KMHQ 1/2/2021
Major International Treaties the U.S. Has NOT Ratified
According to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a state that has signed but notratified a treaty is obliged to refrain from "acts which would defeat the object and purpose" of the treaty. However, these obligations do not continue if the state has "made its intention clear not to become a party to the treaty".
These are several International treaties Not ratified by the US Government:
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights • (1966) Part of the International Bill of Human Rights, this is the only covenant that requires governments to promote and protect such rights as health, education, social protection, and an adequate standard of living for all people. The ICESCR has been ratified by more than 150 countries. President Carter signed the Covenant in 1977, but the United States has yet to ratify it.
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women • (1979) The most comprehensive and detailed international agreement that seeks the advancement of women, CEDAW has been ratified by 185 countries. Although President Carter signed CEDAW in 1980, today the United States is the only industrialized country that has not ratified the treaty.
Convention on the Rights of the Child • (1989) Protecting children from physical and mental abuse and hazardous work, and giving children the right to free primary education, the CRC has been ratified by 193 countries, making it one of the most widely adopted conventions. President Clinton signed the CRC in 1995 but the United States has yet to ratify it, one of only two countries in the world not to do so.
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court • (1998) The ICC conducts trials of individuals accused of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity when there is no other recourse for justice. 146 countries have signed the ICC, including the United States. In 2002, President Bush stated that the United States did not intend to be bound by its signature to the Rome Statute and that it had no intention of ratifying it.
International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families • (1990) The Migrant Workers Convention protects migrant workers and their families from abuse and inhumane treatment in the countries where they work. No industrialized, migrant-receiving country, including the United States, has signed this treaty.
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities • (2006) The CRPD is the first global convention that specifically addresses the human rights of persons with disabilities. President Obama signed the treaty in 2009, but the United States has yet to ratify it.
International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance • (2006) This Convention affirms that enforced disappearances constitute a crime against humanity when practiced in a widespread or systematic manner. The United States has not yet signed this treaty.
Some of America's reasons as to why are:
When the U.S. ratifies a human rights treaty, it often adds a reservation, declaration, or understanding that negates protection of certain rights. The U.S. generally makes two kinds of reservations to treaties:
Declares treaty “not self-executing.” This means that the treaty alone is not enforceable in domestic courts unless Congress passes legislation to implement its provisions. If the United States fails to pass the necessary legislation to uphold its international obligations, people whose treaty rights are violated have no recourse in domestic courts.
Limits scope of treaty. The United States frequently makes reservations limiting the scope of the treaty so as not to supersede the rights protected in the U.S. Constitution. For example, if a treaty prohibits cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment, the U.S. will interpret this clause to mean the same thing as the Constitutional prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. In some cases, the U.S. says that it will not enact any part of a treaty that conflicts with the U.S. Constitution, as interpreted by the United States.
Such limiting reservations mean that the decisions of international bodies on what constitutes a violation of an international treaty are superseded by domestic courts interpreting domestic laws created by Congress. Thus, rather than accepting the international system of human rights law when it signs international human rights treaties, the U.S. continues to rely on domestic protections alone.
Commentaires