As the International Law Prof Blog
explains, there is a 'treaty event' this week at the United Nations, which is kicking into high gear with the foreign ministers and heads of state trekking to New York to address the General Assembly. The Secretary General is calling upon states to this week consider acceding to or ratifying treaties to which they are not yet party.
In that context, what treaties do you think that the U.S. should either accede to, or ratify if it is already a signatory, but not yet a party? Please post comments below on which treaties, explaining whether the U.S. is a signatory or not, and why (briefly) you think the U.S. should accede or ratify.
I believe the US should sign the international convention on the protection of the rights of all migrants workers and their families, also known as the migrant workers convention. The purpose of the treaty is to protect the civil and economic rights of migrant workers. The US has a large population of migrant workers. The United States's place as a world leader and a country with a long history as an immigrant country makes its stance on this issue especially important in the international community. One reason the US would be against signing the treaty is that it would appear to require the US to liberalize its immigration policy - which is obviously a very controversial issue in the US. However, the US could avoid this issue by entering into a reservation to the effect that it would not alter its immigration policy. Such a reservation does not seem counter to the general purposes of the treaty - since the object and purpose is to protect civil rights, not necessarily to allow for liberalized immigration.
ReplyDeleteI agree that it would be nice, even sweet for the US to sign this treaty. Migrant workers formed this country, and I am a firm believer in "Immigrants rights are Human Rights". However I also believe that the immigration system in the US is not working, there are more families hurt, people thrown out without actual cause, children left behind to fend for themselves or depend on other family members to take care of them; and then there are those who have been waiting for over 15 years in limbo status waiting for the established "waiting period" to end. Thus if the US is going to sign the treaty they should be willing and ready to change their existing policies to fit in with the spirit of the treaty itself and avoid extending any reservation at all. If the US is going to extend a reservation it is better if they don't sign it at all, leaving it very clear to all the country's stance on the issue.
DeleteJared, do you know what aspects of the treaty are considered to be problematic in terms of potentially requiring changes to current immigration law in the U.S.?
DeleteThe lack of regulation of the global arms trade is quite concerning. In fact, as Amnesty International has pointed out, there are more international laws regulating the banana trade than the trade of arms. This summer the United States objected to the final version of the UN global arms trade treaty which sought to better regulate the illicit trade of small arms around the world. In my belief this is mainly because of a common misconception that many Americans have regarding the treaty: that it will infringe on their Second Amendment right to bear arms. However, this is not the case. One of the main goals of the treaty is to keep these small arms out of the hands of human rights abusers. The United States, as the world’s largest exporter of arms, should accept and sign the global arms trade treaty.
ReplyDeleteI think the failure to sign the Kyoto treaty yet is a mistake. While it's understandable that the US didn't sign because of the looser standards for China and India as developing countries, the US has the Byrd-Hagel Resolution which is almost exactly the same in intent and action as the Kyoto Treaty. It's my belief that failing to sign the Kyoto Treaty was merely a means for the US to draft its own legislation to seem more proactive. It would be much better, due to the universal problem of global warming and pollution, if there were unified actors and process in place.
ReplyDeleteI really think that the US needs to "re-sign" the Rome Statute. To my mind, there is absolutely no reason why it shouldn't. The ICC has jurisdiction over four crimes: war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide and aggression. To start, aggression hasn't even been defined, and it doesn't seem likely that there will be a definition agreed upon in the near future, so until that time comes the Court won't prosecute for that. As for the other three, Article 17 specifically states that the Court will find a case inadmissible if a case "is being investigated or prosecuted by a State which has jurisdiction over it." So basically, any soldier who may end up being disciplined would not even be ABLE to be prosecuted at the Hague, as long as the US was able and willing to do so, which the US already does.
ReplyDeleteI think the United States should ratify the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. The U.S. signed the treaty in 1995, and even played a central role in the its drafting. However, the U.S. remains one of only three UN member states which have not ratified the Convention (along with Somalia and South Sudan). U.S. critics of ratification contend that the treaty interferes with concepts of sovereignty and federalism. However, supporters of ratification argue that the Convention only obligates the U.S. to submit periodic reports detailing its compliance with various provisions. The treaty's sole enforcement mechanism, according to one article I read, is the issuing of a written report.
