It is important not to be pessimistic about the all research findings and rather acknowledge that some international human rights instruments have worked in certain states, whereas in others ratification has had no difference in states approach to human rights. Simmons (2009) reaffirms the liberal theory that international human rights law has had a positive role in the realisation of human rights on a global scale. Signatories to the CAT were found to have lower rates of brutal torture or abuse whilst in custody. Though this challenges Vreeland, Hill and Cole’s findings, it is important to look at regime structure. Simmons found that treaty ratification had positive effects in states that were neither repressive nor completely democratic (ibid). Though it could be argued that this contradicts Vreeland’s findings, the states studied in both these observations differ and thus cannot be compared. Political science has therefore extended beyond legal scholars by providing concrete research into whether the law has been successful in protecting and promoting human rights and although findings from research may seem negative, it may pave possible solutions in improving the law in the future. Furthermore, Simmons (2013) also argues that previous empirical studies ignore the fact that some states are unable to improve such as Norway on torture as they were already compliant from the start and that other ratifies had no intention of complying with their ratification anyway e.g. North Korea. Political science thus needs to take into consideration the status of some states and their stance on the promotion and protection of human rights. Risse, Ropp and Sikkink (1999) offer a theory in which international norms can lead to human rights improvements through their five-stage ‘spiral model’. The five stages include “(1) repression; (2) material and normative pressures met by resistance; (3) tactical concessions, empowerment of domestic opposition, and dialogue; (4) legal reform; (5) internalisation of human rights norms in routine behaviour” (Freeman, 2017). International human rights norms are dependent on the establishment and maintenance of networks between domestic and transnational actors associated with the international regime. With the influence of transnational advocacy networks and social mechanisms to induce progress, it may create a ‘boomerang effect’. Domestic non-governmental organisations (NGOs) rally international actors which leads to domestic NGO empowerment to pressure repressive governments into change. They are also able to put repressive regimes on the international agenda and back domestic opposition groups which further assists the socialisation process in order to force the government into real commitment and compliance to human rights norms. Civil society actors (CSOs) play a significant role as their aim is to defend the human rights of marginalised groups from oppressive regimes. Vis (2017) used the spiral model to analyse three countries, Tunisia, Libya and Egypt during the Arab Spring and examined the extent to which these countries respected international human rights norms before and after the demand for regime change. In all three states, there were signs of change and progression towards compliance, especially in Tunisia as international human rights treaties were respected to a far greater extent post-Arab Spring. Despite Ben Ali’s government ratifying various human rights treaties, from 2000-2010 the regime made numerous tactical concessions as he continued human rights abuses and faced a political backlash. His reg>