NFHS Debate Topic Proposal New Orleans Topic Conference, July 31-Aug. 2, 2015 International Treaties Cort Sylvester, Nathan Wodarz, Rachel Baumann Rosemount High School, Minnesota

The authors wish to acknowledge Tara Tate Carr of Glenbrook South High School, Illinois, who presented a version of this topic proposal at a previous conference.

Introduction to Issues of Topic Area

The is one of the most influential nations in the world and rightly considers itself a global leader. The modern geopolitical landscape has been shaped in large part by America's formal and informal relationships with other countries, regional groups and non-governmental organizations.

One key element of U.S. foreign policy is treaty relations. Bilateral and multilateral treaties are an important alternative to unilateral American action. Treaties have historically played an important role in creating the modern world. There may be, for instance, no greater single force in uniting the Western world than the North Atlantic Treaty. The potential for war between NATO and the Warsaw Pact was the overriding consideration in world affairs for half a century. Similarly, the interlocking agreements of the Bretton Woods infrastructure continue to guide international finance and development.

Although the U.S. unquestionably deserves its reputations as a superpower and a driving force toward global liberalization, its formal commitment to existing human rights and social justice treaties does not always match that image. has noted that the U.S. has not ratified any international human rights treaties since December 2002, when it ratified two optional protocols to the Convention on the Rights of the Child. (In fact, the U.S. has not ratified the underlying Convention on the Rights of the Child, joining Somalia and South Sudan as the only countries outside of the most widely and rapidly adopted human rights treaty ever.) America's failure to ratify a series of global treaties may undermine its influence and damages its credibility as an advocate for human rights and liberty.

Even a cursory search on the subject identifies a number of environmental, , human rights or social justice treaties the U.S. has either never signed, or has signed but not ratified:

 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women;

 Convention on the Rights of the Child;

 Convention for the Protection of all Persons from Enforced Disappearance;

Treaty(Mine Ban Treaty);

 Convention on Cluster Munitions;

 Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities;

 Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture;

 Law of the Sea Treaty;

 Kyoto Protocol;

 Rome Statute (International Criminal Court);

 Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty;

 Convention on Biological Diversity.

The factors motivating opposition to or reluctance to accept these various treaties touch on many of the central issues of geopolitics. For instance, opponents of international criminality and inspection regimes often cite America's "unique position" in the world, claiming that our prominence and global reach makes U.S. citizens and officials more likely to be unfairly targeted even when carrying out "benevolent" activity. This prompts a debate over American exceptionalism and between the ideologies of globalism and isolationism.

Concerns of sovereignty are also central to the debate over treaty ratification. U.S. citizens and politicians are highly resistant to giving foreign nationals and organizations any power to regulate activities within our borders. This stems in part from another strain of exceptionalism, one that considers our legal system beyond reproach, especially in comparison to that of other signatories to these treaties. It also, however, arises from a commitment to democracy. International agreements that override domestic laws can in fact thwart the will of the populace. At the same time, respect for national sovereignty is a bedrock principle of the current international order. Ratifying an international treaty voluntarily sacrifices a measure of that sovereignty. Debaters would have the opportunity to discuss the concept of sovereignty and its consequences. Global arms control treaties raise a variety of significant issues for debate. American critics of multilateral arms control often cite the disproportionate impact treaties would have on a military superpower such as the U.S., because it makes more extensive use of the controlled weapons than smaller powers. A global military power may also have strategic need for a more flexible range of weapons options and thus may be significantly constrained when some are prohibited. (Of course, such constraints may be a legitimate goal of arms control.) The U.S. is understandably reluctant to accept limitations on weapons and tactics that may be useful in the types of asymmetric warfare that are increasingly dominating the military landscape. Domestic and international political considerations also play heavily in treaty battles. For instance, some Republican opposition to a series of UN treaties (Convention on the Rights of the Child, Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women) stems from fears that these treaties would limit the rights of parents to homeschool their children. Homeschool advocates form part of the conservative Republican voter base. Various treaties have encountered more readily anticipated objections from opponents of practices such as abortion and capital punishment. Internationally, concerns about human rights treaties are often voiced by ardent defenders of Israel, which is frequently accused of violating the human rights of Palestinians. The ratification process is more extensive than many people recognize and it provides ample opportunity for agent and process debates. Debaters and commentators frequently use the terms "ratify" or "ratification" to refer only to approval of a treaty by the U.S. Senate. That is not entirely accurate. Technically, ratification is the entire process of an individual nation formally approving and binding itself to a treaty. The primary steps in ratification by the United States include:  Negotiation of treaty terms, usually conducted by executive branch diplomats;

