Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 2
  • Print publication year: 2009
  • Online publication date: June 2012

8 - From Paradox to Subsidiarity: The United States and Human Rights Treaty Bodies

Summary

In the battle for democracy and human rights, words matter, but what we do matters much more.

It is frequently said that the United States has a paradoxical human rights policy. On the one hand, the United States embraces human rights principles as a founding national ideology and has supported the enhancement of human rights and democracy as a core premise of its foreign policy since the end of World War II, when it played a leading role in birthing the international human rights regime. Indeed, the promotion of human rights and democracy abroad is a central motivating tenet of U.S. foreign policy, manifested in the nation's extensive foreign assistance commitments, political and financial support of international human rights bodies, linking of bilateral aid to human rights improvements, and annual reporting on the human rights situation of 194 nations of the world. National public opinion polls, moreover, suggest that roughly eighty percent of Americans believe that human rights inhere in every human being, whether the government formally recognizes those rights or not. Equal numbers express not only their support for U.S. ratification of human rights treaties but also their belief that international supervision over those treaty commitments, by a court or other independent body, is necessary.

Yet despite strong external and internal human rights commitments, the United States has appeared to flinch, even recoil, when it comes to direct domestic application of human rights treaty norms, especially as those norms are interpreted by international supervisory bodies.

Related content

Powered by UNSILO
Moravcsik, Andrew, “The Paradox of U.S. Human Rights Policy,” in Ignatieff, Michael, ed., American Exceptionalism and Human Rights (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005), 147–97
Glendon, Mary Ann, A World Made New: Eleanor Roosevelt and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (New York: Random House, 2001)
Carozza, Paolo G., Subsidiarity as a Structural Principle of International Human Rights Law, 97 Am. J. Int'l L.38, 38 n.1 (2003)
Bickel, Alexander, The Least Dangerous Branch 112 (Bobbs-Merrill 1962)
Hathaway, Oona A., Do Human Rights Treaties Make a Difference?, 111 Yale L.J.1935 (2002)
Bermann, George A., Taking Subsidiarity Seriously: Federalism in the European Community and the United States, 94 Colum. L. Rev.332 (1994)
Vause, W. Gary, The Subsidiarity Principle in European Union Law – American Federalism Compared, 27 Case W. Res. J. Int'l L.61 (1995)
Neuman, Gerald L., Subsidiarity, Harmonization, and Their Values: Convergence and Divergence in Europe and the United States, 2 Colum J. Eur. L.573 (1996)
Coglianese, Cary and Nicolaidis, Kalypso, “Securing Subsidiarity: The Institutional Design of Federalism in the United States and Europe,” in The Federal Vision: Legitimacy and Levels of Governance in the United States and the European Union (Nicolaidis, K. & Howse, R., ed., New York: Oxford University Press, 2001)
MacCormick, Neil, Questioning Sovereignty: Law, State, and Nation in the European Commonwealth151–55 (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000)
Swaine, Edward T., Subsidiarity and Self-Interest: Federalism at the European Court of Justice, 41 Harv. Int'l L. J.1 (2000)
Sander, Florian, Subsidiarity Infringements before the European Court of Justice: Futile Interference with Politics or a Substantial Step Towards EU Federalism, 12 Colum. J. Eur. L.517 (2006)
Linnan, J. E., Subsidiarity, Collegiality, Catholic Diversity, and Their Relevance to Apostolic Visitations, 49 The Jurist399, 403 (1989)
Shelton, Dinah, “Subsidiarity, Democracy and Human Rights,” in Broadening the Frontiers of Human Rights: Essays in Honour of Asbjorn Eide43 (Gomien, Donna ed., Oslo: Scandinavian University Press, 1993)
