






































Program in Arms Control & Domestic and International Security


IJOIS Fall 2016, Volume II 
Program in Arms Control & Domestic and International Security 

5 

 
 
 

 
 
 
 

 

 

 

Explaining Middle East Participation in the Convention Against Torture 

Derek Hoot 

University of Illinois 

Abstract  

The study of international regimes has largely concentrated on two central questions: 1. Why do 

states sign and ratify international regimes?; and 2. Do states comply with international regimes? 

These questions are deeply intertwined, as lack of compliance signals either state helplessness or 

ulterior motives for ratification behavior. In this paper, I will focus on those ulterior motives, 

mainly aid-seeking behavior and the desire for trade benefits. 

This paper seeks to demonstrate the relationship between Middle Eastern states' 

participation in the Convention Against Torture (CAT) and the acquisition of economic benefits. 

Additionally, it examines the significance of conflict in determining ratification behavior.  

About the Author 

Derek Hoot is a senior studying Political Science and Arabic Studies. He is interested in 

international human rights law and the implications of geopolitics on human rights. 



IJOIS Fall 2016, Volume II 
Program in Arms Control & Domestic and International Security 

6 

 
Introduction 

For the purposes of examining motives for Middle Eastern CAT compliance, the “Middle 

East” includes Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Israel, Iraq, Iran, Qatar, Bahrain, United Arab 

Emirates, Oman, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey. In order to demonstrate the changing state 

of human rights, specifically with regards to torture, the Cingranelli-Richards (CIRI) Human 

Rights Database's variable on the practice of torture was used. The CIRI Database defines torture 

as the “purposeful inflicting of extreme pain, whether mental or physical, by government 

officials or by private individuals at the instigation of government officials” (Cingranelli, 2014). 

The CIRI Database primarily draws from State Department data and is used by over 400 

organizations worldwide. Each country-year is independently coded by at least two coders to 

ensure reliability. Data on political terror, physical integrity, and armed conflict was used, which 

is described at length under “variable operationalization.” 

Ratification Theory 

In Oona A. Hathaway's 2007 paper “Why Do Countries Commit to Human Rights 

Treaties,” she describes what she calls the “collateral consequences” of committing to a human 

rights treaty. Hathaway asserts that “the decision to commit to a treaty… has collateral as well as 

legal consequences. These collateral consequences arise from the reactions of domestic or 

transnational actors to the state's decision to commit to the treaty” (Hathaway, 2007). This paper 

will focus on the transnational consequences, which according to Hathway, “may come about 

through the linking of foreign aid, trade, or other transnational relationships to the state's 

decision to ratify.”      



IJOIS Fall 2016, Volume II 
Program in Arms Control & Domestic and International Security 

7 

 
Other political scientists hold that a state's decision to ratify can also be influenced by 

domestic factors such as conflict, political instability, and uncertainty. In his paper on the origins 

of human rights regimes, Andrew Moravcsik claims that “governments seek to establish reliable 

judicial constraints on future non-democratic governments or on democratically elected 

governments that may seek (as in interwar Italy and Germany) to subvert democracy from 

within” (Moravcsik, 2000). He goes further to say that “[a state's] willingness to tolerate 

sovereignty costs increases insofar as the costs are outweighed by the benefits of reducing 

domestic political uncertainty” (Moravcsik, 2000). This implies that states in conflict are more 

likely to be ratifiers because they have a greater stake in reducing political uncertainty. 

 However, just as political uncertainty and domestic strife can increase a state's likelihood 

of ratification, conflict is believed to have a negative effect on human rights realities. The United 

Nations states that “serious violations of international humanitarian and human rights law are 

common in many armed conflicts. In certain circumstances, some of these violations may even 

constitute genocide, war crimes or crimes against humanity.” That said, it also acknowledges the 

complex relationship between human rights and conflict. The United Nations System Staff 

College in Turino, Italy, which trains United Nations personnel, cites the Cape Town Centre for 

Conflict Resolution, stating that “[the relationship] is two-fold: conflict can lead to human rights 

violations, and the sustained denial of human rights can lead to violent conflict” (Parleviet, 

2002). This paper will focus on the first relationship: countries in conflict are more susceptible to 

human rights violations. 