 Signature by the President or authorized State Department representatives;

 Presentation of the treaty by the State Department to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and subsequent Committee action to forward to full Senate;

 Advice and consent of full Senate via consent resolution (pursuant to U.S. Constitution, treaties must be approved by a two-thirds vote in the Senate), with or without conditions or reservations;

 Final ratification signature by President and deposit of ratification instruments with treaty depositary. Highlights of the procedural status and issues surrounding some of the most interesting treaties for debate are set forth below. Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women The Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women is an international treaty that seeks to ensure gender equality in the domestic laws in all nations that have ratified the convention. The Convention is commonly abbreviated as the CEDAW. The CEDAW was adopted by the General Assembly on December 18, 1979. It became effective on September 3, 1981. Currently, CEDAW has been ratified by 188 UN member nations. The United States and Palau have signed, but not yet ratified the treaty. The Holy Sea, Iran, Somalia, South Sudan and Tonga are not signatories to CEDAW. Additionally, CEDAW has one optional protocol related to procedural concerns about evaluating the competence of the Committee on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women. The basic provisions of the CEDAW include a common definition of discrimination against women. For the purposes of the CEDAW, discrimination is defined as “Any distinction, exclusion or restriction made on the basis of sex which has the effect or purpose of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by women, irrespective of their marital status, on a basis of equality of men and women of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field.” (CEDAW, Part 1, Article 1,). The goal of the CEDAW is to end gender-based discrimination, eliminate traditional gender-based stereotypes, promote and protect the fundamental rights of all women throughout the world. The CEDAW also focuses on protecting maternity leave, the right to be safe from abuse, neglect and exploitation, and education. The United States Federal Government has opted not to ratify the CEDAW for over 30 years. The most consistent, and significant, reason is that the CEDAW replicates most existing American laws related to gender discrimination and that the CEDAW is too overreaching when concerned with family law. Additionally, most arguments against CEDAW focus on the weak implementation and enforcement in current ratified nations. Legally, there are concerns about state sovereignty, federalism, cultural and religious stereotypes, abortion rights, decriminalization of prostitution and forcing western style feminism on non-western cultures. Convention on the Rights of the Child The Convention on the Rights of the Child is an international treaty which seeks to protect the rights of children in the following areas: civil rights, economic rights, political rights, medical/health rights, social rights and cultural rights of children. The Convention is commonly abbreviated as the CRC, CROC and the UNCRC. The Convention was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on November 20, 1989. It was ratified by the required number of nations on September 2, 1990. Currently, the Convention has been signed by 194 UN member nations, with notable exceptions being the United States, South Sudan and Somalia. South Sudan has recently started the process of becoming a party to the treaty and Somalia ratified the Convention on January 20, 2015. Their ratification process will be completed when their paperwork is accepted by the UN. Additionally, the Convention has three optional protocols related to involving children in military conflicts, prohibiting the sale of children; including child prostitution and child pornography, and the communication of complaints. The basic provisions of the Convention include a common definition of a “child”. For the purposes of the Convention, a child is defined as “every human being below the age of eighteen years unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier.” (CRC, Part 1, Article 1,). The goal of the Convention is to promote and protect the fundamental rights of all children throughout the world. By conferring upon children, specifically, the same rights as adults, the Convention focuses on the right to survive and to be safe from abuse, neglect and exploitation. Other prominent topics the Convention addresses include education, health care, juvenile justice and the rights of children with disabilities. The United States Federal Government has a conflicted history with the Convention. While the United States participated in the development of Convention and signed the Convention on February 16, 1995, the Convention has not been given to the United States Senate for ratification. There are many groups within the United States which support ratification of the treaty, including children’s rights advocates, the Kiwanis and the Girl Scouts. There is a national advocacy group, The Campaign for U.S. Ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which is spearheading the effort to create national support for the Conventions’ ratification. The opposition to ratification lies in both concerns about conflicts between the Convention and the Constitution and by political belief that there are already structures in place which safeguard the rights of children. Legally, there are concerns about state sovereignty, federalism, participatory rights and the incarceration of juveniles. Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti- Personnel Mines and on their Destruction (Ottawa Convention or Mine Ban Treaty) The Mine Ban Treaty was opened for signature in 1997 and obtained enough ratifications to become effective on March 1, 1999. 36 nations have not signed, including the United States, Russia, and China. Additionally, many nations in the Middle East and South Asia have refused to sign. The treaty would ban use of anti-personnel landmines (APLs), although it would not prohibit any landmine which is either triggered remotely or intended for use against vehicles. Additionally, party states are obliged to destroy existing stockpiles of APLs, including those presently in use in the field. Finally, nations are prohibited from assisting non-signatory states is avoiding the terms of the treaty. Supporters point to the large number of non-combatant deaths caused by APL. Reports indicate that roughly 25,000 people died annually in the early 1990s. Since adoption, deaths have dropped to about 4,000 per year. President Obama has already committed to stop production and acquisition of APLs, although he stopped short of committing to signing the Mine Ban Treaty. Supporters urge ratification as a method of showing American commitment to eliminating APLs and to demonstrate leadership on human rights issues. Opponents of American ratification object to the restriction that the Ottawa Convention would place on the United States in providing assistance to South Korea, which has also not signed the treaty. Ratification would also prevent the United States from aiding other friendly non- signatories, such as Israel, Finland, and Georgia. Opponents also reject the process used for the developing the Ottawa Convention, since the drive toward negotiation and international acceptance was led by non-governmental organizations (NGOs) outside of the standard international diplomatic channels. NGOs were seen as rejecting legitimate concerns from state entities in favor of imposing their morality over international relations. Opponents fear that American accession to the treaty would be tantamount to endorsing this role for NGOs, setting a precedent for future agreements to follow a similar pattern. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

