions are not merely external forces; they are deliberately created by states, with some influence from interest groups and corporations (Koremenos et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e, 762). This perspective highlights the dual nature of international institutions as both norm promoters and entities shaped by the very states they aim to influence. The insights from the data concur with constructivist assertions and show that moderation processes within international forums help balance political interests, allowing for a degree of relative equality and adherence to legal standards. These processes are complemented by the normative role of international treaties, which set standards and provide benchmarks for local and international actors to strive towards, thus influencing domestic policy and international diplomacy. This interplay ensures that even as political dynamics shape treaty implementation, the normative frameworks continue to guide and inspire global and local practices.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTaking this further, Dai observes that the influence of International Human Rights Institutions (IHRIs) largely depends on the engagement and actions of domestic stakeholders. Their effectiveness is tied to how well these stakeholders resonate with IHRIs, utilize them, and leverage their support in interactions with governments. Essentially, IHRIs serve as tools, and their impact is contingent on the ability of local actors, such as human rights activists, to use them strategically. IHRIs do not directly alter state policies or behaviors; instead, their success depends on whether these stakeholders can translate institutional support into tangible human rights improvements. This process is complex, varies across countries, and is not guaranteed to produce consistent results (Dai \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e, 589). The assertions of the interviewees also indicate that international treaties shape constitutional provisions by providing foundational principles that influence the drafting of laws and frameworks, which then impact judicial decisions. These decisions often reference both domestic and international standards, showing how constitutional derivatives drawn from global norms inform the judiciary\u0026rsquo;s interpretation and application of the law.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"6. Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study critically examined a fundamental question in state behavior: \u003cem\u003eWhat happens when the very guardians of human rights become their most relentless violators?\u003c/em\u003e Recognizing human rights treaty regimes as a potential remedy for such situations, this research evaluated the performance of 27 UN-led human rights treaties. The study employed the European Union (EU), recognizing its role as an additional external check alongside the United Nations (UN). Consequently, the research did not engage with Pakistan's direct reporting to the UN but rather focused on its interactions with the EU. This study deliberately refrained from concentrating on a specific human right, individual treaty, or the Abusive behavior of the state towards groups, such as minorities. Instead, it provided a comprehensive analysis of the 27 human rights covenants that are reinforced following the grant of GSP Plus status, as outlined in the GSP Plus protocol. This broader approach allowed for a more holistic understanding of how these treaties collectively impact the protection and promotion of human rights in Pakistan under the EU's oversight.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe study employed a deductive approach within the Interpretative Social Science (ISS) paradigm, grounded in ontological subjectivism and constructivist-interpretivism. Primary data was gathered through elite interviews with 15 key stakeholders, analyzed using NVivo for systematic coding and various visualizations, such as bar charts, radar charts, and cluster analysis. This methodological framework ensured a comprehensive exploration of the complexities surrounding UN-led human rights treaties in Abusive contexts.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eGiven Pakistan's poor performance in treaty compliance, this research sought to examine two key themes that might explain this outcome: philosophical discrepancies and institutional discrepancies. The study was guided by two primary research questions, the first of which explored how philosophical discrepancies impact the performance of human rights treaty regimes. These discrepancies, referring to divergences in the understanding and application of human rights, were analyzed to understand their influence on the implementation of UN-led human rights treaties. Moreover, this research critically examined the role of institutional discrepancies\u0026mdash;variations in the evolution and structural design of institutional mechanisms\u0026mdash;in shaping the implementation and efficacy of UN-led human rights treaties in allegedly Abusive states, particularly focusing on Pakistan.