 Beyond the tangible benefits of aid, trade, and decreased political uncertainty, ratifying 

states may seek to participate in the “window dressing phenomenon,” that is, they simply wish to 

appear “good” to the international community while continuing noncompliant behavior in private 



IJOIS Fall 2016, Volume II 
Program in Arms Control & Domestic and International Security 

8 

 
settings. This is an international phenomenon, but it is much stronger on a regional level. 

Hathaway contends that “if a country lies in a region in which human rights norms are highly 

valued, it will seek to demonstrate its commitment to these shared norms and thereby smooth 

relations with other countries in the region” (Hathway, 2007). 

 I chose to analyze the Middle Eastern countries because of the complex nature of human 

rights, conflict, aid, and trade in the Middle East. Although the “Middle East” is a Eurocentric 

term and its boundaries are largely considered arbitrary, I chose the definition is concurrent with 

the State Department's definition of the “Near East” and “Middle East” in 1958 (with the 

exception of Yemen and the United Arab Emirates, which were established in 1971 and 1990 

respectively, and Iran, which I considered because of its geographic location and its relevance to 

the study of the effects of conflict and exports on ratification) (The New York Times, 1958). In 

studying the ratification of human rights agreements, I focused my efforts on countries' 

ratification behavior in relation to the Convention Against Torture. 

In this paper, I seek to explain why Middle Eastern countries, especially those that 

ultimately fail to comply with the Convention Against Torture, ratify it anyway. I hypothesize 

that Middle Eastern countries who ratify the CAT will experience “rewards” in the form of 

increased foreign aid despite stagnating or decreasing human rights conditions in their countries 

post-ratification. I also hypothesize that conflicts with a domestic dimension will increase the the 

likelihood of CAT ratification.  

Variable Operationalization 



IJOIS Fall 2016, Volume II 
Program in Arms Control & Domestic and International Security 

9 

 
In explaining CAT ratification behavior, I divided my independent variables into three 

major categories: human rights realities, economic variables (transnational collateral 

consequences), and conflict variables (domestic collateral consequences). 

 I chose to describe human rights realities in Middle Eastern countries by using Purdue's 

Political Terror Scale [PTS], and Cingranelli-Richards Human Rights Data Set torture [TORT] 

and physical integrity [PHYSINT] variable. I chose the Purdue PTS scale in particular because it 

provides insight into the more visible state behaviors that do not comply with the CAT. Its 

coders are also specifically trained to ignore their personal biases and give states the benefit of 

the doubt while analyzing human rights reports. Purdue researchers’ Political Terror Scale (PTS) 

uses evaluations of torture, rule of law, civil and political rights, and political murder from both 

the State Department and Amnesty International. For my PTS variable, I averaged State and 

Amnesty findings, which range from zero to five. Level One implies that the state in question is 

“under a secure rule of law, [where] people are not imprisoned for their views, and torture is rare 

or exceptional.” (Gibney, 2016) In contrast, in Level Five countries, terror has expanded to the 

whole population – there is no limit on the means or thoroughness in which the leaders of Level 

Five societies pursue personal or ideological goals. 

 The PTS variable works in tandem with the torture and physical integrity variables to 

show whether human rights conditions improved in Middle Eastern societies post-ratification. 

However, it also shows the value the society in question places on its international image. If a 

state is attempting to “window dress” by signing onto human rights agreements, they may or may 

not continue to practice torture but will attempt to reduce overt forms of political terror. 



