{"id":2630,"date":"2012-10-13T00:37:37","date_gmt":"2012-10-13T04:37:37","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/sj\/?p=2630"},"modified":"2012-10-13T00:38:43","modified_gmt":"2012-10-13T04:38:43","slug":"unhrc-periodic-rights-review-us-edition-part-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/sj\/2012\/10\/13\/unhrc-periodic-rights-review-us-edition-part-2\/","title":{"rendered":"UNHRC: Periodic Rights Review (US edition, part 2)"},"content":{"rendered":"

Earlier this year I wrote a bit<\/a> about the latest UNHRC periodic rights review of the US, something that happens for every country once every four years. \u00a0Norway offered the most excellent advice, making 7 solid apolitical recommendations.<\/p>\n

They didn’t rehash international policy disputes or convention-signing, which can be nominal at best: and focused instead on essential changes that can be carried out now, and would be historically significant. If we implemented their 7 recs, our nation would be a better place. \u00a0Here they are, consolidated (with the # of the rec, and our response):<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Consider a human rights institution at the federal level to ensure implementation of human rights in all states (74:\u00a0yes, will consider, but no current plan<\/em>)<\/li>\n
  2. Take further measures in economic and social\u00a0rights for women and minorities, including equal access to decent\u00a0work and reducing the number of homeless people (113:\u00a0yes<\/em>)<\/li>\n
  3. Take measures to eradicate all forms of torture and illtreatment\u00a0of detainees by military or civilian personnel, in any territory of\u00a0jurisdiction, and that any such acts be thoroughly investigated (139:\u00a0yes<\/em>)<\/li>\n
  4. Take steps to set federal and state-level moratoria on executions with a view to\u00a0abolish the death penalty nationwide (122:\u00a0blanket\u00a0no<\/em>)<\/li>\n
  5. Review federal and state legislation with a view to restricting the\u00a0number of offences carrying the death penalty (132:\u00a0blanket no<\/em>)<\/li>\n
  6. Apply the model legal framework of the Leahy Laws to all countries receiving US security assistance, with human rights records of all units receiving such assistance \u00a0documented,\u00a0evaluated, made available and followed up upon in cases of abuse (227:\u00a0no more than now. ‘we already do this, but in secret’<\/em>)<\/li>\n
  7. Remove the blanket abortion restrictions on humanitarian aid\u00a0covering medical care given to women and girls who are raped and impregnated\u00a0in armed conflict (228:\u00a0no, sorry.\u00a0“due to currently applicable restrictions”<\/em><\/em>)<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    The death penalty is increasingly considered\u00a0outmoded and barbaric in most of the world, yet in our domestic discussions it is seen as a reasonable option – more a matter of regional preference than a fundamental moral matter. 35 \u00a0states currently allow it.<\/p>\n

    And what’s up with the 7th point above? \u00a0The US has imposed restrictions on its international aid funding over the past few decades to prevent aid recipients from using those funds to provide abortions or suggest them as an option for family planning. \u00a0The most well-known example of this is the\u00a0Mexico City Policy<\/a>\u00a0, instated by Reagan and since repealed or reinstated by each preseident in the first days of his term, along party lines. \u00a0This affected roughly $100M of aid given to family planning programs; and is also called the “global gag rule” because it prohibited aid recipients from using\u00a0any<\/em>\u00a0of their funds for abortion care.<\/p>\n

    Today, while the MCP stands repealed, there are other similar restrictions in force – including the one highlighted by Norway. \u00a0 They are\u00a0reportedly<\/a>\u00a0the first country to bring the issue up in an international setting, as part of a\u00a0campaign<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0launched with the\u00a0Global Justice Center<\/a>.<\/p>\n

    Overall, I am fascinated at how unified and sane most of these recommendations are. It reminds me that peer review by a large group of peers tends toward the\u00a0awesome, constructive\u00a0<\/em>side of the scale, even when the peer group includes some trolling and posturing.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    Earlier this year I wrote a bit about the latest UNHRC periodic rights review of the US, something that happens for every country once every four years. \u00a0Norway offered the most excellent advice, making 7 solid apolitical recommendations. They didn’t rehash international policy disputes or convention-signing, which can be nominal at best: and focused instead […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1202,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[211,213,214,219,1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2630","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-international","category-metrics","category-poetic-justice","category-rogue-content-editor","category-uncategorized"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p7iVvB-Gq","jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/sj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2630","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/sj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/sj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/sj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1202"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/sj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2630"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/sj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2630\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2906,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/sj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2630\/revisions\/2906"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/sj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2630"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/sj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2630"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/sj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2630"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}