Ever since the start of the global financial and economic crisis, debates and charges have raged about whether the U.S. should nationalize certain industries such as banking and financial services or auto production.
But IntLawGrrls often point out that other debates should also draw our attention to “nationalization,” or, more accurately, U.S. adherence to international human rights law (Photo: Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt, first Chair of the UN Commission on Human Rights, holding a copy of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. (Credit: UN Photo, 1949)) :
►the public release of more “torture memos”;
►the prosecution of those who committed, ordered, or provided official justification for torture;
►the rights of immigrant workers, refugees, and their families who are subjected to raids and detention;
►same-sex marriage and the civil rights and civil liberties of gay, lesbian, and transgendered people;
►rights to housing and food even (especially) during a time of economic crisis;
►access to universal physical and mental health care and related rights;
►ending race, gender, age, disability, and other forms of discrimination;
►protecting workers' rights to living wages, fair and safe working conditions, and collective bargaining while pursuing environmental, social, and economic sustainability;
►deciding whether or not to participate in the recently concluded UN Durban Review Conference on Racism;
►ensuring transparency and participation by those most affected by a disaster (whether economic or “natural”) to recovery strategies and plans (see posts on Hurricane Katrina and human rights impact of disaster); and
►ratifying core international human rights instruments such as the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, the Convention on the Rights of the Child (neither the U.S. nor Somalia (where juveniles are used in piracy networks) has ratified the CRC), the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, the Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Their Families, and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (see our series on disability rights), among others.
These issues and controversies each bear important relationships to building “human rights culture” in the United States.
Rather than assume that human rights protections are intended only for those outside our borders, those in the United States must see human rights instead as a common heritage and as vibrant criteria that could help guide such “internal” discussions.
Discussions about the meaning and implementation of human rights must not be confined to international law classrooms or ornate palace assemblies in which only accredited diplomats may enter.
Human rights must become part of every schoolchild’s curriculum (see link to Human Rights Education Association here) and domestic legal and policy agendas. Ideally, international human rights standards provide an important framework for interpretation, monitoring, and implementation of law in the service of social justice.
Of course, merely teaching and learning the existing standards, or adopting new ones in treaties or constitutions, will not “solve” such debates without a commitment to making them real on the ground.
As previously posted here, some groups are calling for the U.S. Civil Rights Commission to be made-over into a newly-energized Civil Rights and Human Rights Commission. Such national commissions and ombudspersons do not replace courts or legislators, but they can remind us of our international obligations and act as a crucial independent monitor and voice for “nationalizing international human rights” (Title inspired by a recent magazine article. See Jeri Zeder, "Nationalize International Human Rights" Northeastern Law Magazine (Spring 2009)).
But IntLawGrrls often point out that other debates should also draw our attention to “nationalization,” or, more accurately, U.S. adherence to international human rights law (Photo: Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt, first Chair of the UN Commission on Human Rights, holding a copy of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. (Credit: UN Photo, 1949)) :
►the public release of more “torture memos”;
►the prosecution of those who committed, ordered, or provided official justification for torture;
►the rights of immigrant workers, refugees, and their families who are subjected to raids and detention;
►same-sex marriage and the civil rights and civil liberties of gay, lesbian, and transgendered people;
►rights to housing and food even (especially) during a time of economic crisis;
►access to universal physical and mental health care and related rights;
►ending race, gender, age, disability, and other forms of discrimination;
►protecting workers' rights to living wages, fair and safe working conditions, and collective bargaining while pursuing environmental, social, and economic sustainability;
►deciding whether or not to participate in the recently concluded UN Durban Review Conference on Racism;
►ensuring transparency and participation by those most affected by a disaster (whether economic or “natural”) to recovery strategies and plans (see posts on Hurricane Katrina and human rights impact of disaster); and
►ratifying core international human rights instruments such as the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, the Convention on the Rights of the Child (neither the U.S. nor Somalia (where juveniles are used in piracy networks) has ratified the CRC), the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, the Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Their Families, and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (see our series on disability rights), among others.
These issues and controversies each bear important relationships to building “human rights culture” in the United States.
Rather than assume that human rights protections are intended only for those outside our borders, those in the United States must see human rights instead as a common heritage and as vibrant criteria that could help guide such “internal” discussions.
Discussions about the meaning and implementation of human rights must not be confined to international law classrooms or ornate palace assemblies in which only accredited diplomats may enter.
Human rights must become part of every schoolchild’s curriculum (see link to Human Rights Education Association here) and domestic legal and policy agendas. Ideally, international human rights standards provide an important framework for interpretation, monitoring, and implementation of law in the service of social justice.
Of course, merely teaching and learning the existing standards, or adopting new ones in treaties or constitutions, will not “solve” such debates without a commitment to making them real on the ground.
As previously posted here, some groups are calling for the U.S. Civil Rights Commission to be made-over into a newly-energized Civil Rights and Human Rights Commission. Such national commissions and ombudspersons do not replace courts or legislators, but they can remind us of our international obligations and act as a crucial independent monitor and voice for “nationalizing international human rights” (Title inspired by a recent magazine article. See Jeri Zeder, "Nationalize International Human Rights" Northeastern Law Magazine (Spring 2009)).
