Jon here again, I had another idea while doing a rewrite of your first paper that you might find interesting. Enforcement of human rights abuses and violations of the treaties mentioned in your paper is sporadic and in its infancy. But one international law regime that is widely, publicly enforced (or attempted to be enforced) is the nuclear weapons regime. I find it strange that we let genocide and mass murder go without a swift and unified international response, while the rich, powerful nations of the world show uncommon solidarity in enforcing the nuclear weapons and technology oligarchy they have established. It is understandable, however, because one issue pervades the political selection process and the other does not. Perhaps you could explore the reasons why the last election cycle and dialogue about international law in general focuses so much on Iran or North Korea's compliance with international nuclear law and not human rights abuses in Somalia, Mynamar, etc. This might get back to the political justification issue- a nuclear Iran or North Korea is seen as a direct threat to our close allies Israel and South Korea, and perhaps a threat to American citizens. If the American public could be convinced that human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia posed some sort of threat to us, they might suddenly demand change.

The sentence in the last paragraph "damaging to state security in the long run," there are numerous examples of our country allying with a regime that violates human rights in a country that becomes hostile after that regime collapses. Examples abound in the Middle East and South America, Iran would be a good one.