Why hasn't the US ratified the UN convention on the rights of children?

Great Debates
41

What kind of argument is that?

The US is afraid of agreeing to do something that it’s already doing… uh, yeah right. Or are you suggesting that the US doesn’t want to sign it because it wants something stronger? Same strategy being done with Kyoto, perhaps?

It’s a start. And if you’re going to do something, be bold enough to have it writing.

No, I think you’ll find that this is a stupid argument. What about if everyone else in a crowd ducks? Will you stand still and let what everyone else avoided hit you? :rolleyes:

If 99% of the world think something, then it’s more likely to be right than wrong. Not in all cases, no. Sometimes the establishment is wrong. Most of the time it happens to be right.

I wouldn’t say entirely superficial. (Yes, I read the thread).

I am rather worried that you think it shouldn’t be allowed - censuring never helps anybody.

In any case I agree with none of those caricature views. I am quite happy for the US to play an active role in internation affairs, preferably through the UN, and to sell whatever they like. I even support invading Iraq, for goodness sake…

I was just about some of the problems of the EU… if you want there are many more. The abuse of the system by the more powerful countries, the erosion of national soverignty, the worry anti-immigration and general trend to the far right. Is this supposed to mean I can’t criticise the US?

You’re not the only one who discusses issues with people from both countries - pretty much everyone on this board does, for a start. I have been to the US several times and spend a few hours a day in online discussions - predominantly with Americans. There is very little difference between the people of the two countries - which is all the more reason why they should cooperate. Cooperation, by the way, includes signing treaties.

Do you know what I get tired of? People who can’t take the middle view and compromise. Yes, at home I hear a fair amount of rubbish about how the US is the antrichrist or whatever. But I hear the same amount from US people who seem to want to enjoy being a supreme power and ignoring the rest of the world. If they want to, then perhaps that once was their prerogative - I do not believe that it is any more in a ever closer world.

You don’t agree with every last phrase of a treaty? Then argue it, debate it, prepare to give in to the majoriy. That’s part of democracy too. Don’t just declare that yoy’re right, knowing that you can get away with it, due to general super power ness.

(Note : In case anyone is silly enough not to realise, this is not on an attack on the nation as it is on some areas of the country’s foreign policy).

42

Actually, I question whether the US could conform to this treaty, because of the limitations on punishment of juvenile offenders. I have serious doubts about the federal governments authority to limit punishments set by the individual states. The only methods they’d have available would be having those punishments declared unconstitutional as Cruel and Unusual, or by making federal funding of some sort contingent on the state’s obedience, neither of which has any guarantee of success.

So, despite agreeing whole-heartedly with the philosophy beheind the Declaration, why sign a treaty we are Constitutionally unable to enforce within our borders?

43

I believe part of the reason the US doesn’t ratify it is that we tend to take treaties more seriously than other countries. Article VI, Section 2 of our Constitution says “This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land.”

I don’t think any country wants to grant its sovereignty to the UN, it’s just that most other countries would never try to enforce the declaration they’ve signed.

44

hear hear!

45

that “hear hear!” was directed at MrThompson

the hamsters are really taking it easy to today, someone toss them a food pellet or crystal meth or something.

46

Making federal funding, especially for highways, contingent on the state’s obedience can be a very successful tactic. The US could comply with the treaty if it really wanted to. But, as we’ve all said they could sign it just for symbolic effect and not even fully comply, the UN isn’t going to do anything about it. They won’t, not because of legal impediments, or because they don’t care about children, but because the Bush administration answers to no one.

47

Threatening to take away federal funds has been successful in the past - how many states do you see with a drinking age lower than 21?

(Not that I want to encourage similar extortion in the future.)

48

That’s an interesting theory. I’m not sure what you’d find if you did a systematic survey of the Constitutions of the world. However, if you look at how international law is treated on the domestic level in practice, you’ll find a different story. The US Supreme Court has not treated many treaties as the supreme law of the land.

49

Off to Great Debates. (Better late than never).