IJOIS Fall 2016, Volume II 
Program in Arms Control & Domestic and International Security 

10 

 
The Cingranelli-Richards (CIRI) data set defines torture as the “purposeful inflicting of 

extreme pain, whether mental or physical, by government officials or by private individuals at 

the instigation of government officials” (Cingranelli, 2014). The torture variable ranges from 

zero to two, with zero meaning “torture did not occur” in that given year, one meaning “torture 

was practiced frequently” and two meaning that torture was widespread and/or systematic. 

 My last human rights-related variable, physical integrity (PHYSINT), is an additive index 

constructed from the torture, extrajudicial killing, disappearance, and political imprisonment. It 

ranges from zero to eight (no government respect for these four rights and full government 

respect for these four rights, respectively) (Cingranelli, 2014). 

 In order to determine whether countries were motivated to ratify the CAT for economic 

benefits, I employed two variables, representing “aid” [FAID] and “trade” [EXPO]. Both of my 

data sets were from the World Bank Database. In operationalizing aid, I took year-by-year data 

of foreign aid from 1981 to 2011. In operationalizing trade, I took year-by-year data of the 

percent of the state's gross domestic product that was composed by exported goods and services. 

FAID is in US dollars and EXPO is a percentage (World Bank, 2015).  

I also wanted to capture the effect of armed conflict, specifically armed conflicts with a 

domestic dimension, on CAT ratification. I hypothesized that conflicts with domestic 

consequences would increase political uncertainty and therefore correlate with a higher 

likelihood of ratification. For my armed conflict variables, I used the UCDP/PRIO Armed 

Conflict Dataset (Uppsala Conflict Data Program/Centre for the Study of Civil Wars, 

International Peace Research Institute, Oslo). Because the nature and intensity of armed conflicts 



IJOIS Fall 2016, Volume II 
Program in Arms Control & Domestic and International Security 

11 

 
could potentially affect state ratification behavior as well as forms of government repression, I 

used UCDP/PRO's disaggregated conflict variables as well as their intensity variable. 

UCDP/PRIO defines an armed conflict as a “contested compatibility that concerns 

government and/or territory where the use of armed force between two parties, of which at least 

one is the government of a state, results in at least 25 battle-related deaths” (Uppsala University, 

2016). Armed conflicts in the dataset are separated into four categories: extrasystemic conflicts, 

interstate conflicts, internal conflicts, and internationalized conflicts. Extrasystemic conflicts 

occur between a state and a non-state group outside  of its own territory, like the American 

mission to destroy al Qaeda. Interstate conflicts occur between two or more states, internal 

conflicts occur between the government of a state and one or more internal opposition group(s) 

without intervention from other states, and internationalized internal armed conflicts occur 

between the government of a state and one or more internal opposition group(s) with intervention 

from other states (secondary parties) on one or both sides. I coded this “nature of conflict” 

variables as binary/binomial variables. For example, if a state experienced an extrasystemic 

conflict in 1984, it would receive a score of one for the extrasystemic [ExtraSys] variable for that 

year. 

The conflict intensity [Intensity.Level] variable ranges between one and two, with a score 

of one describing a “minor” conflict in which between 25 and 999 battle-related deaths occurred 

in a given year, and a score of two describe a “war” in which at least 1,000 battle-related deaths 

occurred in a given year (Uppsala University, 2016). To account for some countries experiencing 

multiple conflicts during the same year, the conflict intensity variable is additive. For instance, if 

a state experiences two wars and a minor conflict in a single year, that year receives an intensity 

level score of five. 



IJOIS Fall 2016, Volume II 
Program in Arms Control & Domestic and International Security 

12 

 
Results 

First, I wanted to examine the human rights conditions in Middle Eastern societies post- 

ratification of the Convention Against Torture to see whether they improved. Out of the twelve 

ratifying countries, political terror increased in eight (two-thirds) of them. Likewise, eight 

countries experienced a decrease in physical integrity post-ratification. Only four countries 

experienced an increase in torture. “Improvement,” however, is not the international standard. 

