Originally published on the CGS blog on December 4, 2014.
The ideal of international human rights spans over 40 years, beginning with the Unverisal Declaration of Human Rights. Since then, there have been nine international human rights treaties adopted by the United Nations General Assembly. These treaties, along with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, stand as the pillars by which the rights of the world’s citizens are based.
Recently, we have highlighted two key treaties that have gone too long without ratification: the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC).
As we approach Human Rights Day 2014, it is important to explore a brief history of the relationship between the US and human rights treaties.
The US has long been viewed as the free world, the very pillar of freedom and democracy. Better yet, the US has remained a champion of human rights around the globe, even urging the international community to take action in the wake of human rights violations. Yet the US has done so without guaranteeing many of those same human rights for its own citizens.
To date, the US has only ratified three human rights treaties:
- the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination,
- the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and
- the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
Although these treaties are significant in the broader, global picture, they are non-controversial from a US perspective.
However, even ratifying these three treaties was not done without declared exemptions, or reservations. A reservation is a statement by which a state can exclude or modify the legal effect of certain aspects of the treaty to that state. Simply put, a country can choose which components of a treaty for which it can be held responsible. This loophole of sorts allows a country to evade international law.
The US has also done something few, if any, states have done: abandon a treaty it has previously signed. In 2000, US President Bill Clinton signed the Rome Statue of the International Criminal Court; a year later, his successor un-signed the treaty.
Regardless, these treaties have led to significant changes to national legislation in many of the countries that have ratified them. We can see this in the case of CEDAW. In 2010, The US Ambassador-at-Large for Global Women’s Issues, Melanne Verveer testified before a Senate subcommittee regarding the effectiveness of CEDAW, providing examples of advancements for women in countries such as Afghanistan, Mexico Morocco, the Philippines, and Uganda.
Even so, the definitive language within the treaties that is meant to better the lives of all citizens can be seen as a hurdle facing US ratification. Clauses regarding family planning and employment practices, both atop some domestic political agendas, undoubtedly remain sticking points for many legislators.
Some theories would point to institutional constraints. While it is true that treaty ratification faces significant obstacles, this idea fails to explain how the US has ratified some treaties while failing to bring others to a vote. CEDAW has been brought before the Subcommittee on Human Rights and the Law five times, each time failing to reach the Senate floor. In 1994, the Senate approved the Convention to Eliminate Racial Discrimination shortly after it failed to bring CEDAW to a vote.
Additional theories point to interpretation. Ambiguous language in some treaties can leave them open to interpretation, thereby diminishing their implementation. Whether it be on the basis of legal, religious, institutional, or partisan reasons, one thing is clear: human rights treaties face significant hurdles in the US.
We must stand together as globally-minded citizens and call for the ratification of all human rights treaties, not just those that are non-controversial. Ratifying landmark human rights treaties would continue our proud, bipartisan tradition of protecting and advocating for human rights while ensuring the protection of all US citizens and would build credibility in today’s fast-paced, constantly evolving geopolitical sphere.
