Part One of The Hypocrisy of the U.S. in International Standards
The U.S. is seen as the leader of the free world, the country that other countries look up and aspire to. It is the representation of freedom and democracy. If any country hopes to achieve legitimization (other countries view a country as truly democratic with goals in mind to create a better world order for those citizens and all humans, as well as have an accepted authority) in the international order it needs to please the United Nations (U.N.), though really it needs to please the U.S. The easiest way to this this then would be to mimic the U.S. While the U.S. and U.N. maintain rigorous standards for international legitimization and relations, the U.S. is a bit hypocritical in this approach. It argues that countries must sign the various resolutions, declarations, and conventions the U.N. creates in order to prove their commitment to democracy and thus their legitimization. The U.S., however, has opted out of many important and sometimes obligatory laws. Some of these include: the Law of the Sea Treaty, human rights treaties (on children, indigenous people, people with disabilities, and those experiencing enforced disappearance), conventions (against discrimination against women, cluster munitions, and against torture), the Kyoto Protocol, and the Mine Ban Treaty. Part One of this conversation will feature the Law of the Sea, Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and the Convention on the Rights of Children.
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (also known as UNCLOS) sets up guidelines for recognizing legitimacy and maritime boundaries and was presented in the mid-1980s. Among some of the more important take aways are: straights are to be used for international transportation, coastal states have rights to resources and economic benefits/regulations for 200 nautical miles in what is called the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), disputes are to be submitted to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.
One of the main arguments for not ratifying the treaty is the main excuse for why many international treaties don’t get signed: they are seen as undermining the U.S.’s sovereignty. Other arguments for not ratifying the treaty include mandatory dispute resolution (where the U.S. could be taken advantage of by opportunistic nations claiming environmental degradation), as well as the fact that the law reflects a long-standing custom of the U.S. navy (basically the U.S. has already been choosing to voluntarily follow this rule, so why commit to it?).
Two of the main arguments for ratifying the treaty includes the international power leverage the U.S. would gain, specifically over China (as well as influencing other countries who want to follow the U.S.’s patterns to gain legitimization), as well as the fact that the U.S. already strictly follows Law of the Sea guidelines by custom (so they might as well officially commit to it). Other arguments for ratifying the treaty include: uniformed services (especially the Navy) support it, the U.S. would have legal standing for complaints of territorial exclusivity (which the U.S. currently challenges solely through Freedom of Navigation Operations such as against Iran in the Straight of Hormuz), and the U.S. would have every right to commercial exploitation of resources in the EEZ off of both U.S. coasts.
The U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (also known as UNDRIP) was established in 2007 to create a “universal framework of minimum standards for the survival, dignity, well-being, and rights of the world’s indigenous peoples”. It was voted in with 11 abstentions and 4 objections (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the U.S.).
Since then, all four countries have reversed their stance against the declaration, the U.S. being the last to support it. The U.S., however, hasn’t made it legally binding. The U.S. verbally declared their support of the declaration and recognize it as a qualified document in nonbinding terms. Officially (through the State Department) the U.S. recognizes the tribal rights to self-determination, but that they will be limited by existing laws and policies (indicating that not much will change from prior to the U.S.’s verbal support of the international treaty); the State Department doesn’t recognize the declaration as binding, but sees it having “political and moral force”. Without officially signing in the treaty, or recognizing that current policies and laws are flawed, maybe the U.S. doesn’t fully support the treaty, or at least the ramifications of fully signing in the treaty (complete tribal self-determination means the U.S. would lose control over tribes as the tribes would become more like foreign nations).
The U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child (also known as the CRC) was ratified in 1989 to change how societies view children: “as human beings with distinct set of rights instead of as passive objects of care and charity”. The Convention says that all children must benefit from special protections, have access to education and healthcare, develop to full potential, are aware of and achieve their rights, and grow up in an environment of happiness, understanding and love (basically stability and peace). It is supposed to “help prevent the sale of children, prostitution, child pornography and the involvement of children in armed conflict around the world”.
Two countries have not ratified the treaty: the U.S. (signed the convention but has yet to actually implement the treaty) and Somalia (Somalia cannot ratify because it has no formally recognized government). Some arguments against the convention is that it infringes on parents’ rights (typically argued by conservative and faith-based groups), that it infringes on the U.S.’s sovereignty.
Arguments for ratifying the convention include the fact that the U.S. had a major role in drafting it so it therefore reflects what a majority of Americans want for their kids and also says that governments need to respect the rights and responsibilities of parents (undermining the Parents’ Rights campaign fears); it also embarrasses the U.S. as it questions the U.S.’s legitimacy as the leader of human rights.
The U.S. is falling behind on a number of children’s rights indicators:
Poverty: As of 2010, the U.S. ranked 30th out of 34 OECD countries in terms of child poverty. 21.2% of children in the United States live in poverty. The average for OECD countries is 13.3%. Only Chile, Turkey, Mexico and Israel had higher child poverty rates.
Maternal Leave: The U.S. is the only high-income country not to grant paid maternity leave.
Criminal Justice: The U.S. is also the one country in the world that sentences offenders under the age of 18 to life in prison without parole, which the Convention opposes.
The U.S. pushes for developing countries to seek legitimacy by adopting U.N. resolutions, and while it supports these resolutions, it will not commit to them. Does this mean the U.S. is losing legitimacy in the international sphere? For Part Two, Part Three, and Part Four of this conversation, please click on the links.