Out of the twelve ratifiers, all but two (one being Iraq, which has no torture data post-

ratification) experienced years where they practiced “frequent” torture. Additionally, Qatar,  

which signed in 2000, experienced widespread and systematic torture for the majority of its post-

ratification years. The only truly CAT- compliant state from ratification in 2004 to 2011 is Syria, 

a state which has since descended into civil strife and resorted to bombing and deploying 

chemical weapons on its own citizens. 

Next, I wanted to get an idea of whether CAT-ratifying countries were experiencing 

increased aid and trade post-ratification, to see whether they were seeking transnational collateral 

consequences, and being rewarded. Two-thirds of ratifying countries experienced increases in 

foreign aid post-ratification. Likewise, eight ratifiers, or two-thirds of ratifying countries, 

experienced an increase in exports as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product. Lastly, even 

though nearly every single ratifier was in one way or another non-compliant since ratification, 

every single ratifier experienced either aid or trade benefits.*  

 

Figure 1.a. – Comparing compliance and transnational collateral consequences 



IJOIS Fall 2016, Volume II 
Program in Arms Control & Domestic and International Security 

13 

 

 

*That is not to say that there were not countries that temporarily or completely phased out torture in the years 
following ratification: Syria and Turkey phased out torture completely post-ratification (until 2011) and Yemen 
phased out torture for the next five years. Still, in all cases, there existed post-ratification years in which torture was 
practiced frequently.  

**Bahraini political terror decreased post-ratification but then experienced backsliding 

***Israeli torture did not increase for four years post-ratification  

****Saudi foreign aid increased briefly post-ratification 

In order to empirically test this phenomenon, I designed a logit model describing the 

effects of foreign aid, exports, and the various conflict variables (nature and intensity) on CAT 

ratification. Logit, or logistic regression models are used to estimate the probability of a binary 

response variable based on one or more predictors. in this case, state compliance with the CAT is 



IJOIS Fall 2016, Volume II 
Program in Arms Control & Domestic and International Security 

14 

 
the binary response variable. Model code and summary of fit are included in the Appendix I, and 

time-series describing trade and aid variables are included in Appendix II. 

Two variables demonstrated significance: internationalized conflict and foreign aid. 

Internationalized internal conflict had a p-value of 0.0268 and foreign aid had a p-value of 

0.0714. This means that given the data, there is a 7.14% chance that the null hypothesis, that 

internationalized internal conflict has no effect on CAT compliance, is true. Likewise, given the 

data, there is a 2.68% chance that the null hypothesis, that foreign aid has no effect on CAT 

compliance, is true. The [Internat] variable had a negative coefficient, implying that the more 

internationalized conflict that a society experienced, the less likely they were to ratify the CAT. 

In contrast, foreign aid had a positive coefficient, implying that the more foreign aid a state 

received, the more likely they were to ratify the CAT. 

This first finding seems counterintuitive: It would seem likely that a state experiencing 

any kind of internal conflict, however internationalized, would be pressured into trading 

increased political certainty for decreased sovereignty. However, I argue that, out of all the 

conflict types, internationalized internal conflict is the most threatening to state sovereignty. In 

that case, a regime will do everything in its power to avoid taking actions that will further reduce 

or threaten state sovereignty. This includes the active avoidance of international human rights 

agreements, including the CAT. 

 The second finding reaffirms my hypothesis about transnational collateral consequences. 

Countries exhibit aid-seeking behavior when deciding whether or not to ratify the CAT. The data 

provides dramatic examples. Turkey, Qatar, Lebanon, and Egypt all experienced 100%+ 



IJOIS Fall 2016, Volume II 
Program in Arms Control & Domestic and International Security 

15 

 
increases in foreign aid in the first five years after ratification, with Egypt almost quadrupling its 

aid numbers from $1.6 billion to $6 billion from 1986 to 1990. 

