States gather at international meetings and develop agreements whose subject matter is human rights. These agreements establish real norms of behavior for states that impose certain obligations on them with respect to their citizens. Agreements can be of two types: legally binding and non-binding. A binding instrument, often referred to as a “treaty,” “convention,” or “covenant,” is a state’s obligation to ensure rights at the national level. Each individual state declares its commitment to adopting these standards by ratifying or acceding to the instrument (simply signing the instrument does not make it binding, but indicates a desire to cooperate).
Under the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, states are free to make reservations or declarations, thereby relieving themselves of certain obligations under the instrument, but the goal is to get as many states as possible to sign on to the instrument. After all, it is better for a state to promise to respect some human rights than none at all! It is true that this mechanism can become a source of abuse and give states an excuse to deny their citizens basic rights, while allowing them to “avoid” international control in certain areas.
Human rights permeate laws at the national level. International human rights norms have prompted countries to incorporate such standards into their constitutions and legislation. They also provide mechanisms for redress for human rights violations at the national level.
In contrast to binding instruments, non-binding ones are mostly just declarations or political agreements by states stating that every effort should be made to secure certain rights, but without any legal obligations. In practice, this usually means that there is no formal (or legal) implementation mechanism, even if there is a serious political commitment to develop one.