Friday, March 8, 2024
Friday, March 1, 2024
Friday, January 27, 2023
The Supreme Court Still Refuses to Acknowledge Systemic Racism
Explaining Reservations to International Human Rights Treaties (Tricknolgy?)
A reservation is a declaration made by a state when signing or ratifying a treaty that reserves the right not to abide by certain provisions of the treaty. This allows states to modify their obligations under the treaty and can be used as an expression of good faith in the process of signing and ratifying treaties.
The United States has long held that its civil rights protections adequately protect human rights, and this reasoning is often used when making reservations to treaties. For example, when ratifying the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), the US declared that it did not consider itself bound by certain articles because they were inconsistent with US law. This reservation was seen as an expression of good faith in the treaty-making process, while still allowing for US sovereignty over domestic law.
It is important to note that reservations are not always accepted by other states party to a treaty, and must be negotiated between all involved parties. In some cases, reservations may even be considered incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty, rendering them invalid.
State parties may attach Reservations, Understandings, and Declarations (RUDs) to a treaty at the time of ratification. RUDs modify or clarify a treaty’s text or alter its legal effect for that ratifying State. But RUDs that are incompatible with a treaty’s object and purpose are deemed impermissible.
The United States ratified ICERD subject to several RUDs. In ratifying ICERD, the United States said it would not accept any obligation under ICERD to restrict U.S. freedom of speech, expression, and association. The United States further asserted that, to the extent ICERD seeks to regulate private conduct in a stricter manner than what already exists under U.S. law, the United States would not be obliged to take any such measures. These RUDs reflect a posture that U.S. laws prevail over multilateral, negotiated international human rights treaties, even if the treaty in question provides broader protections against racial discrimination.
This sentiment is emphasized in the United States’ final ICERD RUD, which provides that the treaty is non-self- executing. This final RUD prevents litigants from bringing independent ICERD claims into U.S. courts. A U.S. citizen cannot bring a claim into a U.S. court solely alleging that ICERD provisions have been violated, unless that claim also implicates a U.S. law
The United States ratified ICERD in 1994, but it has failed to live up to its commitment. The U.S. government has not taken the necessary steps to ensure that all of its laws and policies comply with ICERD’s provisions. This failure is particularly evident in the areas of criminal justice, education, employment, housing, health care, and voting rights.
In addition, the United States has not implemented a comprehensive national plan of action to eliminate racial discrimination or established an independent monitoring body as required by ICERD. Such a plan would include measures such as collecting data on race-based disparities in access to services and resources; developing strategies for addressing these disparities; and implementing effective remedies for victims of racial discrimination.
The U.S. government must take meaningful steps towards fulfilling its obligations under ICERD if it is serious about eliminating racism and promoting racial understanding globally. This includes adopting a comprehensive national plan of action that addresses systemic racism and establishing an independent monitoring body to ensure compliance with ICERD’s provisions.
" If a country aims to enforce only its own laws, why join ICERD at all? Reservations that reasonably modify a treaty’s text are one thing, but completely usurping the law of a treaty for a State’s own domestic laws, arguably, defeats the purpose of ratifying an international treaty. "
A reservation to an international legal treaty is a statement of a country's intent to not be bound by certain provisions of the treaty. It is an important tool for countries to protect their interests and ensure that they are not subject to any obligations that they do not agree with. (Tricknology)
Sources
- https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/black-to-the-future-part-ii/the-united-states--hollow-commitment-to-eradicating-global-racia/
- https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-convention-elimination-all-forms-racial
- https://scholarship.law.unc.edu/cgi/viewcontent
Sources
- https://ask.un.org/faq/139887
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reservation_(law)
- https://www.ilo.org/global/about-the-ilo/how-the-ilo-works/departments-and-offices/jur/legal-instruments/WCMS_700643/lang--en/index.htm
Sources
Do you Define Racism as a Shared Definition?
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/66918306/2716701.jpg.0.jpg)
The Merriam-Webster dictionary recently revised its definition of racism to reflect the reality that racism is not just about prejudice or discrimination from one person to another, but also about how larger systems and institutions in society work over time to reinforce the superiority of one race over another. This revision comes after Kennedy Mitchum, a recent college graduate, emailed the editors of Merriam-Webster to express her frustration with its current definition.
Mitchum's email highlighted how systemic racism has been embedded in American society for centuries through practices like redlining and stop-and-frisk that systematically disenfranchise black people and criminalize them on the basis of race. The new definition will attempt to show how white people benefit from racism since systemic oppression is ingrained in the fabric of American society.
By revising its definition of racism, Merriam-Webster hopes to better reflect modern discourse which acknowledges that larger systems and institutions at play in society — whether in education, policing, health care, or the economy — work over time to reinforce the superiority of one race over another.
The new definition of racism has significant legal implications, as it will allow for a more expansive interpretation of discrimination in the legal arena. This could open up the door to new possibilities in civil rights litigation, as it would enable individuals to challenge unequal treatment based on race that is occurring within systemic and structural systems. Additionally, this new definition can also further inform policy-making at all levels of government and help ensure that racial justice initiatives are grounded in a comprehensive understanding of racism. The broader understanding of racism may enable people to recognize how certain policies, practices and regulations perpetuate inequality and perpetuate racial disparities
The Convention to Eliminate Racial Discrimination (CERD) is a significant international agreement that seeks to eliminate all forms of racial discrimination. The new Merriam-Webster definition of racism provides an expanded understanding of systemic racism, which is crucial for the implementation and success of CERD. This broader definition emphasizes how racism operates on many levels in society, from policies and regulations to practices and institutional norms.
By recognizing the systemic elements of racism, this new definition can help inform governments' implementation efforts when it comes to tackling and eliminating racial discrimination in their countries. Furthermore, with this new understanding of racism, governments may be able to recognize how certain policies, practices and regulations perpetuate inequality and perpetuate racial disparities. Through greater awareness about the systemic nature of racism, governments will be better equipped to fulfill their obligations under CERD and take effective measures to eliminate racial discrimination from all parts of society.
