Why won’t the US agree to human rights treaties?
OpenForum | August 10, 2009 | 1 Comment
On July 30, US ambassador Susan Rice signed the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), joining the 141 nations that have already signed the document. The convention ensures the rights of disabled people to “education, health, work, adequate living conditions, freedom of movement, freedom from exploitation and equal recognition before the law”. Ratification is required for a state to be bound to a treaty, meaning that the Senate must now give a two-third majority agreement to join the 62 other countries that have ratified the convention.
Although signing this convention is a positive step toward official recognition of universal human rights principles, the US still remains woefully behind other nations in becoming legally bound to enforcing these human rights. The US has a particularly abysmal rate of ratification of international human rights agreements – of the nine core international human rights treaties created by the UN, only three have been ratified. The only treaties ratified by the US since 1994 have been optional protocols prohibiting the use of children in armed conflict and the sale of children and child prostitution. These protocols are additions to the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), which the US has not ratified. Somalia and the US are the only nations in the world that have not ratified the convention, which is the most widely and rapidly ratified human rights treaty in history. The US has also failed to ratify the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), along with only six other countries, including Iran, Somalia, and Sudan.
Even when the US does sign and ratify treaties, stipulations and alterations have been attached to each convention to impose restrictions on its viability. None of the significant human rights treaties ratified by the US have been accepted “under the guidelines by which it was adopted and enforced by the UN General Assembly.” For example, in the ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the US maintained the right to impose capital punishment and to try juveniles as adults. Although many countries add stipulations clarifying the role of an international treaty in regard to the nation’s domestic laws, restrictions imposed by the US can make legally enforceable international treaties weak and ineffectual.
Reasons cited for the US’s refusal to ratify treaties generally concern the power of international law versus that of the US federal and state governments. Those opposed to US ratification of the CRC usually object to how international standards could undermine parent’s rights to raise their children. However, the CRC requires state parties to respect and take into account the “responsibilities, rights and duties of parents,” and ensures whenever possible that a child be cared for and not separated from his or her parents. The failure of the US to ratify this treaty is a source of international embarrassment, as it requires UN delegates from the US to vote against child protection treaties such as the prevention of violence against children, simply because the US is not a party to the CRC. The US are frequently the only UN member state to vote against such treaties.
Similarly, the US is the only industrialized nation that has not ratified CEDAW. Reservations to ratification generally focus on false beliefs that the treaty ensures all women the right to abortion. In fact, the convention does not mention the word “abortion” once, and the US State Department considers the treaty “abortion neutral.” Concerns about the power of international law in enforcing CEDAW are also cited as explanations for why it has not been ratified; however, accepting a convention does not automatically authorize any US laws not already in place.
The US has also failed to accept weapon bans such as the Mine Ban Treaty and the Convention on Cluster Munitions. Although the US government was involved in the creation of the treaty, it requested an exemption for mixed antitank and antipersonnel landmine systems. Other member states rejected the request, believing it would substantially weaken the treaty. Because of this, the US did not sign or ratify the treaty – in fact, the Bush administration stated during his presidency that they had no intention of ever signing it. The US has the largest known stockpile of cluster munitions, and is also a lead user and exporter of these weapons. In March of this year, President Obama signed a law banning the export of cluster bombs, moving the US closer to ratification of the international ban.
The State Department is currently reviewing the CRC and CEDAW, and Obama himself has pledged to try for ratification of several international treaties. If the US wishes to be taken seriously as an international human rights leader, its government must ratify human rights conventions. Only in doing so can the US join other states in their commitment to protecting vulnerable populations and promoting respect for human rights.
Comments
One Response to “Why won’t the US agree to human rights treaties?”
Michael Ramey
The answer to the title question is simple: The United States is a self-governing people. Under Article VI of the U.S. Constitution, any ratified treaty becomes “the supreme law of the land,” equal to federal law (according to Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1(1957)). Any human rights treaty, if ratified, is essentially the equivalent of adopting a U.N. convention as U.S. law and, frankly, we still prefer that our own duly-elected legislators write and vote on the laws that govern us domestically. U.N. treaties involving relations among nations are one thing; UN treaties and human rights conventions that would tell us how our nation is to be run internally are simply unacceptable to a free people. We respect and protect human rights – but we will do so in our own laws and remain self-governing, thank you very much.