50

<hijack>

…and it’d be even lower if that figure wasn’t mainly made up of newborns trampled by moose in hospital parking lots :smiley:

I’m not sure that we’re doing anything “right” per say, but this region doesn’t attract a lot of the variables you state:

First, NH is only of the least racially diverse states in the US, which by necessity leads us to conclude that the imigration population must been one of the lowest as well. Of those people who do immigrate here, a good precentage of them are in high-paying tech jobs, which offer decent insurance.

Second, the lack of available housing, coupled with astronomical housing costs
http://www.nhhousingforum.org/cgi-bin/legis_activity/legis_activity.cgi?folder=reports&next=1 do not encourage people of any race who are “poor” to move here, because there simply isn’t a lot of cheap housing around (the typical range in my area for a two bedroom apartment is between $750 and $1100 a month abracat.com - This website is for sale! - classifieds Resources and Information.) to allow them to come to the state from wherever they’ve lived before. The last report I’ve seen (late 2001) claims a mere 1.5% apartment vacency rate across the state. Therefore the only other housing to be found is to buy a house or build one.

I’m not sure if it’s significant, but the climate here doesn’t exactly appeal to anyone but skiers, so there aren’t a lot of people who are making do by roughing it in perment campgrounds or in ramshackled unheated cottages, either; that’s just a good way to freeze to death before you have the chance to reproduce :slight_smile:

If you limit the amount of people who can’t afford health care, you eliminate a lot of infant mortality due to insuficent prenatal care.

</hijack>

51

Crafterman Said:

Chula Said:

Squink Said:

Let's define natural law. According to St. Thomas is the "participation of the rational creature in the eternal law". If you happen not to believe in God other philosophers find natural law in human nature. This theory was first created by the Greeks, taken by the romans and from them we all got it. It's opposed to positive law (the one created by the human legislator). 
Natural is valid everywhere and in every time. Now those laws that Squink listed are not natural law but positive law "by accident", that is they were created by the human legislator but their content is natural law.

Chula is somewhat right, this theory has lost it’s prestige. Let’s take Hegel with his’s conception of the supremacy of the state, of course for him and his followers the only law is the one dictated by anygiven state.
But it’s Hans Kelsen honour to have bury it, he is the author of the “Pure law theory” (sorry for the translation).
His ideas evolve about the concept of the juridic pyrammid. At the top we find an state constitution, one step lower a law. That law is valid because it is in accordance with the one of the top. In a third step we find another law and it is also valid because it is in accordance with the one in the second step. And so on.
But why is the constitution valid? For Kelsen that is a meta-juridical problem. The jurist must only face reality, he only cares for the positive law of a given country every other problem is a philosopher’s problem. There must be something above the first law but he just doesn’t care to find what it is.

And now why a law without and effective policeman is worth signing. Because countries that want to respect it will have a parameter in which they can their conduct, and second the offenders have a damocles sword above their head. Some day the policeman might actually do something.

52

On preview, most of the above is a hijack. My apologies to the op

53

So in other words, From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his
need. Hmm. Now where have I heard that before?

Yes. Next.

Yes, you understand correctly.

54

[sidetrack]
The bit about the differring concept of “rights” has to do with how in the US, a (I’m not so sure it’s “the”) dominant viewpoint is that “rights” are things you already have, and that society should not take away from you. Your religious beliefs; being secure in your home; enjoying the fruits of your labor; being out of jail; being a part of the community’s life. To prevent the state from taking them away from you, the society is forbidden from doing things like establishing a religion, searching you without a good reason, taking your property without compensation, trying you without letting you have a lawyer, barring your voting or employment because of race or gender. In this POV, making it mandatory for society to GIVE you something is not a “right”, it’s a policy decision, contingent on the historical moment.
[/sidetrack]

As to the big OP question:
A US President thought signature of the treaty was in harmony with the US National Interests. The US Senate has decided that ratification isn’t. That’s why it isn’t signed. Are divided governments not grand?