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe integrated findings on philosophical discrepancies in the interpretation of UN-led human rights treaties in Pakistan are deeply intertwined with the broader theoretical lenses of universalism, cultural relativism, backsliding, and the spiral model. The tension between universalism and cultural relativism is particularly evident in how Pakistan navigates the application of human rights. Universalism advocates for a consistent application of human rights across all cultures, yet the findings reveal that Pakistan\u0026rsquo;s approach is heavily influenced by cultural and religious norms, aligning more closely with cultural relativism. The strong resistance from the clergy, the government's deflection of accountability, and the selective enforcement of rights underscore the country's reluctance to fully embrace a universalist perspective. These discrepancies highlight the fundamental clash between the imposition of universal human rights standards and Pakistan's culturally rooted interpretations, which challenge the uniform application of these norms. The findings also align with the theory of backsliding, particularly in the context of economic incentives like the GSP\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;status. While such incentives have led to some progress in human rights practices, the underlying philosophical discrepancies rooted in conservative and religious values limit their long-term impact. The progress achieved is fragile and often superficial, with Pakistan exhibiting a pattern of regression or resistance once external pressures wane. This mirrors the concept of backsliding, where initial compliance driven by external factors does not translate into lasting commitment, revealing the state's ambivalence towards fully internalizing human rights norms. Furthermore, the findings resonate with the spiral model, which describes the process through which Abusive states can gradually move towards greater compliance with international human rights norms. In Pakistan\u0026rsquo;s case, while external pressures and incentives have led to some tactical concessions, the deep-seated philosophical discrepancies hinder further progression. The resistance from religious and cultural institutions, coupled with selective rights enforcement and a lack of political will, suggests that Pakistan remains in the early stages of this spiral, where compliance is more performative than substantive. The study highlights that without addressing these philosophical discrepancies, the transition towards genuine internalization of human rights norms, as outlined in the spiral model, remains elusive. Collectively, the findings underscore how philosophical discrepancies\u0026mdash;manifested through cultural relativism, conservative values, and ideological resistance\u0026mdash;pose significant challenges to the universal application and effective implementation of human rights treaties in Pakistan. These discrepancies not only limit the efficacy of external incentives and pressures but also contribute to the state\u0026rsquo;s hesitancy to fully internalize and embrace international human rights norms. The study thus provides a nuanced understanding of how deeply ingrained cultural and ideological differences can hinder progress and perpetuate a cycle of superficial compliance and backsliding, with broader implications for the global human rights regime.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFurthermore, the integrated findings of the study reveal significant institutional discrepancies in the implementation of UN-led human rights treaties within Pakistan, reflecting broader challenges faced by allegedly Abusive states. Pakistan's institutional framework is marked by a lack of accessibility, bureaucratic inefficiencies, and a complex overlap between federal and provincial human rights bodies. These issues hinder the effective implementation of human rights treaties, demonstrating the critical gaps in institutional capacity. The arbitrary behavior of the state in treaty signing and implementation, characterized by minimal parliamentary consultation and public transparency, further exacerbates these discrepancies. This arbitrary approach underscores the state's selective compliance with international norms, driven more by external pressures than by genuine internal commitment. Clerical legislation and religious influence within the legislative process pose additional challenges, impeding the domestication of international human rights instruments. This conservative interpretation of human rights is a direct result of Pakistan's institutionalized power struggles, where competing factions prioritize their interests over the public good. The lack of democratic accountability and disregard for policy, where authorities neglect their own laws and regulations, also reflect the systemic weaknesses that undermine the efficacy of human rights implementation. In linking these findings to the broader theoretical frameworks, the theories of supranationalism and moral nationalism provide valuable insights. Supranationalism, which emphasizes the importance of strong, multi-level governance structures like those within the EU, contrasts sharply with Pakistan\u0026rsquo;s fragmented and overlapping institutions. The lack of a coherent, unified approach to human rights implementation reflects the difficulties in adopting supranational principles within a nation-state framework that is heavily influenced by moral nationalism. This nationalism prioritizes sovereignty and cultural identity over external human rights standards, leading to institutional discrepancies that hinder the effective implementation of international treaties. Moreover, Oona Hathaway's \u003cem\u003eintegrated theory of international law\u003c/em\u003e offers a lens through which to understand the limitations of international human rights treaties in altering state behavior. While these treaties provide a crucial framework for promoting human rights, their impact is contingent upon domestic institutions' ability to internalize and enforce these norms. In Pakistan, the findings suggest that while international treaties have influenced judicial decisions and legislative transformations, their integration into domestic law remains inconsistent. This inconsistency reflects the broader institutional discrepancies where domestic enforcement mechanisms are often weak, under-resourced, and subject to external influences. Overall, the study underscores those institutional discrepancies in Pakistan are deeply embedded within its legal and political structures, reflecting broader challenges in the global implementation of human rights treaties. The findings suggest that without addressing these foundational institutional weaknesses, the efficacy of UN-led human rights treaties will remain limited, and the broader goals of international human rights law will be difficult to achieve in Abusive states like Pakistan. This analysis highlights the need for a more nuanced approach that considers both the external pressures of supranational governance and the internal dynamics of moral nationalism and domestic institutional capacity.