18 Nov CEDAW is Back! U.S. Senate Holds CEDAW Hearings
Here we go again! The U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations may hold a hearing today on U.S. participation in the Convention for the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (I say may because I can’t seem to find it on the Senate FRC schedule). This is at least the third time the Committee has looked at CEDAW and, I believe, CEDAW has cleared this committee twice before with large majorities. So I don’t expect anything different this time around.
Debates over CEDAW have a strange pattern. Proponents simultaneously claim CEDAW is crucial to protecting women’s rights, and at the same time point to doctrines like non-self execution and reservations to CEDAW as evidence CEDAW will not require any change in U.S. law. Proponents also typically pooh-pooh pronouncements from the committees formed to report on CEDAW implementation. Opponents of CEDAW usually take the opposite tack, often overstating the importance and impact of CEDAW.
Christina Hoff Summers does a good job of making a reasonable and sensible case against CEDAW here. I’m not sure she is right about that, but she is probably right that the legal effect of CEDAW is still somewhat uncertain. But So far courts have been pretty uniform in upholding reservations to other human rights treaties. But she is certainly right that most international law scholars think the reservations have no effect and that there will be a push after ratification to get courts to recognize CEDAW and ignore the reservations.
If the hearing is held today, it will be interesting to see the U.S. government’s views on the effectiveness of the reservations to CEDAW. Stay tuned.
Hoff Summers – not most people’s idea of an objective observer, let alone any sort of legal analyst – did “a good job of making a reasonable and sensible case”? Perhaps we’re reading different articles – to take some of HS’s “myths” and “facts” in turn:
– HS claims, falsely, that CEDAW requires state regulation of family life. The CEDAW committee certainly comments on domestic violence and parental leave, but that hardly warrants HS’s derogatory description;
– HS claims, falsely, that US ratification will see “23 gender ministers” put the United States through a “three ring circus”. CEDAW does, as with the other core human rights treaties, provide for periodic review by a body of experts elected by the states parties – which would then include the US. Reviews are recommendatory, not binding, and take about a day every few years.
HS claims that US law is not currently compliant with CEDAW because CEDAW is based on equality of outcomes, not opportunity. This is ridiculous: as the CEDAW Committee has itself observed “[t]he principle of of equality between men and women, or gender equality, entails the concept that all human beings, regardless of sex, are free to develop their personal abilities, pursue their professional careers and make choices without the limitations set by stereotypes, rigid gender roles and prejudices.”
– HS claims that it is a “myth” that CEDAW has no enforcement authority. This, again, is just false. The expert committee has a recommendatory role and, noting HS’s fears about judicial reference to international instruments, one must question whether she’s actually read any recent USSC decisions on the point.
I’ll leave others to dispose of the rest, except for the last, no doubt fervent, statement that “The treaty is aimed at the United States, and risks for American freedoms are too high.” While paranoia is a charming hobby, let’s get real: this is a human rights treaty currently ratified by 186 states, including all the rest of the developed world. Oh, and we’re all fine out here.
Response…My myths and facts about CEDAW in the National Review are excerpted from “The UN Women’s Treaty: The Case Against Ratification” found here http://www.aei.org/docLib/20100323-CEDAW-Sommers.pdf
Comments most welcome!
Response…Editor, please use my second post. I accidentally pressed send before editing the first. Sorry!
Hi Julian — Today’s hearing is before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Human Rights and the Law (I’m the sole Republican witness). Hope all is well with you. Steve
CEDAW is good law!
Best,
Ben
While flattered (and surprised) to have a response from Dr Hoff Summers, the cited paper (by Dr Hoff Summers) reiterates the same incorrect points without substantiation. It does not, in particular, explain how a treaty to which every other developed country in the OECD is (and has long been) party poses such “risk” to the United States.