Vischer, Robert K., Subsidiarity as a Principle of Governance: Beyond Devolution, 35 Ind. L. Rev.103 (2001)
Bradley, Curtis A., The Treaty Power and American Federalism, 97 Mich. L. Rev.390 (1998)
Bradley, Curtis A. and Goldsmith, Jack L., Treaties, Human Rights, and Conditional Consent, 149 U. Pa. L. Rev.399, 468 (2000)
Goldsmith, Jack, Should International Human Rights Law Trump U.S. Domestic Law? 1 Chi. J. Int'l L.327, 338–39 (2000)
Melish, Tara J., “Inter-American Court of Human Rights: Beyond Progressivity,” in Langford, Malcolm, ed., Social Rights Jurisprudence: Emerging Trends in Comparative and International Law (New York: Cambridge University Press 2008)
Slaughter, Anne-Marie, A Liberal Theory of International Law, 94 ASIL Proc.240, 246 (2000)
Sunstein, Cass R., The Second Bill of Rights: FDR's Unfinished Revolution and Why We Need it More than Ever (Basic Books 2004)
Forbath, William E., Constitutional Welfare Rights: A History, Critique and Reconstruction, 69 Fordham L. Rev.1821, 1823 (2001)
Forbath, William E., Not So Simple Justice: Frank Michelman on Social Rights, 1969–Present, 39 Tulsa L. Rev.597, 612 (2004)
Holmes, Stephen and Sunstein, Cass R., The Cost of Rights: Why Liberty Depends on Taxes (W.W. Norton 1999)
Melish, Tara J., Rethinking the “Less as More” Thesis: Supranational Litigation of Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights in the Americas, 39 NYU J. Int'l L. & Pol.171 (2006)
Swaine, Edward, Unsigning, 55 Stan. L. Rev.2061 (2003)
Hartmann, Hauke, U.S. Human Rights Policy under Carter and Reagan, 1977-1981, 23 Hum. Rts. Q.402, 417 (2001)
Mauro, Tony, “Scalia Tells Congress to Stay Out of High Court Business,” Legal Times, May 19, 2006
Jackson, Vicki, Constitutional Comparisons: Convergence, Resistance, Engagement, 119 Harv. L. Rev.109 (2005)
Calabresi, Steven G. and Zimdahl, Stephani Dotson, The Supreme Court and Foreign Sources of Law: Two Hundred Years of Practice and the Juvenile Death Penalty Decision, 47 Wm. & Mary L. Rev.743 (2005)
Cleveland, Sarah H., Our International Constitution, 31 Yale J. Int'l L.1 (2006)
Johnston, David, “New Judiciary Subcommittee Is to Focus on Civil Liberties,” New York Times, Dec. 14, 2006, A33
Hakimi, Monica, The Media as Participant in the International Legal Process, 16 Duke J. Comp. & Int'l L.24 (2006)
Charnovitz, Steve, The ILO Convention on Freedom of Association and Its Future in the United States, 102 Am. J. Int'l L.90, 92 (2008)
Alston, Philip, U.S. Ratification of the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: The Need for an Entirely New Strategy, 84 Am. J. Int'l L.365, 370 (1990)
Koh, Harold Hongju, A United States Human Rights Policy for the 21st Century, 46 St. Louis U. L.J.293, 308 (2002)
Melish, Tara J., “The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights: Defending Social Rights through Case-Based Petitions,” in Langford, Malcolm, ed., Social Rights Jurisprudence: Emerging Trends in Comparative and International Law (Cambridge University Press, 2008)
Dudziak, Mary L., Cold War Civil Rights: Race and the Image of American Democracy (Princeton University Press, 2000)
Anderson, Carol, Eyes off the Prize: The United Nations and the African American Struggle for Human Rights, 1944–1955 (Cambridge University Press, 2003)
Morgenthau, Hans, Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1948)
Waltz, Kenneth, Theory of International Politics (McGraw-Hill 1979)
Goldsmith, Jack & Posner, Eric, The Limits of International Law (Oxford University Press, 2005)
Koh, Harold Hongju, Why Do Nations Obey International Law, 106 Yale L.J.2599, 2649 (1997)
Keohane, Robert O., After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy (Princeton University Press, 1984)
Guzman, Andrew T., A Compliance-Based Theory of International Law, 90 Cal. L. Rev.1823 (2002)
Koh, Harold Hongju, “Why America Should Ratify the Women's Rights Treaty (CEDAW),” 34 Case W. Res. J. Int'l L.263, 269 (2002)