The UN General Assembly adopted the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities on December 13, 2006. It opened for signature on March 30, 2007, and went into force when ratified by the 20th party on May 3, 2008. At present, it has 159 signatories and 153 parties, and has been ratified by 20 nations. The Convention expresses a number of principles central to the rights and dignity of persons with disabilities. It is not restricted to a mandate of nondiscrimination, although it does require legal steps to end discrimination. Rather, it requires members to guarantee protected classes the right to full participation in society and inclusion in decision-making on issues that affect them. The Convention has broad reach. It defines persons with disabilities as those having long-term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairments that hinder their full and equal participation in society. The nondiscrimination provisions and mandate of reasonable accommodation of disabilities are similar to the Americans with Disabilities Act. Additional affirmative obligations include development of technology to assist the disabled, promote public awareness of persons with disabilities, promote accessibility of spaces, provide access to information and services, facilitate mobility and political participation, provide access to health care and rehabilitative services, and make policy with the best interests of persons with disabilities in mind. There is also an Optional Protocol to the Convention, which recognizes the competence of the UN treaty Committee to consider complaints from individuals who believe their treaty rights have been violated. The Optional Protocol currently has 92 signatories and 78 parties, and entered into force along with the Convention on May 3, 2008. The United States has signed the Convention. The Senate, however, has failed to ratify it. A vote in December 2012 came up six votes short of the two-thirds majority required. The Bush Administration's official position at the time the Convention came into force was that it was unnecessary for the U.S. to enter the treaty since the Americans with Disabilities Act provides comprehensive legal protections for persons with disabilities. Opponents have also cited concerns that the Convention might prohibit imposing capital punishment on the mentally ill or cognitively impaired. Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture