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec24\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e6.1. Practical Implications of The Study\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe study\u0026rsquo;s implications extend to a range of stakeholders, including policymakers, international legal scholars, and practitioners involved in human rights advocacy and treaty implementation. For policymakers, particularly within the EU and Abusive states, these findings suggest a need for a more nuanced approach to the enforcement and internalization of international human rights norms. The study reveals that the imposition of external human rights standards without sufficient consideration of domestic institutional capacities and cultural contexts leads to significant implementation challenges.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePolicymakers in allegedly abusive states like Pakistan should focus on strengthening domestic institutions, ensuring that they are not only capable of implementing international treaties but also align with local cultural and political realities. This requires a shift from a top-down approach to one that is more inclusive of domestic stakeholders, ensuring that human rights norms are domesticated in a manner that is both effective and culturally sensitive. Additionally, international organizations and institutions, including the UN and the EU, must recognize the limitations of their current strategies. The study suggests that international law and its institutions must evolve to address the complex realities of Abusive states, where institutional capacity and political will often fall short of the standards required for effective human rights implementation. A potential policy implication is the need for international bodies to provide tailored support to Abusive states, focusing on capacity building and the development of robust, context-specific implementation mechanisms. This may involve providing technical assistance, fostering greater collaboration between international and domestic institutions, and promoting legal reforms that are both internationally aligned and locally grounded.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor researchers and scholars, this study highlights the importance of further investigation into the interplay between international human rights norms and domestic legal systems. The findings suggest that a more granular understanding of institutional and philosophical discrepancies is necessary to develop more effective strategies for human rights advocacy and treaty enforcement. Researchers should focus on exploring alternative frameworks that might better accommodate the unique challenges faced by Abusive states, possibly drawing on interdisciplinary approaches that integrate insights from political science, law, and cultural studies.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eStakeholders, including civil society organizations and human rights practitioners, can benefit from these findings by advocating for reforms that address both the philosophical and institutional barriers to human rights implementation. These stakeholders should work to bridge the gap between international norms and domestic practices, promoting greater awareness and understanding of human rights within local communities and institutions. By fostering a more bottom-up approach to human rights advocacy, they can help ensure that international treaties are not only signed and ratified but also meaningfully implemented on the ground.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn summary, while this study was not solution-oriented, its findings have significant implications for the efficacy of UN-led human rights treaties. The identified philosophical and institutional discrepancies highlight the need for a more context-sensitive approach to human rights implementation, one that acknowledges the complexities of Abusive states and seeks to address them through tailored locally-informed strategies. By focusing on the root causes of these discrepancies, policymakers, international institutions, and stakeholders can work towards more effective and sustainable human rights outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec25\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e6.2. Limitations\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe study's nature limits the generalizability of the findings, as it was semi-empirical qualitative research focused on understanding contextual hindrances in treaty performance with specific reference to Pakistan. While this approach provided in-depth insights, it inherently lacks the broader applicability found in quantitative studies, such as Oona Hathaway\u0026rsquo;s \u003cem\u003eintegrated theory of international law\u003c/em\u003e, which offers more generalizable conclusions. Furthermore, the sample size in this study was not comprehensive, with unequal representation among the groups: 3 academics, 4 international law experts, 5 civil society/NGO members, and 3 state institution representatives. This imbalance in representation poses a limitation to the study's comprehensiveness.