Hathaway, Oona, Do Human Rights Treaties Make a Difference?, 111 Yale L. J.1935 (2002)
Lewis, Neil, “Justice Dept. under Obama Is Preparing for Doctrinal Shift in Policies of Bush Years,” New York Times, Feb. 2, 2009, at A14
Satterthwaite, Margaret L., Rendered Meaningless: Extraordinary Rendition and the Rule of Law, 75 Geo. Wash. L. Rev.1333 (2007)
Balkin, Jack M., “Brown as Icon,” in Balkin, ed., What “Brown v. Board of Education” Should Have Said5 (NYU Press, 2001)
Fleming, William, Danger to America: The Draft Covenant on Human Rights, 37 A.B.A. Journal739, 794–99 (1951)
Holman, Frank E., International Proposals Affecting So-Called Human Rights, 14 Law & Contemp. Probs.479, 483 (1949
Eilperin, Juliet, “New Drive Afoot to Pass Equal Rights Amendment,” Washington Post, Mar. 28, 2007, A1, A4
Kennedy, David W., The International Human Rights Movement: Part of the Problem? 15 Harv. Hum. Rts. J.99 (2001)
Goldsmith, Jack, Should International Human Rights Law Trump U.S. Domestic Law? 1 Chi. J. Int'l L.327 (2000)
Brennan, Jr. William J., State Constitutions and the Protection of Individual Rights, 90 Harv. L. Rev.489–504 (1977)
Lozner, Stacy Laira, Diffusion of Local Regulatory Innovations: The San Francisco CEDAW Ordinance and the New York City Human Rights Initiative, 104 Colum. L. Rev.768 (2004)
Koh, Harold Hongju, International Law as Part of Our Law, 98 Am. J. Int'l L.43, 43–45 (2004)
Neuman, Gerald L., The Uses of International Law in Constitutional Interpretation, 98 Am. J. Int'l L.82, 83–84) (2004)
Jackson, Vicki, Constitutional Dialogue and Human Dignity: States and Transnational Constitutional Discourse, 65 Mont. L. Rev.15, 21–27 (2004)
Davis, Martha F., The Spirit of Our Times: State Constitutions and International Human Rights, 30 N.Y.U. Rev. L. & Soc. Change359 (2006)
Smith, Wesley J., “A Worthwhile U.N. Initiative! A Welcome Defense of the Disabled from an Unlikely Organization,” Weekly Standard, Jan. 29, 2007, Vol. 12, Issue 19
Justesen, Tracey R. and Justesen, Troy R., An Analysis of the Development and Adoption of the United Nations Convention Recognizing the Rights of Individuals with Disabilities: Why the United States Refuses to Sign this UN Convention, 14(2) Hum. Rts. Brief36, 39–41 (2007)
Melish, Tara J., The UN Disability Convention: Historic Process, Strong Prospects, and Why the U.S. Should Ratify, 14(2) Hum. Rts. Brief37, 46 (2007)
Reisman, W. Michael, Sovereignty and Human Rights in Contemporary International Law, 84 Am. J. Int'l L.866, 869 (1990)
Reisman, W. Michael, Unilateral Action and the Transformations of the World Constitutive Process: The Special Problem of Humanitarian Intervention, 11 Eur. J. Int'l L.3, 9–10 (2000)
Cogan, Jacob Katz, Noncompliance and the International Rule of Law, 31 Yale J. Int'l L.189, 191 (2006)
Rehnquist, William H., All the Laws but One: Civil Rights in Wartime (Random House, 1998)
Bradley, Curtis A., The Treaty Power and American Federalism, 97 Mich. L. Rev.390 (1998)
Alford, Roger P., Misusing Sources to Interpret the Constitution, 98 Am. J. Int'l L.57, 59 (2004)
Bradley, Curtis A., International Delegations, the Structural Constitution, and Non-Self-Execution, 55 Stan. L. Rev.1557, 1558 (2002–03)
McGinnis, John O. and Somin, Ilya, Should International Law Be Part of Our Law? 59 Stan. L. Rev.1175 (2007)
Yourow, Howard Charles, The Margin of Appreciation Doctrine in the Dynamics of European Human Rights Jurisprudence (Utrecht: Martinus Nijhoff, 1996)
Reisman, William M., Necessary and Proper: Executive Competence to Interpret Treaties, 15 Yale J. Int'l L.316, 323–30 (1990)
Bell, Koren L., Note, From Laggard to Leader: Canadian Lessons on a Role for U.S. States in Making and Implementing Human Rights Treaties, 5 Yale Hum. Rts. & Dev. L.J.255 (2002)
Saunders, Kenneth L. & Bang, Hyo Eun (April), “A Historical Perspective on U.S. Human Rights Commissions,” Harvard Univ. John F. Kennedy Sch. of Gov't Executive Session on Human Rights Commissions & Criminal Justice, No. 3 (June 2007), at 11