Known officially as the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, this treaty supplements the underlying Convention against Torture. The Convention against Torture was issued by the United Nations in 1984. The U.S. has signed and ratified the Convention. The Optional Protocol was adopted by the UN General Assembly on Dec. 18, 2002. It entered into force when ratified by the 20th signatory on June 22, 2006. There are currently 75 signatories and 77 parties. The Optional Protocol is somewhat simpler than many other treaties, and the concept is relatively straightforward. The original Convention has virtually no enforcement or verification provisions, relying largely on self-reporting by member states to ensure compliance. The Optional Protocol creates an international inspection and reporting system by permitting monitors to regularly visit sites where persons in member states are deprived of liberty. Such places are defined broadly to include prisons, jails, immigration detention facilities, juvenile detention facilities and psychiatric institutions. The system is modeled on the existing European system, created pursuant to the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture. The authorized international body may make recommendations to members regarding the steps required to ensure protection of persons in these places. The U.S. has neither signed nor ratified the Optional Protocol. The Bush Administration in 2002 took the position that the inspections would be overly intrusive. It also claimed that existing legal protections exist under U.S. law and give detained persons recourse against mistreatment. Opponents have also asserted that the Protocol would violate federalism and infringe on the rights of U.S. states. Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) 2016 will mark the twentieth anniversary of the adoption of the CTBT by the United Nations. President Clinton signed on the first day that the treaty was open for signature in 1996, however a Republican-controlled Senate rejected the treaty in 1999. Since then, neither President Bush nor President Obama have resubmitted the CTBT for ratification, although the United States has maintained a moratorium on nuclear testing since 1992. As of March 2015, 183 nations have signed the CTBT and 164 have ratified it, however the treaty will not take effect until 44 “nuclear-capable” countries have officially ratified. Of these 44 states, 3 have not signed (India, Pakistan, and North Korea) and a further 5 have not yet ratified (People’s Republic of China, Egypt, Iran, Israel, and the United States). The effect of the CTBT would be to eliminate nuclear explosions for any purpose and to set up a new international organization for verification purposes. Proponents see United States accession to the CTBT as a key step in asserting leadership on nuclear proliferation issues. In particular, a verifiable framework is seen as an important step in strengthening enforcement of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) as well as signaling American commitment to nonproliferation norms. Additionally, the CTBT would allow nations such as Iran to build confidence that its nuclear activities are indeed peaceful. Opponents of US ratification fear that submitting to a binding agreement will hamper American ability to maintain a modernized nuclear arsenal. Additionally, opponents maintain that low-level nuclear testing cannot be detected, making the treaty effectively non-enforceable. Finally, they point to nuclear programs in nations such as North Korea and Iran as evidence of failure of diplomatic approaches to nonproliferation.

Proposed Resolutions The most basic resolutions would call upon the US to formally approve a treaty or treaties from a specified list. The agent could be described as either the standard "United States federal government," or simply the "United States." This is one topic for which specifying the federal government might not be necessary since only the federal government can ratify or accede to a treaty. Affirmatives could either be directed to choose a single treaty, or one or more from the list. The following are examples using a list of human rights treaties: The United States federal government should ratify or accede to one or more of the following: Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, Convention on the Rights of the Child, Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities, Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture. The United States federal government should ratify or accede to one of the following: Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, Convention on the Rights of the Child, Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities, Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture. The United States should ratify or accede to one or more of the following: Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, Convention on the Rights of the Child, Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities, Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture. The United States should ratify or accede to one of the following: Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, Convention on the Rights of the Child, Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities, Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture. Alternatively, the list could be comprised of arms control and/or environmental treaties (such as the Ottawa Convention/Mine Ban Treaty, Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, Convention on Cluster Munitions, Law of the Sea Treaty, or the Kyoto Protocol). If the resolution contains a closed list, it is probably best if the treaties on the list are of a similar type (e.g., human rights, arms control, environmental). Otherwise, the topic may be too broad. The resolution could also be open-ended rather than specifying a list of possible treaties: The United States federal government should ratify or accede to one or more international treaties. The United States should ratify or accede to one or more international treaties. An intermediate approach between those two options would be to specify the type or subject matter of treaty to be approved, but not provide a closed list: The United States federal government should ratify or accede to one or more international human rights treaties. The United States should ratify or accede to one or more international human rights treaties. The United States federal government should ratify or accede to one or more international arms control treaties. The United States should ratify or accede to one or more international arms control treaties. A completely different, and quite novel, approach would require the United States to terminate its participation or withdraw from a previously-approved treaty. The United States federal government should abrogate one or more of the treaties it has ratified. The United States federal government should abrogate one of the treaties it has ratified. The United States should abrogate one or more of the treaties it has ratified. The United States should abrogate one of the treaties it has ratified. The abrogation resolutions could also be limited by specifying a .

