Study smarter with Fiveable
Get study guides, practice questions, and cheatsheets for all your subjects. Join 500,000+ students with a 96% pass rate.
International treaties are the backbone of the global order you'll be tested on throughout your Global Studies course. These agreements reveal how nations attempt to solve collective problems—from preventing war to protecting human rights to addressing climate change. Understanding treaties means understanding sovereignty, international law, multilateralism, and the tension between national interests and global cooperation. You're not just learning about documents; you're learning about power, legitimacy, enforcement, and the limits of international governance.
When you encounter these treaties on exams, you're being tested on bigger questions: How do nations balance sovereignty with collective action? What makes international agreements effective—or toothless? Why do some treaties have enforcement mechanisms while others rely on moral authority? Don't just memorize dates and signatories—know what principle of international relations each treaty illustrates and be ready to compare how different treaties approach similar challenges.
These treaties establish universal standards for how governments must treat people—both their own citizens and others. They represent the post-WWII consensus that certain rights transcend national boundaries and that the international community has a stake in protecting individuals from state abuse.
Compare: Universal Declaration of Human Rights vs. Geneva Conventions—both protect individuals, but the UDHR applies during peacetime governance while the Geneva Conventions apply specifically during armed conflict. If an FRQ asks about wartime protections, Geneva is your answer; for everyday civil liberties, go with the UDHR.
These treaties attempt to prevent war, limit its destructiveness, or create collective defense arrangements. They illustrate different approaches to security: disarmament, deterrence, and alliance-building.
Compare: UN Charter vs. NATO Treaty—both address security, but the UN aims for universal collective security through diplomacy while NATO provides collective defense through military alliance. The UN includes adversaries at the same table; NATO explicitly excludes them.
These frameworks establish mechanisms for holding individuals and states accountable under international law. They represent the evolution from state-centric to individual-centric accountability.
Compare: Rome Statute vs. Geneva Conventions—both address wartime conduct, but the Geneva Conventions set the rules while the ICC (via the Rome Statute) prosecutes individuals who break them. The Geneva Conventions are nearly universal; the Rome Statute's effectiveness is limited by major-power non-participation.
These agreements establish rules for international commerce, reflecting the belief that economic interdependence promotes peace and prosperity—though critics argue they also entrench inequalities.
Compare: WTO Agreements vs. Paris Agreement—both require international cooperation, but the WTO has binding dispute resolution and sanctions while the Paris Agreement relies on voluntary commitments and peer pressure. This contrast illustrates the difference between hard law and soft law in international relations.
Environmental treaties address problems that no single nation can solve alone, making them test cases for global collective action. Their effectiveness depends on balancing universal participation with ambitious commitments.
Compare: Paris Agreement vs. NPT—both address existential global threats, but they take opposite approaches. The NPT imposes strict obligations on most states while granting privileges to a few (nuclear powers); the Paris Agreement lets each country set its own commitments. Both face criticism: the NPT for unfairness, Paris for weakness.
| Concept | Best Examples |
|---|---|
| Human rights standards | Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Convention on the Rights of the Child |
| Wartime protections | Geneva Conventions, Rome Statute |
| Collective security | UN Charter, NATO Treaty |
| Nuclear governance | Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons |
| International accountability | Rome Statute, Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations |
| Economic governance | WTO Agreements |
| Environmental cooperation | Paris Agreement |
| Soft law vs. hard law | Paris Agreement (soft) vs. WTO (hard) |
Which two treaties both protect individuals during armed conflict, and how do their approaches differ—one setting rules, the other prosecuting violations?
Compare the enforcement mechanisms of the WTO Agreements and the Paris Agreement. Why might nations accept binding trade rules but resist binding climate commitments?
If an FRQ asks you to evaluate the tension between national sovereignty and international cooperation, which treaty best illustrates this tension and why?
The UN Charter and NATO Treaty both address international security. Explain how their membership structures reflect fundamentally different theories about how to maintain peace.
Why has the Rome Statute's effectiveness been limited compared to the Geneva Conventions, even though both address similar crimes? What does this reveal about power in international law?