America the exception:
7 other treaties the U.S. hasn't ratified
Posted By Joshua
Keating Thursday, May 17, 2012
(DO- Korea is partly
responsible for the “absence.” The U.S. is not in a good position to ratify Mine
Ban Treaty, because of DMZ b/w two Koreas.
To me, the reason of
the absence in the CRC is, rather than sovereignty concern, the increasing dominance
of conservative values among American politicians. I doubt that CRC is so intrusive
that RUD can’t protect the sovereignty of the US from the treaty regime. Take a
look at the RUDs submitted by the US to ICCPR. They basically say “The U.S.
will comply with ICCPR to the extent that the U.S. Constitution allows.”
When Hillary Clinton
expressed her support for CRC, commentators from the conservative said, “She
let kids sue their children.” Any qualitative difference from Limbaugh calling
slut to Ms. Fluke arguing that birth control should be covered by health
insurance? )
The Obama
administration, this month, decided to take up the fairly unrewarding task of
pushing for the ratification of the U.N. Convention on the
Law of the Sea. In a piece for FP today, James Kraska explains why
ratification is long overdue.
The treaty, which lays out rules for both military use of the seas and
extraction of resources, went into effect in 1994, has been accepted by 161
nations, and was supported by both the Clinton and Bush administrations as well
as U.S. Naval commanders. However it will still face a tough fight in Congress
where many lawmakers feel it would constitute an unwarranted intrusion on U.S.
sovereignty.
But the Law of the Sea
is hardly the only major international agreement waiting for either a U.S.
signature, or for Congress to approve ratification. Here's a quick look at a
few of the other international
treaties and conventions where the United Statates is
conspicuous by its absence:
Entered into force in
1990, signed by U.S. in 1995
Number of states
parties: 193 (Fellow non-ratifiers: Somalia, South Sudan*)
Signed by U.S. in
1980, entered into force in 1981
Number of states
parties: 187 (Fellow non-ratifiers: Palau, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, South Sudan,
Tonga)
Entered into force in
1999, never signed by U.S.
Number of states
parties:159
Entered into force in
2008, signed by U.S. in 2009.
Number of states
parties: 112
Entered into force in
2010, never signed by U.S.
States parties: 71
Entered into force in
2006, never signed by U.S.
Number of states
parties: 63
Entered into force in
2010, never signed by U.S.
Number of states
parties: 32 (91 have signed)
One could, of course,
make the case that the fact that countries like Iran, North Korea, and Belarus
have ratified many of these treaties suggests they don't actually accomplish
very much. On the other hand, it doesn't look very good that the United States
is considered a likely no vote when it comes to new human rights treaties, and
at this point there's enough evidence from other states parties to suggest that
ratifying an agreement on say, the rights of children, won't lead to U.N.
bureaucrats telling parents how to raise their kids.
*In fairness to South
Sudan, it has only been a country for about 10 months.
