<br><span class="gmail_quote">From: <b class="gmail_sendername">iftikhar ahmed</b> <a href="mailto:dociftee@hotmail.com">dociftee@hotmail.com</a><br></span>
<div> </div>
<div>You might be surprised by reading that the US government has <u>not</u> ratified many declarations. I am sharing these with you here with some brief comments.<br>
<ul>
<li>CEDAW - is not ratified (179 countries ratified)
<li>CRC - is not ratified (192 countries ratified)
<li>Convention on Landmines, Ottawa treaty - (143 countries ratified)
<li>Kyoto protocols for environment (141 countries ratified)
<li>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<font face="Arial" color="#852cc7"><font face="Arial" color="#852cc7"><font face="Arial" color="#852cc7"><font face="Arial" color="#852cc7"><font face="Arial" color="#852cc7"><font face="Arial" color="#852cc7"><font face="Arial" color="#852cc7"><font face="Arial" color="#852cc7"><font face="Arial" color="#852cc7"><font face="Arial" color="#000000">
<li>
<div align="left">The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) - (149 countries ratified)</div><font face="Arial" color="#852cc7"><font face="Arial" color="#000000">
<li>
<div align="left">International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families (MWC) -(<font face="Calisto MT" size="3"><font face="Calisto MT" size="3">To date, 27 countries have ratified it. No industrialized country has signed the convention</font></font>)</div>
<font face="Arial" size="2"><font face="Arial" size="2">
<li>
<div align="left">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.</div>
<font face="Arial" color="#852cc7"><font face="Arial" color="#000000">
<li>
<div align="left">The International Criminal Court (ICC) - 139 countries signed this in 2005 include US, 98 have ratified <font face="Calisto MT" size="3"><font face="Calisto MT" size="3">May 2, 2002 </font></font><b><font face="Calisto MT" size="3"><font face="Calisto MT" size="3">the United States stated that it did <b><font face="Calisto MT" size="3"><font face="Calisto MT" size="3">not intend to be bound by its signature to the <b><font face="Calisto MT" size="3"><font face="Calisto MT" size="3">ICC and that is has no intention to ratify it. (Same as it has done with other declerations)</font></font></b></font></font></b></font></font></b><b><font face="Calisto MT" size="3"><font face="Calisto MT" size="3"><b><font face="Calisto MT" size="3"><font face="Calisto MT" size="3"><b><font face="Calisto MT" size="3"><font face="Calisto MT" size="3"></font></font></b></font></font></b></font></font></b></div>
</li></font></font></li></font></font></li></font></font></li></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></li></li></li></li></li></ul>
<p align="left"><span><font color="#000000"><strong>What happened with the Conv of the Rights of the Child................................</strong></font></span></p><span></span> <br><span></span><font color="#000000">The </font><a title="United States" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States" target="_blank"><font color="#000000">United States</font></a><font color="#000000"> has signed the Convention, but not completed the ratification processes. On February 16, 1995, </font><a title="Madeleine Albright" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madeleine_Albright" target="_blank"><u><font color="#000000">Madeleine Albright</font></u></a><font color="#000000">, at the time the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, signed the Convention. Though generally supportive of the Convention, <font size="4">President </font></font><a title="Bill Clinton" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton" target="_blank"><u><font color="#000000" size="4">Bill Clinton</font></u></a><font color="#000000" size="4"> did not submit it to the Senate for its advice and consent. </font><br>
<font size="4"></font> <br><br><span><font color="#000000"><strong>Opposition to the ratification</strong></font></span><br><font color="#000000">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 treaty</font><font color="#000000">The </font><a title="George W. Bush administration" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_administration" target="_blank"><u><font color="#000000">administration of President George W. Bush</font></u></a><font color="#000000"> has explicitly stated its opposition to the treaty:</font><br>
<dl>
<dd><font color="#000000">'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.'</font>
<dd> </dd></dd></dl><font color="#000000">Active opposition to the Convention in the United States has been concentrated in politically conservative groups. Senator Jesse Helms, the former chairman of the </font><a title="United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_Committee_on_Foreign_Relations" target="_blank"><u><font color="#000000">Senate Foreign Relations Committee</font></u></a><font color="#000000">, described it as a 'bag of worms,' an effort to 'chip away at the </font><a title="United States Constitution" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution" target="_blank"><u><font color="#000000">U.S. Constitution</font></u></a><font color="#000000">.'</font><br>
<font color="#000000">Legal concerns over ratification have mostly focused on issues of </font><a title="Sovereignty" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereignty" target="_blank"><u><font color="#000000">sovereignty</font></u></a><font color="#000000"> and </font><a title="Federalism" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism" target="_blank"><u><font color="#000000">federalism</font></u></a><font color="#000000">. 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 </font><a title="Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution" target="_blank"><u><font color="#000000">Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution</font></u></a><font color="#000000"> 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 </font><a title="Jurisdiction" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurisdiction" target="_blank"><u><font color="#000000">jurisdiction</font></u></a><font color="#000000"> over children, the </font><a title="Supreme Court of the United States" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States" target="_blank"><u><font color="#000000">U.S. Supreme Court</font></u></a><font color="#000000"> has held that to some significant degree, no government—federal, state, or local—may interfere with the parent-child relationship.</font><br>
<br><font color="#000000">The </font><a title="Heritage Foundation" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritage_Foundation" target="_blank"><u><font color="#000000">Heritage Foundation</font></u></a><font color="#000000"> 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 </font><a title="Homeschooling" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeschooling" target="_blank"><u><font color="#000000">homeschooling</font></u></a><font color="#000000"> 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.'</font><br>
<br><a title="David Smolin" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Smolin" target="_blank"><u><font color="#000000">David Smolin</font></u></a><font color="#000000"> argues that the objections from the religious and political conservatives stem from their view that the U.N. is an </font><a title="Elitist" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elitist" target="_blank"><u><font color="#000000">elitist</font></u></a><font color="#000000"> 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 </font><a title="Reservation (law)" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reservation_(law)" target="_blank"><u><font color="#000000">reservations</font></u></a><font color="#000000"> by the U.S.</font><br>
<br>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. <br>
<br>refrences:papers from LAW at HARVARD UNIVERSITY - <br><a name="11cdb41bda90742f_Support_for_ratification"><u><font color="#0000ff"></font></u></a><br><a></a></div>