Discussion 

In examining motives for ratifying the Convention Against Torture, only 

internationalized internal conflict and foreign aid had a significant effect on state ratification 

behavior. There are several potential reasons as to why other conflict variables and the trade 

variables did not have a significant effect. 

 For the three insignificant conflict variables, two possible explanations exist based on the 

literature. One explanation is that these conflicts affect a state's sovereignty profile and political 

uncertainty profile. Therefore, in some conflicts, trading sovereignty for political certainty is not 

feasible because both are threatened to a relatively equal extent. In other conflicts, political 

certainty is paramount, but there is no discernible pattern that implies that internal armed 

conflict, extrasystemic conflict, or interstate conflict influence state ratification behavior one way 

or the other. 

 Another explanation for the insignificance of these three conflict variables is that 

ratification only decreases political uncertainty for certain regimes in conflict, particularly 

fledgling democracies. Most Middle Eastern countries, according to the Polity Project, are 

autocracies and anocracies (Marshall 2013). Therefore, these are not “governments [seeking] to 

establish reliable judicial constraints on future nondemocratic governments or on democratically 

elected governments that may seek...to subvert democracy from within,” nor are they working to 

prevent “democratic backsliding,” as Moravcsik posits. Moravcsik’s reasoning supports the 

findings: conflict-involved states with lower polity scores are rarely ratifiers.  



IJOIS Fall 2016, Volume II 
Program in Arms Control & Domestic and International Security 

16 

 
 For the trade variable (exports as a percentage of gross domestic product), there are also 

opposing elements that may influence ratification behavior in ambiguous ways. Intuitively, 

countries that demonstrate rent-seeking behavior will ratify human rights treaties to maximize 

trade benefits. However, rentier states often experience rampant human rights violations due to 

lack of accountability. DeMeritt and Young argue that “repression is less costly where states do 

not rely on their citizenry for generating revenue, so that these states are more likely than others 

to use indiscriminate violations of personal integrity rights as a policy tool” (DeMeritt and 

Young, 2013). That is not to say that non-compliant states never ratify, but that repressive states 

may avoid agreeing to human rights treaties to deny dissenters any sort of legitimate legal 

framework. For some states, Hathaway's “legal consequences” may outweigh any positive 

collateral consequences. 

 With the presumption that internationalized internal conflict discourages ratification, let 

us examine Iraq, Lebanon, and Yemen, all of whom experienced internationalized internalized 

conflicts during the 1981- 2011 time period. Iraq, which experienced IIC from 2004 onwards, 

did not ratify the CAT until 2011, the exact year that the conflict deescalated from “war” status 

to “minor conflict” status on the UCDP/PRIO scale. Lebanon, which experienced IIC in 1983 

and 1984, did not ratify the CAT until 2000. Yemen, which experienced IIC from 2009-2011, 

ratified the CAT 18 years prior, in 1991. It would be interesting to see, had Yemen not ratified 

the CAT yet, how long this conflict would postpone their government's ratification decision. 

 Lastly, what about the “window dressing” argument? Do regimes use ratifying as a tool 

to conform to regional or international norms? As noted in the results (Figure 1.1), the majority 

of ratifiers experienced increased political terror post-ratification. These are largely overt acts of 

violence that violate international human rights norms. Considering that PTS data comes from 



IJOIS Fall 2016, Volume II 
Program in Arms Control & Domestic and International Security 

17 

 
the State Department and Amnesty International, these acts are largely visible to state and non-

state actors. One argument is that by ratifying the CAT, regimes temporarily distract from their 

human rights malfeasance. Another factor is that countries only care about the regional norms to 

which Hathaway refers, and thus may not strive to meet the international standard if it is 

significantly more difficult to conform to than the regional norm. 

