that “because the USA is one of only two states that have not ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which recognizes that children need special safeguards and care, it feels free to trample on the human rights of juveniles in its ‘war on terror,”’
See it Here
"The United States has not so far ratified the CRC, in part due to possible conflicts with U.S. law and because of opposition by some political and religious conservatives to the treaty.[20]
The administration of president George W. Bush has explicitly stated its opposition to the treaty:
"The Convention on the Rights of the Child may be a positive tool for promoting child welfare for those countries that have adopted it. But we believe the text goes too far when it asserts entitlements based on economic, social and cultural rights. ... The human rights-based approach ... poses significant problems as used in this text." [21]
Active opposition to the Convention in the United States has been concentrated in politically conservative groups.[22] Senator Jesse Helms, the Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, described it as a “bag of worms,” an effort to “chip away at the U.S. Constitution”.[23]
Legal concerns over ratification have mostly focused on issues of sovereignty and federalism.[24] The United States generally does not sign treaties that it believes would impair its sovereignty.[25] Most United States laws for the protection of children are state rather than federal laws, and the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution restricts some of the authority of the United States government to pass legislation or ratify treaties that will protect children. The US Constitution not only limits federal jurisdiction over children, the US Supreme Court has held that to some significant degree, no government, federal, state, or local may interfere with the parent-child relationship.[26][27].
The Heritage Foundation sees the conflict as an issue of national control over domestic policy: "Although not originally promoted as an entity that would become involved in actively seeking to shape member states’ domestic policies, the U.N. has become increasingly intrusive in these arenas."[28] They express concern about "sovereign jurisdiction over domestic policymaking and preserving the freedom of American civil society",[29] and argue that the actual practice of some UN Committees has been to review national policies that are unrelated, or are marginally related to the actual language of the Convention.[30] Supporters of homeschooling express concern that the Convention will "subvert the authority of parents to exercise important responsibilities toward their children. Under the UN Convention, parental responsibility exists only in so far as parents are willing to further the independent choices of the child."[31]
David Smolin argues that the objections from the religious and political conservatives stem from their view that the U.N. is an elitist institution, which they do not trust to properly handle sensitive decisions regarding family issues.[32] He suggests that legitimate concerns of critics could be met with appropriate Reservations, Understandings and Declarations by the U.S. [33]"
From Wikipedia
If you cannot find the links in this blog, I have majority of them filed, Email me!
No comments:
Post a Comment