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRegarding the sample of state institutions, the researcher encountered significant challenges. Numerous institutions were contacted, but the majority did not respond. This reflects a broader issue of communication disconnect between citizens and state institutions in Pakistan, particularly in the context of the underutilization of email as a communication tool. The researcher also engaged with officials from the Ministry of Human Rights (MOHR) in Punjab (Lahore), but they were inadequately prepared to address the questionnaire.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec26\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e6.3. Paper Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe relationship between trade and human rights has been the subject of extensive debate, with various scholars offering differing viewpoints. Previous studies have critiqued the linkage of trade policies with labor standards, arguing that such connections often serve protectionist interests rather than genuinely improving working conditions in developing countries. Additionally, the existing literature has been criticized for oversimplifying the complex interactions between trade regimes and state behavior, failing to capture the nuanced ways in which trade can influence human rights practices beyond mere regulatory frameworks. Moreover, it has been suggested that Abusive regimes can exploit indirect trade channels to reap the benefits of international trade without facing significant pressure to improve their human rights records. This study contributes a novel perspective by focusing on how hybrid or pseudo-democratic states, like Pakistan, navigate international human rights commitments differently compared to fully democratic or authoritarian regimes. Previous research has largely concentrated on the dichotomy between democracies and authoritarian states, leaving a gap in understanding the unique dynamics of states like Pakistan. This research specifically analyzed the EU-Pakistan relationship within the context of Pakistan's Generalized System of Preferences Plus (GSP+) status, offering unique insights into the intersection of trade and human rights in such settings. By exploring how Pakistan balances the economic incentives of GSP\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;with its often-problematic human rights practices, this study provides a fresh angle on the ongoing debate, highlighting the complexities and contradictions that arise in these hybrid regimes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFurthermore, this study extends the theoretical discourse on treaty performance, particularly by engaging with and contributing to Oona\u0026rsquo;s \u003cem\u003eintegrated theory of international law\u003c/em\u003e. While previous studies have tested this theory in various contexts, this research offers a unique contribution by applying it to the EU-Pakistan dynamics. The findings suggest that allegedly Abusive states like Pakistan, despite their poor human rights records, may exhibit a paradoxical enthusiasm for ratifying international human rights treaties due to the economic incentives attached, such as those provided by GSP+. However, this enthusiasm is undermined by profound challenges in implementing these treaties, stemming from inherent philosophical and institutional discrepancies. This study argues that these findings are not only relevant to Pakistan but could be generalizable to other Abusive or low-performing states engaged in similar international agreements. The research was driven by a deep concern for the erosion of constitutional protections for fundamental rights in Pakistan, raising the troubling question of \u003cem\u003ewhat happens when the very institutions meant to protect these rights become their most determined violators\u003c/em\u003e.? While international human rights treaty regimes hold promise, this study highlights the significant philosophical and institutional challenges they face, particularly in Abusive states.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003ch2\u003eFunding:\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe author did not receive any financial support from any funding agency, institution, or organization for this article\u0026apos;s research, authorship, or publication.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eF.A. designed the study, conducted the interviews, performed the data analysis, and drafted and revised the manuscript. F.A. approves the final version of the manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAcknowledgement\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe author would like to thank Dr. Muhammad Younis for his valuable academic guidance and feedback during the early stages of this research. Appreciation is also extended to Dr. Mudassir Farooqi and Dr. Abeeda Qureshi for their insightful suggestions, particularly in shaping the research methodology at its initial stages. All remaining errors are the sole responsibility of the author.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAbbott, Frederick M. 2006. \u003cem\u003eInternational trade and human rights: foundations and conceptual issues\u003c/em\u003e. Vol. 5. University of Michigan Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAdewusi, Emmanuel Oluwatosin, and \u0026Ouml;zker Kocadal. 2022. A Comparative Analysis of Human Rights Protection in European Union and African Union Countries: An fsQCA Approach. \u003cem\u003eUluslararası İlişkiler / International Relations\u003c/em\u003e 19. Uluslararası İlişkiler Konseyi İktisadi İşletmesi: 23\u0026ndash;44.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAmnesty International. 