Response to Natalie Kaufman and David Whiteman's Article "Opposition to Human Rights Treaties in the United States Senate: The Legacy of the Bricker Amendment," 10 Hum. Rts. Q. 309 (1988)

1989 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 613
Author(s):  
Cathal J. Nolan
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Senate ◽  
Human Rights Treaties

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.

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 ICRMW and the US: Substantive Overlap, Political Gap

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Beth Lyon
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Migrant Workers ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Convention ◽  
Treaty Ratification ◽  
American States ◽  
Treaty Negotiations ◽  
Human Rights Treaties ◽  
The Us

The United States has never seriously considered signing the UN International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families (ICRMW, Migrant Workers Convention, the Convention). Despite the country’s close involvement with negotiating the Convention, the United States has shown no interest in the treaty since its promulgation in 1990. The major countries of migrant employment that initially participated in negotiating the Convention set it aside, and the treaty now has only 38 signatories and 51 state parties. The European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee, and the Organization of American States have all favorably reported on the ICRMW and called on the countries in those regions to ratify it. However, there are obstacles to immediate ratification by countries of employment, including prominently the “fear to be among the first” and domestic anti-immigrant sentiment. Even as the Convention slowly accrues country-of-origin ratifications, advocates and officials in many countries of employment are undertaking pre-ratification studies of the treaty. The United States, however, has not yet assessed the Migrant Workers Convention in a substantive way. The United States’ delay in engaging the Convention fits the country’s past human rights treaty ratification processes. When it does consider the ICRMW, the United States is likely to heavily restrict ratification of the Convention, just as it has in ratifying previous human rights treaties. This chapter describes the United States’ substantive objections during the treaty negotiations, and points out that most of the passages that were objectionable at the time were or have since become part of U.S. law.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document