PHA-Exch> Human Rights covenants and the US

[Claudio Schuftan]

From: iftikhar ahmed dociftee at hotmail.com

You might be surprised by reading that the US government has *not* ratified
many declarations. I am sharing these with you here  with some brief
comments.

   - CEDAW - is not ratified (179 countries ratified)
   - CRC - is not ratified (192 countries ratified)
   - Convention on Landmines, Ottawa treaty -  (143 countries ratified)
   - Kyoto protocols for environment (141 countries ratified)
   - ILO Conventions from 162 active conventions only 14 are ratified - Out
   of 8 fundamental human rights of workers as described by ILO only 2 are
   signed
   - The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
   (ICESCR) - (149 countries ratified)
   - International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant
   Workers and Members of Their Families (MWC) -(To date, 27 countries have
   ratified it. No industrialized country has signed the convention)
   - The CERD entered into force in 1969 and commits State parties to change
   their laws and policies to end racial discrimination that violates
   individual human rights on the basis of race, color, national or ethnic
   original and descent. The United States ratified CERD in 1994 but rejected
   the components that included effect and intent in deciding discrimination
   cases.
   - The International Criminal Court (ICC) - 139 countries signed this in
   2005 include US, 98 have ratified May 2, 2002 *the United States stated
   that it did not intend to be bound by its signature to the ICC and that
   is has no intention to ratify it. (Same as it has done with other
   declerations)***

*What happened with the Conv of the Rights of the
Child................................*

The United States <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States> has signed
the Convention, but not completed the ratification processes. On February
16, 1995, *Madeleine
Albright*<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madeleine_Albright>,
at the time the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, signed the
Convention. Though generally supportive of the Convention, President *Bill
Clinton* <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton> did not submit it to
the Senate for its advice and consent.


*Opposition to the ratification*
The United States has not so far ratified the CRC, in part due to potential
conflicts with the constitution and because of opposition by some political
and religious conservatives to the treatyThe *administration of President
George W. Bush*
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_administration>has
explicitly stated its opposition to the treaty:
 'The Convention on the Rights of the Child may be a positive tool for
promoting child welfare for those countries that have adopted it. But we
believe the text goes too far when it asserts entitlements based on
economic, social and cultural rights. ... The human rights-based approach
... poses significant problems as used in this text.'  Active opposition to
the Convention in the United States has been concentrated in politically
conservative groups. Senator Jesse Helms, the former chairman of the *Senate
Foreign Relations
Committee*<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_Committee_on_Foreign_Relations>,
described it as a 'bag of worms,' an effort to 'chip away at the *U.S.
Constitution* <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution>.'
Legal concerns over ratification have mostly focused on issues of *
sovereignty* <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereignty> and
*federalism*<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism>.
The United States generally does not sign treaties that it believes would
impair its sovereignty. American laws for the protection of children are at
the state, rather than the federal level, and the *Tenth Amendment to the
United States Constitution*<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution>restricts
the authority of the federal government to pass legislation or
ratify treaties that will protect children. The U.S. Constitution not only
limits federal *jurisdiction*
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurisdiction>over children, the
*U.S. Supreme Court*<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States>has
held that to some significant degree, no government—federal, state, or
local—may interfere with the parent-child relationship.

The *Heritage Foundation*
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritage_Foundation>sees the conflict as
an issue of national control over domestic policy:
'Although not originally promoted as an entity that would become involved in
actively seeking to shape member states' domes­tic policies, the U.N. has
become increasingly intrusive in these arenas.' They express concern about
'sovereign jurisdiction over domes­tic policymaking and preserving the
freedom of American civil society', and argue that the actual practice of
some UN Committees has been to review national policies that are unrelated,
or are marginally related to the actual language of the Convention.
Supporters of *homeschooling*
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeschooling>express concern that the
Convention will 'subvert the authority of parents
to exercise important responsibilities toward their children. Under the UN
Convention, parental responsibility exists only insofar as parents are
willing to further the independent choices of the child.'

*David Smolin* <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Smolin> argues that the
objections from the religious and political conservatives stem from their
view that the U.N. is an *elitist*
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elitist>institution, which they do not
trust to properly handle sensitive decisions
regarding family issues. He suggests that legitimate concerns of critics
could be met with appropriate
*reservations*<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reservation_(law)>by the
U.S.

I wish thats the friends / colleagues in the States and all over the world
will advocate ibn front of the Govt. of the US to ratify the conventions, as
the underdevloped countries do get the examples of action / inspiration /
support from the developed world on many issues.

refrences:papers from LAW at HARVARD UNIVERSITY -
**
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://phm.phmovement.org/pipermail/phm-exchange-phmovement.org/attachments/20081008/00fab6fe/attachment-0001.html>