Affirmative Action and the Equality Principle in Human Rights Treaties: United States' Violation of Its International Obligations

2003 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marjorie Cohn
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Affirmative Action ◽  
Human Rights Treaties ◽  
International Obligations

Classifications of Objections Based on the Legal Assessment of a Reservation by Objecting States

2014 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 333-370
Author(s):  
Marina Girshovich
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Adverse Effects ◽  
Functional Approach ◽  
Theoretical Interpretation ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
Legal Assessment ◽  
Human Rights Treaties ◽  
International Obligations

Current doctrine assumes that the “Vienna regime” delinked objections from the criterion of object and purpose (op) compatibility of reservations. Shifting the focus from reservations to objections, this article finds implicit continuity between the Genocide Advisory Opinion and the Vienna regime: in both cases the op criterion enables a distinction between objections on the grounds of incompatibility of reservations (op objections) and all others. Embracing this distinction, a new theoretical interpretation of the Vienna regime safeguards against the adverse effects of objections, namely a “reinforced two-tier test” is suggested, whereby any reservation may be subject to an assessment of opposability (non-op objections) and a double assessment of permissibility. Adopting a functional approach, the article suggests a classification of international obligations based on the applicability of the Vienna regime’s various safeguard mechanisms, locating the roles of objections to reservations to human rights treaties in context.

Asylum at Sea: The Legality of Shipboard Refugee Status Determination Procedures

2020 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-27
Author(s):  
Azadeh Dastyari ◽  
Daniel Ghezelbash
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Asylum Seekers ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
The United States ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Refugee Status ◽  
State Practice ◽  
International Obligations

Abstract Austria and Italy have recently proposed that processing the protection claims of asylum seekers attempting to cross the Mediterranean should take place aboard government vessels at sea. Shipboard processing of asylum claims is not a novel idea. The policy has been used for many years by the governments of the United States and Australia. This article examines the relevant international law, as well as State practice and domestic jurisprudence in the United States and Australia, to explore whether shipboard processing complies with international refugee and human rights law. It concludes that, while it may be theoretically possible for shipboard processing to comply with international law, there are significant practical impediments to carrying out shipboard processing in a manner that is compliant with the international obligations of States. Current practices in the United States and Australia fall short of what is required. Nor is there any indication that the Austrian/Italian proposal would contain the required safeguards. It is argued that this is by design. The appeal of shipboard processing for governments is that it allows them to dispense with the safeguards that asylum seekers would be entitled to if processed on land. Best practice is for all persons interdicted or rescued at sea to be transferred to a location on land where they have access to effective status determination procedures and are protected from refoulement and unlawful detention.

scholarly journals Party positions over international human rights treaties in the United States in the Post-Cold War

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 24-50
Author(s):  
Flávio Contrera ◽  
Matheus Lucas Hebling
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Cold War ◽  
Comparative Method ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
Post Cold War ◽  
Party Positions ◽  
Human Rights Treaties ◽  
International Human

This article aimed to verify the occurrence of convergence and congruence in the positions that the Democratic and Republican parties express about human rights treaties in the Electoral, in the Executive, and the Legislative arenas, in the Post-Cold War (1992-2016). The use of the comparative method guided the study of six specific cases, analyzed using qualitative techniques. The results point to two trends. The first is that the possibility of convergence between the Democratic and Republican parties tends to diminish when their positions on human rights treaties are anchored by ideological perspectives, and the second is that a party’s position on a treaty tends to be congruent among political arenas. Moreover, the divergence of positions between the parties clarifies the liberal internationalist character of the Democratic positions and the conservative isolationist approach of the Republican positions.

Contentious Compliance

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Courtenay R. Conrad ◽  
Emily Hencken Ritter
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Formal Theory ◽  
International Treaties ◽  
Political Leaders ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
Human Rights Treaties ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
International Obligations ◽  
International Laws ◽  
International Human

Do international human rights treaties constrain governments from repressing their populations? Government authorities routinely ignore their international obligations, and countries with poor human rights records join international treaties and yet continue to violate rights. Contentious Compliance presents a new theory of treaty effects founded on the idea that governments repress as part of a domestic conflict with potential or actual dissidents. By introducing dissent actions like peaceful protests, strikes, boycotts, or direct violent attacks on government, Contentious Complianceimproves understanding of when states will violate rights-and when international laws will work to protect people. Formal theory and extensive data analyses show that when political leaders have the highest incentives to repress-namely when political leaders receive large benefits from retaining power and domestic courts are relatively poor at constraining the executive-human rights treaties alter the structure of the strategic conflict between political authorities and potential dissidents, significantly decreasing government repression and increasing the likelihood of mobilized dissent actions.

scholarly journals CEDAW in the Eyes of the United States

2017 ◽  
Vol 20 (34) ◽  
pp. 18-37 ◽  
Author(s):  
Saleh Al Shraideh
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
United Nations ◽  
The United States ◽  
High Rate ◽  
Human Rights Treaties ◽  
Very High ◽  
Insight Into

Abstract Despite the large number of reservations registered by Member countries, making it one of the, if not the, most heavily reserved human rights treaties; the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) has managed to achieve a very high rate of states’ membership [1]. Currently, 187 countries out of the 193 United Nations Members are parties to CEDAW [2]. What is strange to digest, however, is the fact that the United States is one of the seven countries that are yet to ratify the Convention [3]. This article provides an insight into the position of the United States from the ratification of CEDAW. It examines the merits of arguments made for and against the ratification and their rationale to provide a better understanding that explains what is considered by many as a buzzling stand of the United States from the Convention.

scholarly journals The Transfer of Asylum Seekers in Australia to Third Countries: A Case Study of Sovereignty versus International Law

2013 ◽  
pp. 187-196
Author(s):  
Hugh S. Tuckfield
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Asylum Seekers ◽  
Refugee Convention ◽  
Refugee Law ◽  
Human Rights Treaties ◽  
International Obligations ◽  
The Cost ◽  
International Conventions

Asylum is an issue equally central to refugee law and human rights. Generally, they are protected under the 1951 Refugee Convention, but asylum cases are largely state regulated affair, subject to state legislations, policies and guidelines, which certainly do not preclude the applicability of international obligations directing the conduct of state towards the asylum seekers, which emanate from the recognized international human rights principles such as right to seek asylum and right against refoulement and right not to be arbitrarily detained. Contracting parties to international conventions such as the 1951 Refugee Convention, ICCPR, ISESCR, CAT, CRC, CEDAW and CERD among others acquire the responsibility to respect, protect and fulfill the obligations adducible in treatment of asylum seekers. In this regard, Australia was one of the earliest state parties to the 1951 Refugee Convention and is also a party to the relevant human rights treaties. However, it is determined to adhere to its conventional understanding of sovereignty and nationalism, at the cost of comprising the minimum protection of the rights of those who seek asylum in it.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document