scholarly journals Is the Inter-American Human Rights System Biased? A Quantitative Analysis of Regional Human Rights Litigation in the Americas

2017 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 51-81 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simon Zschirnt
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Quantitative Analysis ◽  
The United States ◽  
Cultural Bias ◽  
Anglophone Caribbean ◽  
American States ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Neoliberal Ideology ◽  
Relevant Factors

SummaryAlthough the Organization of American States’ Inter-American human rights system has played a key role in the advancement of human rights, its work has recently become controversial. Some leftist governments have alleged bias, criticizing the system as a politicized one that prioritizes certain rights over others and embodies a neoliberal ideology that reflects disproportionate US influence. The system has also faced perceptions of cultural bias from Anglophone Caribbean states. This article tests the veracity of these allegations using statistical analysis of Inter-American Commission on Human Rights decisions. It finds that, even when controlling for a range of relevant factors, there have been significant differences in the Commission’s receptiveness to different types of claims of human rights violations. However, the Commission’s decisions have not exhibited any political or cultural biases. Also, to the extent there has been bias involving the United States, it has arguably been bias against the United States.

Organization of American States

1960 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 360-361 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Dominican Republic ◽  
Basic Principle ◽  
The United States ◽  
Basic Function ◽  
Organization Of American States ◽  
American System ◽  
American States ◽  
The Government

It was reported that during a meeting of the Council of the Organization of American States (OAS) on February 8, 1960, a debate took place on the alleged violations of human rights perpetuated by the government of General Rafael Leonidas Trujillo Molina of the Dominican Republic. Dr. Falcon-Briceno, Venezuelan ambassador to the United States, who had brought the charge on instructions of his government, contended that a concern for human rights was a basic function of the inter-American system and called upon the Council to investigate the situation. He was challenged by the Dominican ambassador, Mr. Diaz Ordoñez, who insisted that the prevailing situation was a matter of exclusively domestic concern to his government and stressed the fact that non-intervention in internal affairs was a basic principle of the inter-American system. The delegates were urged to action by the delegate of Honduras, who expressed the view that the principle of non-intervention should not close the door to action deemed to be necessary for the preservation of human rights and liberties. After a threehour debate, the Council reportedly decided, by a vote of 20 to none, with 1 abstention (the Dominican Republic), to initiate an inquiry into the matter. To this end, five nations—Argentina, Brazil, El Salvador, Peru, and the United States—were appointed as a working group to consider whether and how the organization could conduct an investigation in the case.

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.

Palestine Unbound

2018 ◽  
Vol 47 (3) ◽  
pp. 130-134
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Task Force ◽  
The United States ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Tel Aviv ◽  
The Us ◽  
Intention To Move ◽  
Arab Israeli Conflict ◽  
The U.S

This section, updated regularly on the blog Palestine Square, covers popular conversations related to the Palestinians and the Arab-Israeli conflict during the quarter 16 November 2017 to 15 February 2018: #JerusalemIstheCapitalofPalestine went viral after U.S. president Donald Trump recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and announced his intention to move the U.S. embassy there from Tel Aviv. The arrest of Palestinian teenager Ahed Tamimi for slapping an Israeli soldier also prompted a viral campaign under the hashtag #FreeAhed. A smaller campaign protested the exclusion of Palestinian human rights from the agenda of the annual Creating Change conference organized by the US-based National LGBTQ Task Force in Washington. And, UNRWA publicized its emergency funding appeal, following the decision of the United States to slash funding to the organization, with the hashtag #DignityIsPriceless.

REVISITING CONTEMPORARY HOMESCHOOLING: THE CASE OF THE UNITED STATES

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sara Zamir
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
American States ◽  
At Home

The term “homeschooling” denotes the process of educating, instructing, and tutoring children by parents at home instead of having this done by professional teachers in formal settings. Although regulation and court rulings vary from one state to another, homeschooling is legal in all fifty American states. Contrary to the growing tendency of parents in the United States to move toward homeschooling in 1999-2012, the rate of homeschooling and the population of those educated in this manner appear to have leveled off in 2012–2016. This paper aims to explain both phenomena and asks whether a trend is at hand.

Liberating Afghan Women

2004 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 70-88 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nancy Gallagher
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Historical Context ◽  
The United States ◽  
Political Organizations ◽  
Way Of Life ◽  
Afghan Women ◽  
The Media ◽  
Policy Priority

Public opinion in the United States and elsewhere celebrated the liberation of Afghan women following the defeat of the Taliban government. The United States promised to stay in Afghanistan and foster security, economic development, and human rights for all, especially women. After years of funding various anti- Soviet Mujahidin warlords, the United States had agreed to help reconstruct the country once before in 1992, when the Soviet-backed government fell, but had lost interest when the warlords began to fight among themselves. This time, however, it was going to be different. To date, however, conditions have not improved for most Afghan women and reconstruction has barely begun. How did this happen? This article explores media presentations of Afghan women and then compares them with recent reports from human rights organizations and other eyewitness accounts. It argues that the media depictions were built on earlier conceptions of Muslim societies and allowed us to adopt a romantic view that disguised or covered up the more complex historical context of Afghan history and American involvement in it. We allowed ourselves to believe that Afghans were exotic characters who were modernizing or progressing toward a western way of life, despite the temporary setback imposed by the Taliban government. In Afghanistan, however, there was a new trope: the feminist Afghan woman activist. Images of prominent Afghan women sans burqa were much favored by the mass media and American policymakers. The result, however, was not a new focus on funding feminist political organizations or making women’s rights a foreign policy priority; rather, it was an unwillingness to fulfill obligations incurred during decades of American-funded mujahidin warfare, to face the existence of deteriorating conditions for women, resumed opium cultivation, and a resurgent Taliban, or to commit to a multilateral approach that would bring in the funds and expertise needed to sustain a long-term process of reconstruction.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document