Limitations 

If I were to examine the role of trade, aid, and conflict in human rights agreements again, 

I would operationalize my variables much differently to minimize the number of binary and low-

range, discrete variables in my regression. For example, instead of having a conflict intensity 

variable that ranges from one to two, I would have a variable describing the number of battle-

related deaths in the conflict. This would better capture the wide range of conflict intensity 

within and between Middle Eastern states, and perhaps provide a more detailed picture of how 

conflict intensity affects compliance behavior.  

To further improve upon this analysis, I would also collect country aid data to determine 

the primary sources of foreign aid post-ratification. Distinguishing specific aid types, such as 

military aid, would also provide useful information. It is possible that ratifiers are seeking 

specific types of aid. Placing all aid types in a single variable makes it difficult to unpack what 

motivates ratification behavior. Seeking out specific types of aid could skew the results because 

certain states may receive significantly larger amounts of military or humanitarian aid than 

others. 

In addition, there are obviously other factors beyond ratification that lead to increased 

exports and foreign aid. Humanitarian disasters, free trade agreements, resource discovery, and 



IJOIS Fall 2016, Volume II 
Program in Arms Control & Domestic and International Security 

18 

 
other factors can influence these economic variables. Controlling for these events would greatly 

improve further studies. With these added controls, researchers could more accurately discern the 

“reward” effect that causes countries to exhibit aid-seeking behavior and pursue trade benefits. 

 Lastly, examining this phenomenon in other regions could shed some light on why 

Middle Eastern governments behave the way that they do. Do regions with more diverse 

economies exhibit the same aid and rent-seeking behavior? Do regions with more established 

human rights norms ratify human rights agreements at faster rates than regions without those 

norms? By broadening the study, researchers could glean more information about economically 

driven and normative behavior. 

Conclusion 

Across the Middle East, repressive regimes that are unable to fully comply with the 

Convention Against Torture ratify the CAT to obtain foreign aid benefits. When experiencing 

internationalized internal conflicts, however, Middle Eastern countries avoid ratification to 

preserve their threatened sovereignty. Other conflict types do not affect ratification behavior, 

perhaps because of ambiguous effects on sovereignty and uncertainty profiles, or perhaps 

because these regimes have no interest in bolstering the judicial means of future democracies. 

 Transnational collateral consequences matter. When countries see non-compliant ratifiers 

in their region rewarded, they pile onto human rights agreements regardless of their capacity to 

comply. Not only does this reward aid-seeking behavior, it undermines the legitimacy of the 

international human rights regime and harms the very citizens it claims to protect. 

Furthermore, the sovereignty-certainty calculus matters. Countries that feel that their sovereignty 

is threatened are unlikely to agree to human rights treaties, and therefore are unaccountable to 



IJOIS Fall 2016, Volume II 
Program in Arms Control & Domestic and International Security 

19 

 
human rights norms. In countries where the government feels its sovereignty is compromised, 

little can be done to push a human rights agenda. 

 Policy implications are two-fold: First, foreign aid benefits should be explicitly 

contingent on compliance, not ratification, especially if military aid is involved. This should not 

discourage ratification because it is still a prerequisite for compliance. Second, interventionist 

countries should reevaluate their approach to promoting human rights internationally. For 

example, by dismantling Iraqi sovereignty, the War in Iraq postponed the Iraqi ratification 

decision by a number of years. Thus, Iraq's road to human rights compliance was lengthened 

considerably. In the future, commitment to preserving a state's sovereignty in the long run may 

persuade them to concede some sovereignty to the international human rights regime in the short 

run.  This commitment can be stated explicitly during negotiations, referred to as an upside of 

ratification (i.e. recognizing human rights provides an extra layer of legitimacy), and 

communicated through state and supra-state organization behavior. For example, states and 

international organizations pushing the CAT should limit intrusive military actions and be wary 

of statements that challenge the legitimacy of potential ratifiers. With this approach in mind, the 

international human rights regime can move to encourage Middle Eastern participants to act on 

the CAT. 

