Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T06:57:49.541Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

14 - US reservations to human rights treaties: all for one and none for all?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 July 2009

Catherine Redgwell
Affiliation:
Reader in Public International Law and Yamani Fellow St. Peter's College, Oxford
Michael Byers
Affiliation:
Duke University, North Carolina
Georg Nolte
Affiliation:
Georg-August-Universität, Göttingen, Germany
Get access

Summary

The purpose of this chapter is to examine US treaty-making practice in the particular context of reservations to human rights treaties. In the past decade or so the United States has ratified a number of international human rights treaties, including the 1948 Genocide Convention, the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the 1966 Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and the 1984 Torture Convention. However, particularly in the case of the ICCPR, ratification was accompanied by a number of reservations, understandings, and declarations which significantly modify the Convention in its application to the United States and, indeed, in at least two instances may be argued to run contrary to the object and purpose of the Convention. Unsurprisingly therefore, rather than leading to widespread praise and support for the United States in buttressing human rights guarantees on the international level, US ratification of the ICCPR has led to criticisms of the insulation of the US domestic legal order from external influences in the human rights field and the resulting manifestation of an isolationist “superiority complex.” Indeed, the US approach to ratification of human rights treaties has been characterized by an “à la carte multilateralism,” in terms both of the (more limited) number of treaties accepted and of the (qualified) obligations assumed. The United States “remains an anomalous outlier with respect to many widely ratified conventions (e.g. the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women or the Convention on the Rights of the Child)” and it has entered the highest number of reservations by States parties to the Torture Convention, the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, and the ICCPR.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2003

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×