But anyway, regardless of what the leaders of nations and organizations around the world may spout for public consumption, the beautiful words in their constitutions or declarations, and the postures they assume when in public, the governments of sovereign states do not act on the basis of what is more virtuous. Virtue, schmirtue. The governments of sovereign states act according to what they perceive to be the political, economic, strategic, what-have-you, interest of their nation (at best) or of the particular faction that keeps them in power.

55

The only people I have actually heard an opinion from who spurn the convention have precisely these objections. It is a major part of the parents’ job to determine as much as possible what influences their children are exposed to; the excerpts that JoeCool quoted have a direct bearing on that duty. Some people fear that the convention could be used to form legal grounds for intrusion into these matters. Having seen the stupidities that politicians and lawyers can get up to, I hesitate to gainsay that fear.
RR

56

QUOTE]*Originally posted by Joe_Cool *
**A few thoughts, as I read over the treaty itself…

They seem to believe that the child has many rights such as expression and exposure to ideas, that cannot be restricted except for matters of national security. Again, I strongly disagree. My child can speak and be exposed to ideas to the degree that I, the parent, see fit. And nobody, especially the UN, will override my authority as the parent.
. . .
Wrong again. The child has the right to such privacy as granted by the parents. And the right of association? My child associates with such people as I see fit. Period.

The parent’s job is to mold the child into a responsible and productive human being. And the UN evidently wants government - either itself or those of its signatory nations - to usurp that authority and responsibility.
**
[/QUOTE]

The only people I have actually heard an opinion from who spurn the convention have precisely these objections. It is a major part of the parents’ job to determine as much as possible what influences their children are exposed to; the excerpts that JoeCool quoted have a direct bearing on that duty. Some people fear that the convention could be used to form legal grounds for intrusion into these matters. Having seen the stupidities that politicians and lawyers can get up to, I hesitate to gainsay that fear.
RR

57

Now, that’s odd. I specifically checked to make sure that my first attempt at posting – which ended with a DNS error – did not go through before I retried the submit. My apologies for the double post.
RR

58

Well, I agree with CurtC & Fenris here. You see- if the Senate ratifies this treaty it becomes LAW- we have to follow it- except as it conflicts with the Constitution.

But those countries which are practicing what is for all intents & purposes “child slavery” will go ahead & sign it- and cheerfully ignore it. Same as many other such “feel good” resolutions like the landmine one, etc. What good it is if some Nation which practises these horrors more or less openly DOES sign- and then wipes it’s butt with the Treaty?

But if the US signs, and some 17yo massmurderer is held for trial as an adult- you bet there will be an uproar. Such Treaties can effective handcuff the USA, while the real perps ignore them.

59

The cynic in my would say that the president in quesiton signed this treaty - much as he did the Kyoto treaty - knowing full well it would never be ratified, nor really caring whether or not it was. It was a chance to look good - It’s For the Children! It’s For the Environment! Think of the Spotted Owls! - without the burden of having to take a stand.

A more practical reason why it may not have been ratified is this (and this is a guess): Ratifying this would require a vote, which would take precious time. As this treaty is pretty much symbolic and meaningless, do we really want to waste time with it over, say, creating a budget? Determining whether or not to invade Iraq? Just about anything else you could possibly think of?

Of course, the above theory is contingent upon there not having been a vote. Was there a vote, a la Kyoto, that shot it down? Or has it never reached the floor?

Jeff

60

I’ve read large chunks of the declaration of human rights, but a while back, so correct me if any of this is wrong.

I believe the declaration states that the origin of rights is the declaration of the state. The state is the source for any rights, and they are not innate nor inalienable. They are able to redefined arbitrarily by the state as desired, and have no real value outside of a piece of paper.

This is contrary to the idea of natural rights, which recognizes that such are inalienable and innate - either that they are innate to being alive, or given by a Creator.

The UN declaration is a system by which “rights” are arbitrary privileges given to subjects by the state. It is in no way philosophically compatable with the US Bill of Rights.

While I’m not sure I’d describe it as “evil”, I certainly share the same general sentiment as Crafter_Man.