Law and Human Rights Is law the solution to human rights problems, or are there better alternatives?

The laws of a nation are designed to protect the rights of the citizens of that nation. They are in place so that a person knows empirically what they are and are not permitted to do. The problem with many nations of the world is that the rights of the citizens are not being protected. There are the individual rights inherent to the culture in question and then there are the more basic human rights which should be available to all people no matter their country, social standing, ethnicity, gender, or any other category which would serve to in any way differentiate one population from another. However, does the creation of laws necessarily indicate that the rights of the citizens are in fact being protected, or are there more efficient and effective ways of accomplishing this?

In the article "Political Institutions and Human Rights," James Vreeland (2008) states that nations that practice crimes that violate human rights, such as nations that commit acts of torture are more likely to accept the rules and restrictions of groups like the United Nations than countries that don't support torture (page 65). The reason for this seems to be that the...

The United Nations and other international peace-keeping groups can formulate laws and dictums and order other countries to enforce their policies. However, these groups are essentially powerless to ensure that these regulations are enforced. Practitioners of inhuman actions are likely to accept the rules of these policing groups without intending to actually prevent or prohibit their inhuman behaviors. Essentially, dictatorial or tyrannical countries pay lip service to the international group, ensuring that they can continue to violate human rights, more or less with impunity. This explanation is only theoretical. The Convention Against Torture requires nations to sign documentation where they pledge to abandon inhuman torture practices. Just because a country signs the agreement does not mean that they have any desire or intention to follow through with the stipulations of that agreement.
Linda Keith (1999) seems to agree with Vreeland's position in her article "The United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights." As of her writing, the United Nations had been a functioning international entity for half a century. What she was able to determine was that the…