First, I will review the existing human rights literature and offer a detailed background on the ways in which states are legally obligated not to torture, and how these obligations also extend to the obligation of non-refoulement. Understanding both of these obligations is requisite to clearly identify the reasons that states rely on diplomatic assurances. Second, I will discuss the characteristics and the legal history of diplomatic assurances. This will demonstrate how states have attempted to circumvent their human rights obligations using diplomatic assurances, and concisely summarize the nature of the debate over whether or not diplomatic assurances can be a legitimate tool in international human rights law. Third, I will detail the problems inherent in diplomatic assurances, and highlight the absence of meaningful enforcement mechanisms that could make such assurances successful. Finally, I will offer solutions which meaningfully address the problems inherent in diplomatic assurances without relying on the strengthening of supranational institutions.