Introduction

States ratify treaties for many reasons, ranging from a genuine commitment to the principles found within the treaty to making a purely symbolic gesture. In the complex situation where a society is recovering from the turbulence of violence and instability, decisions are often made with long- and short-term goals in mind. ‘Fragile’ or ‘post-conflict’ states must balance priorities, such as security and survival, with the broader aims of positioning the nation within the international community. In this chapter, the terms ‘fragile’ or ‘post-conflict’ state refer to those states struggling with internal tensions and disruption to important infrastructure, which causes significant instability but which does not reach the threshold of an armed conflict. In this context, treaty ratification has significant potential to assist a state practically in reassembling domestic legal infrastructure, as well as demonstrating public support for important international principles. However, treaty ratification is a resource-intensive process, not a one-off event. To move a treaty beyond a paper commitment into the sphere of implementation, the ratifying state must both understand its treaty obligations and foster community ownership of them. These processes are seldom well executed, especially in the post-conflict context. Limited time frames and funding, the need for quick results, and the donor community's desire to find events to celebrate within situations that are often clouded in gloom can result in symbolic ratifications that have little impact at the grass-roots level.