ReplyDeleteI think it's shameful that the U.S. has yet to ratify a treaty meant to protect society's most vulnerable members - children. And from a purely practical standpoint, one of the biggest obstacles to U.S. ratification has already been removed. In 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that death penalty sentences for juveniles constituted cruel and unusual punishment, eliminating one of the most commonly cited conflicts between the treaty's provisions and U.S. domestic law.
A matter that I am personally attached to is the rights of those who have disabilities. In 2009, the United States signed onto The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, but the treaty has not been yet ratified. According to a congressional blog written by Bob Dole and Tony Coehlo, “[s]ince the U.S. has been a leader in ensuring rights for individuals with disabilities, ratification does not require changes to laws in the U.S. Ratification would signal to the world that the U.S. is committed to international standards for disability rights and will play a leadership role in implementation of the treaty obligations,” (http://thehill.com). If this statement is true, there seems little reason for the U.S. not to ratify the treaty.
ReplyDeleteFor many years, I have been involved with the local Special Olympics organization. The organization offers opportunities for those with mental disabilities to participate in a sports life that promotes healthy living habits and confidence in their public lives. From my experience, the involvement for individuals with mental and physical disabilities in the Special Olympics games truly has a positive effect on those individuals' qualities of life. On many occasions I observed drastic changes in an athlete’s behavior and I believe that it was from the programs structured and supporting environment; an environment that rid the air of negative stereotypes and gave these individuals the sureness to succeed.
This particular treaty fosters implements for education, employment and the enjoyment of life (political, cultural and public)for individuals with disabilities (http://www.un.org). In ratifying this convention, the U.S. would be further promoting this change for these individuals’ lives on a much larger scale.
I totally agree with you, Cate. I think the ADA has been such an important piece of legislation domestically. I would not have finished high school without the protection of the ADA. The rights of persons with disabilities is a growing area of human rights and I think this treaty would not only show the US is a leader in protection of individuals with disabilities, but would also provide pathways for the US to protect its disabled citizens while they were abroad. For example, study abroad is becoming an important and popular college experience. The ratification of The Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities could provide many new opportunities for disabled students to study abroad.
Delete162 countries are party to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The United States participated in the United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, subsequent negotiations on modifications to the treaty, and has recognized the UNCLOS as customary law. However, the United States has not ratified it.
ReplyDeleteThe UNCLOS places duties and obligations on member states by outlining the state's rights and responsibilities in the use of the world's ocean. It sets guidelines for the management of marine natural resources, the environment, and businesses. Additionally, it provides another avenue for resolving disputes over territorial and natural resources through the international tribunal for the law of the sea (ITLOS).
The United States could derive many benefits from signing onto the UNCLOS. First, the United States would have more security in relying on the UNCLOS because customary law can change with state practice while the UNCLOS is treaty law. Second, the UNCLOS goal is to protect the world's most valuable resource-the ocean. It aims to protect marine natural resources, the marine wildlife and its environment. Thus, the protection of the ocean is a benefit to all parties.
However, the United States may feel that signing the treaty is an invite to other environmental organizations to interfere and impose on United State's environmental policy and our environmental laws. On the other hand, if the United States found it necessary to derogate from certain provisions, then they would be allowed to do so as long as it doesn't go against the object and purpose of the treaty. In this case, the fear of the outside world interfering with our environmental policies doesn't appear to be so imminent when the U.S. retains some control over what it agrees to. Nevertheless, the ocean is the one resource that is truly shared by the whole world and thus, a shared responsibility that all must participate in.
Third, the treaty may bring more environmental laws in harmony with others around the world and thus, establish a higher standard. Finally, the US military would benefit from signing on to a legally binding treaty that governs the sea because it would provide a peaceful resolution in times where US military action is frustrated due to other countries unreasonable claims to territorial waters. In conclusion, the benefits of signing the UNCLOS outweigh the negatives and thus, the United States should sign the UNCLOS.