2022/23. \u003cem\u003eThe State of the World\u0026rsquo;s Human Rights\u003c/em\u003e. London: Amnesty International Ltd. https://doi.org/978-0-86210-502-0.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAlston, Philip. 1982. International trade as an instrument of positive human rights policy. \u003cem\u003eHum. Rts. Q.\u003c/em\u003e 4. HeinOnline: 155.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eB\u0026oacute;ka, \u0026Eacute;va. 2012. The European Idea of a Supranational Union of Peace. \u003cem\u003eSociety and Economy\u003c/em\u003e 34. Akad\u0026eacute;miai Kiad\u0026oacute;: 387\u0026ndash;397.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBrown, Gordon, ed. 2016. 6. Implementation of Human Rights. In \u003cem\u003eThe Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the 21st Century: A Living Document in a Changing World\u003c/em\u003e, 81\u0026ndash;104. Open Book Publishers. https://doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0091.11.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBuchanan, Allen. 2010. The Egalitarianism of Human Rights. \u003cem\u003eEthics\u003c/em\u003e 120. The University of Chicago Press: 679\u0026ndash;710. https://doi.org/10.1086/653433.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBurnham, Peter, Karin Gilland Lutz, Wyn Grant, and Zig Layton-Henry. 2008. \u003cem\u003eResearch Methods in Politics\u003c/em\u003e. London: Macmillan Education UK. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-230-36556-8.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCerna, Christina M. 1994. Universality of Human Rights and Cultural Diversity: Implementation of Human Rights in Different Socio-Cultural Contexts. \u003cem\u003eHuman Rights Quarterly\u003c/em\u003e 16. Johns Hopkins University Press: 740\u0026ndash;752. https://doi.org/10.2307/762567.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChyzh, Olga. 2016. Dangerous liaisons: An endogenous model of international trade and human rights. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Peace Research\u003c/em\u003e 53. SAGE Publications Sage UK: London, England: 409\u0026ndash;423.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCole, Wade M. 2012. Human Rights as Myth and Ceremony? Reevaluating the Effectiveness of Human Rights Treaties, 1981\u0026ndash;2007. \u003cem\u003eAmerican Journal of Sociology\u003c/em\u003e 117: 1131\u0026ndash;1171. https://doi.org/10.1086/662706.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCole, Wade M. 2015. Mind the Gap: State Capacity and the Implementation of Human Rights Treaties. \u003cem\u003eInternational Organization\u003c/em\u003e 69: 405\u0026ndash;441. https://doi.org/10.1017/S002081831400040X.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCorradetti, Claudio. 2009. \u003cem\u003eRelativism and Human Rights\u003c/em\u003e. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9986-1.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCottier, Thomas. 2002. Trade and Human Rights: a relationship to discover. \u003cem\u003eJ. Int\u0026rsquo;l Econ. L.\u003c/em\u003e 5. HeinOnline: 111.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDai, Xinyuan. 2014. The Conditional Effects of International Human Rights Institutions. \u003cem\u003eHuman Rights Quarterly\u003c/em\u003e 36. The Johns Hopkins University Press: 569\u0026ndash;589.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDe B\u0026uacute;rca, Gr\u0026aacute;inne. 2017. Human Rights Experimentalism. \u003cem\u003eAmerican Journal of International Law\u003c/em\u003e 111: 277\u0026ndash;316. https://doi.org/10.1017/ajil.2016.16.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDhaliwal, Shveta. 2011. CULTURAL RELATIVISM : Relevance to Universal and Regional Human Rights Monitoring. \u003cem\u003eThe Indian Journal of Political Science\u003c/em\u003e 72. Indian Political Science Association: 635\u0026ndash;640.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDjamba, Yanyi K., and W. Lawrence Neuman. 2002. Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. \u003cem\u003eTeaching Sociology\u003c/em\u003e 30: 380. https://doi.org/10.2307/3211488.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDonnelly, Jack. 1986. International human rights: a regime analysis. \u003cem\u003eInternational Organization\u003c/em\u003e 40: 599\u0026ndash;642. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818300027296.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEEAS. 2021. \u0026quot;Multi-Annual Indicative Programme (MIP) 2021\u0026ndash;2027.\u0026quot; European External Action Service (EEAS). Accessed February 13, 2024. https://ec.europa.eu\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEscrib\u0026agrave;-Folch, Abel, and Joseph Wright. 2015. Human Rights Prosecutions and Autocratic Survival. \u003cem\u003eInternational Organization\u003c/em\u003e 69: 343\u0026ndash;373. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818314000484.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGoodman, Ryan, and Derek Jinks. 2004. How to Influence States: Socialization and International Human Rights Law. \u003cem\u003eDuke Law Journal\u003c/em\u003e 54. Duke University School of Law: 621\u0026ndash;703.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGuzman, Andrew T., and Katerina Linos. 2014. Human Rights Backsliding. \u003cem\u003eCalifornia Law Review\u003c/em\u003e 102. California Law Review, Inc.: 603\u0026ndash;654.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHafner-Burton, Emilie M. 2005. Trading Human Rights: How Preferential Trade Agreements Influence Government Repression. \u003cem\u003eInternational Organization\u003c/em\u003e 59. [MIT Press, University of Wisconsin Press, Cambridge University Press, International Organization Foundation]: 593\u0026ndash;629.