The strengthening of rights is not a process that can be linked to single causations, but rather interweaving strands of a rope. According to the Chicago Journal of International Law: “What pulls human rights forward is not a series of separate, parallel cords, but a 'rope' of multiple, interwoven strands. Remove one strand, and the entire rope is weakened. International human rights law is a strand woven throughout the length of the rope. Its main value is not in how much rights protection it can pull as a single strand, but in how it strengthens the entire rope.” This hypothesis can be most accurately proven by anecdotal evidence. However, empirical evidence is challenging to construct in this kind of analysis due to the complexities involved, and its habit of often misrepresenting reality. But this should not be seen as detrimental to the argument, let alone proof that the international human rights law has failed.

Due to the definition inherent in a comparison of international human rights law to a strand in a rope, the relationship must be seen in connection with the other strands, thus the argument that causation cannot be individualized. Arguably the central and perhaps most important strand of this rope has to be the growth in human rights consciousness; the growing understanding that a human right is something possessed by all and a universal standard of what that is and means.

"Other strands of the rope include non-governmental human rights organizations, whose numbers, activities, and sophistication in international human rights law norms and institutions have grown dramatically at both national and international levels, and rapidly evolving communication and transportation technology that makes possible far more effective transnational organizing by these human rights forums than was possible only two decades ago. Both communications, and faster and lower cost transportation technology, by making possible frequent, well attended international conferences, have contributed to the growth of another strand of the rights revolution, transnational issue networks, energized by ‘epistemic communities’ of like-minded rights advocates in nongovernmental groups, sympathetic governments, academia, and the media, who work together across national and professional boundaries to promote shared values and agendas."

That being said, it is crucial to truly understand the significance of international human rights law as one of the strands of this rope. The presentation of the effects of its existence is the most effective form of assessment. In this case, specifically about civil and political rights, as economic and social rights are even more difficult to assess due to the resources needed to develop them.

Firstly, the existence of international human rights law gives human rights a common language. Rights groups throughout the world are invoking their rights in the same language. It essentially provides a transnational vocabulary of rights, and while this could have been accomplished without international human rights law, it cannot be denied that it is still a byproduct.

The second indirect but significant effect in the reinforcement of the universality of human right. "Three quarters or more of all governments accept the main international human rights treaties: the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; UN treaties on rights of women and children and against racial discrimination; basic ILO treaties on labor rights; and the Geneva Conventions and Protocols on international humanitarian law. The numbers grow every year." This kind of broad participation strengthens claims to rights across the globe and opens the debate.

The third point is the legitimization of claims to rights. When nations, through long and intense negotiations, pass, sign and ratify these treaties they create expectations and standards domestically, regardless of whether or not they intend to do this. "Human rights groups can (and regularly do) say to governments, 'It is not we who say that torture is illegal and must be investigated and punished; it is you who so declare, as parties to the Convention Against Torture.'" In doing so, they technically have the backing of the states own signed treaties; to deny this would be a contradiction on the part of the state.

Fourth, whether or not it increases compliance, it most definitely increases the expectation of compliance with these treaties. While it is true that many governments sign and ratify these treaties without any intention of actually abiding by them, they rarely are willing to admit to this, and hence when they violate these treaties they are viewed as hypocritical. International human rights law also encourages domestic judicial compliance and enforcement in ways that no other system or institution is capable of doing.

The direct impact of international human rights law on practice in most of the world remains weak and inconsistent. Both the body of law itself and its immediate results, but even more importantly its indirect effects, seem to paint an exciting picture. To truly understand and appreciate the significance of international human rights law, it must be contextualized as part of an interrelated, interwoven system. In this way, it provides an indispensable contributor to the overarching idea that pushes human rights forward. Thus, international law can be seen as a useful tool for the protection of human rights, and one that promises to be more useful in the future.