US Women Also Face Human Rights Struggles

Marianne Møllmann

Women living in the United States can't appeal to international human rights law when they are inadequately protected by US law -- because the US has not signed on to CEDAW.

On October 10, 2003, after years of abuse at the hands of her former
partner, a 35-year-old woman in Hungary decided to seek intervention in
a way American women can currently only wish for. The woman, identified
as A.T., filed a petition with a United Nations body on women’s rights.
The body promptly asked her government to prevent further harm while
they considered her case. Subsequently, it directed Hungary both to
take measures to guarantee her physical and mental health and to ensure
protection and justice for all the nation’s victims of domestic

The petition, filed with the UN Committee on the Elimination of
Discrimination against Women, was known as CEDAW. It diligently analyzed
Hungarian law and court proceedings and concluded that available
remedies both in A.T.’s case and in general were too weak, too slow,
and too begrudgingly implemented.

Women living in the United States cannot appeal to CEDAW, though,
when their rights are inadequately protected by US law. Why? Because
the United States still, almost 30 years after it came into force, has
not agreed to be bound by the provisions of the Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, which created
the committee.

The Convention is a global treatise on women’s equality. It reflects
the consensus of the international community on what specific
protections and actions states must take to ensure equality between men
and women. The treaty has been ratified by 185 UN Member States,
placing the United States in the dubious company of Iran, Nauru, Palau,
Qatar, Somalia, Sudan, and Tonga as the last states that have not
ratified it. The convention was signed by President Carter in July
1980, but was not considered by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
till 1990. It was favorably voted out of the Foreign Relations
Committee twice: once in 1994 and once in 2002. The convention has been
awaiting comments from the Justice Department ever since. Senate rules
require the treaty to be taken up in Committee again before it goes to
full Senate vote.

Appreciate our work?

Rewire is a non-profit independent media publication. Your tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.


Opponents of ratification cite a general opposition to international
treaties as infringing upon national sovereignty. But they also contend
that the convention includes provisions that are offensive to
"American" culture. They contend that ratification would force the
United States government to provide abortion on demand, to intrude in
family situations and to legalize sex work.

The first argument is sometimes used to oppose the very concept of
international human rights. Such arguments maintain that every nation
is free to pursue whatever policies it wants, even slavery and
apartheid. Such arguments are hard to defend in the context of modern
international relations. Perhaps more to the point, the very act of
ratifying a treaty, and thereby agreeing to uphold universally
recognized standards, is a classic exercise of national sovereignty – a
declaration that a nation believes in and will uphold these standards.
With regard to the clash between US culture and the specific provisions of the Convention, the opposition is also wrong:

Abortion. The CEDAW Convention protects a woman’s equal right to
life and health, and to decide on the number and spacing of her
children. The full protection of these rights will in some cases
require access to abortion services, and will also require the state to
provide such services to some. The United States is already bound by
international human rights commitments in this regard through its
ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights, and through its membership of the Organization of American
States. The ratification of the CEDAW Convention would not
substantively alter existing obligations.
Intrusion of privacy. The CEDAW Convention requires the nations to end
practices based on the idea of the inferiority of either of the sexes.
This provision is key, and indeed Human Rights Watch research shows
that even the best policies are not effective if they are undermined by
existing prejudices. Moreover, US federal law on violence against
women, education, and other issues, already includes the need for
government oversight of what at some point was seen as private matters.

Sex work. The CEDAW Convention contains a provision requiring states
to take all measures "to suppress exploitation of prostitution of
women." Human Rights Watch’s research on this issue indicates that the
criminalization of women involved in sex work tends to expose them to
specific types of exploitation–including extortion by police. Various
countries have fulfilled this particular CEDAW obligation in many ways,
including decriminalizing sex work while clamping down on trafficking,
providing health care options for sex workers and investigating police

Back in Hungary, since A.T.’s case was filed in 2003, the government
has both held awareness-raising sessions for police officers about
domestic violence and developed a more stringent mandate for police to
deal with domestic violence. Moreover, the CEDAW Committee’s analysis
and recommendations have provided much needed fuel to domestic groups
seeking to reform the law. Women in the United States should be able to
benefit from this kind of support too. The Obama administration and the
US Senate should make ratification of the Convention on the Elimination
of All Forms of Discrimination against Women a priority.

Load More