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHathaway, Oona A. 2002. Do Human Rights Treaties Make a Difference? \u003cem\u003eThe Yale Law Journal\u003c/em\u003e 111. The Yale Law Journal Company, Inc.: 1935\u0026ndash;2042. https://doi.org/10.2307/797642.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHathaway, Oona A. 2005. Between Power and Principle: An Integrated Theory of International Law. \u003cem\u003eThe University of Chicago Law Review\u003c/em\u003e 72. University of Chicago Law Review: 469\u0026ndash;536.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHathaway, Oona A. 2007. Why Do Countries Commit to Human Rights Treaties? \u003cem\u003eThe Journal of Conflict Resolution\u003c/em\u003e 51. Sage Publications, Inc.: 588\u0026ndash;621.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHuman Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP). 2023. \u003cem\u003eMob-led Destruction of Churches in Jaranwala, Punjab\u003c/em\u003e. Lahore: HRCP. Accessed November 15, 2023.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHuman Rights Watch (HRW). 2023. \u003cem\u003eHuman Rights World Report\u003c/em\u003e. New York: Human Rights Watch. Accessed November 19, 2023.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKoremenos, Barbara, Charles Lipson, and Duncan Snidal. 2001. The rational design of international institutions. \u003cem\u003eInternational organization\u003c/em\u003e 55. Cambridge University Press: 761\u0026ndash;799.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLang, Andrew TF. 2006. Re-thinking trade and human rights. \u003cem\u003eTul. J. Int\u0026rsquo;l \u0026amp; Comp. L.\u003c/em\u003e 15. HeinOnline: 335.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLanglois, Anthony J. 2002. Human Rights: The Globalisation and Fragmentation of Moral Discourse. \u003cem\u003eReview of International Studies\u003c/em\u003e 28. Cambridge University Press: 479\u0026ndash;496.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLeib, Linda Hajjar. 2011. An Overview of the Characteristics and Controversies of Human Rights. In \u003cem\u003eHuman Rights and the Environment\u003c/em\u003e, 41\u0026ndash;68. Philosophical, Theoretical and Legal Perspectives. Brill.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLim, Hoe. 2001. Trade and Human Rights What\u0026rsquo;s at Issue? \u003cem\u003eJournal of World Trade\u003c/em\u003e 35.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMinistry of Human Rights (MOHR). 2016. \u003cem\u003eAction Plan for Human Rights\u003c/em\u003e. Islamabad: Ministry of Human Rights, Pakistan. Accessed February 13, 2023.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMinistry of Human Rights (MOHR). 2019. \u003cem\u003eAction Plan Against Religious Persecutions\u003c/em\u003e. Islamabad: Ministry of Human Rights, Pakistan. Accessed February 13, 2023.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSchmidt, Vivien A. 1999. European \u0026ldquo;Federalism\u0026rdquo; and Its Encroachments on National Institutions. \u003cem\u003ePublius\u003c/em\u003e 29. [CSF Associates Inc., Oxford University Press]: 19\u0026ndash;44.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eShahroo Malik. 2020. EU-Pakistan Trade Relations: The Role of GSP Plus Status and Pakistan\u0026rsquo;s Enhanced Access to EU Markets. \u003cem\u003eStrategic Studies\u003c/em\u003e 40: 20\u0026ndash;38. https://doi.org/10.53532/ss.040.01.0084.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eShor, Eran. 2008. Conflict, Terrorism, and the Socialization of Human Rights Norms: The Spiral Model Revisited. \u003cem\u003eSocial Problems\u003c/em\u003e 55. [Oxford University Press, Society for the Study of Social Problems]: 117\u0026ndash;138. https://doi.org/10.1525/sp.2008.55.1.117.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSingh, Rajkumar. 2009. Relevance of Saarc in South Asian Context. \u003cem\u003eThe Indian Journal of Political Science\u003c/em\u003e 70. Indian Political Science Association: 239\u0026ndash;248.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSrinivasan, Thirukodikaval N. 1998. Trade and human rights. \u003cem\u003eConstituent interests and US trade policies\u003c/em\u003e 1. University of Michigan Press Ann Arbor: 225\u0026ndash;253.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"UN Human Rights Treaty Regimes, Philosophical Discrepancies, Institutional Discrepancies, Civil and Political Liberties, State-Led Repression","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6538507/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6538507/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eWhat if the guardians of rights become their most relentless violators?\u003c/em\u003e 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\u0026rsquo;s GSP\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;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 \u003cem\u003eOona A. Hathaway\u0026rsquo;s integrated theory of international law\u003c/em\u003e, 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.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Philosophical and Institutional Discrepancies in UN Treaty Regimes: The Case of Human Rights in Pakistan under EU Influence","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-06-06 13:23:15","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6538507/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"7849d5a9-afc7-4ac2-95be-e9209b747964","owner":[],"postedDate":"June 6th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-09-29T17:08:26+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-06-06 13:23:15","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-6538507","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-6538507","identity":"rs-6538507","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}