  



IJOIS Fall 2016, Volume II 
Program in Arms Control & Domestic and International Security 

20 

 
 

References 

Cingranelli, David L., David L. Richards, and K. Chad Clay, The CIRI Human Rights Dataset, 

2014, 2014.04.14 

DeMeritt, Jacqueline HR, and Joseph K. Young. "A political economy of human rights: Oil, 

natural gas, and state incentives to repress." Conflict Management and Peace Science 

30.2 (2013): 99- 120. 

Gibney, Mark, Linda Cornett, Reed Wood, Peter Haschke, and Daniel Arnon. 2015. The Political 

Terror Scale 1976-2015. 

Hathaway, Oona A. "Why do countries commit to human rights treaties?." Journal of Conflict 

Resolution 51.4 (2007): 588-621. 

Marshall, Monty G., and Ted Robert Gurr. "Individual Country Regime Trends." The Polity IV 

Project. The Center for Systemic Peace, 2013. Web. 

Moravcsik, Andrew. "The origins of human rights regimes: Democratic delegation in postwar 

Europe." International Organization 54.02 (2000): 217-252. 

"'Near East' Is Mideast, Washington Explains." The New York Times 14 Aug. 1958: 8. Print. 

"Net Official Development Assistance and Official Aid Received (current US$)." Data. World 

Bank, 2015. Web. 06 May 2016. 

Parlevliet, Michelle. "Bridging the divide. Exploring the relationship between human rights and 

conflict management." Track Two 11.1 (2002): 8-43. 



IJOIS Fall 2016, Volume II 
Program in Arms Control & Domestic and International Security 

21 

 
      

"UCDP/PRIO Armed Conflict Dataset - PRIO." UCDP/PRIO Armed Conflict Dataset - PRIO. 

Department of Peace and Conflict Research, Uppsala University, Centre for the Study of 

Civil War at the International Peace Research Institute Sweden, n.d. Web. 06 May 2016.  

     

  



IJOIS Fall 2016, Volume II 
Program in Arms Control & Domestic and International Security 

22 

 

 

Appendix I: 

Figures explained. 

Figures 2.a.-2.p. are time-series describing the human rights conditions of each Middle Eastern 

country from 1981-2011. They include the Political Terror Scale (PTS) variable (in gray), the 

physical integrity (PhysInt) variable (in black) and the torture (TORT) variable (in blue). The 

vertical red line represents the year that the country in question ratified the Convention Against 

Torture. 

      



IJOIS Fall 2016, Volume II 
Program in Arms Control & Domestic and International Security 

23 

 
Figures 3.a-3.o are time-series describing the fluctuation in foreign aid in each Middle Eastern 

country from 1981-2011. The vertical red line represents the year that the country in question 

ratified the Convention Against Torture. 

Figures 4.a-4.o are time-series describing the fluctuation in exports (as a percentage of gross 

domestic product) in each Middle Eastern country from 1981-2011. The vertical red line 

represents the year that the country in question ratified the Convention Against Torture.  

Appendix II: 



IJOIS Fall 2016, Volume II 
Program in Arms Control & Domestic and International Security 

24 

 

  



IJOIS Fall 2016, Volume II 
Program in Arms Control & Domestic and International Security 

25 

 

 



IJOIS Fall 2016, Volume II 
Program in Arms Control & Domestic and International Security 

26 

 

 



IJOIS Fall 2016, Volume II 
Program in Arms Control & Domestic and International Security 

27 

 

 



IJOIS Fall 2016, Volume II 
Program in Arms Control & Domestic and International Security 

28 

 

 



IJOIS Fall 2016, Volume II 
Program in Arms Control & Domestic and International Security 

29 

 

 



IJOIS Fall 2016, Volume II 
Program in Arms Control & Domestic and International Security 

30 

 

 



IJOIS Fall 2016, Volume II 
Program in Arms Control & Domestic and International Security 

31 

 

 