Definitions of Terms United States OED: A country that occupies most of the southern half of North America as well as Alaska and the Hawaiian islands; population 304,059,724 (est. 2008); capital, Washington, DC. Full name United States of America. 18 US Code sec. 5 - United States defined: The term "United States," as used in this title in a territorial sense, includes all places and waters, continental or insular, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, except the Canal Zone. United States federal government Oxford Learners Dictionaries online: the system of government as defined in the Constitution which is based on the separation of powers among three branches: the executive, the legislative and the judicial. USLegal.com: The United States Federal Government is established by the US Constitution. The Federal Government shares sovereignty over the United States with the individual governments of the States of US. The Federal government has three branches: i) the legislature, which is the US Congress, ii) Executive, comprised of the President and Vice president of the US and iii) Judiciary. The US Constitution prescribes a system of separation of power and 'checks and balances' for the smooth functioning of all the three branches of the Federal Government. The US Constitution limits the powers of the Federal Government to the powers assigned to it; all powers not expressly assigned to the Federal Government are reserved to the States or to the people. Ratify Treaties.un.org, Glossary: Ratification defines the international act whereby a state indicates its consent to be bound to a treaty if the parties intended to show their consent by such an act. In the case of bilateral treaties, ratification is usually accomplished by exchanging the requisite instruments, while in the case of multilateral treaties the usual procedure is for the depositary to collect the ratifications of all states, keeping all parties informed of the situation. The institution of ratification grants states the necessary time- frame to seek the required approval for the treaty on the domestic level and to enact the necessary legislation to give domestic effect to that treaty. Unicef.org, Introduction to the Convention on the Rights of the Child: Ratify/Ratification: 'Ratification' is an act by which a State signifies an agreement to be legally bound by the terms of a particular treaty. To ratify a treaty, the State first signs it and then fulfills its own national legislative requirements. Once the appropriate national organ of the country - Parliament, Senate, the Crown, Head of State or Government, or a combination of these - follows domestic constitutional procedures and makes a formal decision to be a party to the treaty. The instrument of ratification, a formal sealed letter referring to the decision and signed by the State's responsible authority, is then prepared and deposited with the United Nations Secretary-General in New York. Child Rights Campaign, childrightscampaign.org, How Does the United States Ratify Treaties: The Founders of our Nation understood that we might need to join international agreements - but they didn't make it easy. The Constitution gives the President the power to commit the United States to treaties - but only with the advice and consent of two- thirds of the US Senate, and only if the agreement does not contravene the Constitution. . . . Even if the Senate votes in favor of a treaty, there is still another step in the ratification process. Only the President, acting as the chief diplomat of the United States, has the authority to ratify a treaty. With the Senate's approval, the President can then move forward with the formal process of ratification. That means submitting documents giving the US Government's agreement to abide by the treaty, as well as any RUDS [Reservations, Understandings, and/or Declarations], to an institution (called a "depositary"). The deposit of the instruments of ratification establishes the consent of a state to be bound by the treaty.

Accede (to) Treaties.un.org, Glossary: "Accession" is the act whereby a state accepts the offer or the opportunity to become a party to a treaty already negotiated and signed by other states. It has the same legal effect as ratification. Accession usually occurs after the treaty has entered into force. The Secretary-General of the United Nations, in his function as depositary, has also accepted accessions to some conventions before their entry into force. The conditions under which accession may occur and the procedure involved depend on the provisions of the treaty. A treaty might provide for the accession of all other states or for a limited and defined number of states. In the absence of such a provision, accession can only occur where the negotiating states were agreed or subsequently agree on it in the case of the state in question. Unicef.org, Introduction to the Convention on the Rights of the Child: Accede/accession: 'Accession' is an act by which a State signifies its agreement to be legally bound by the terms of a particular treaty. It has the same legal effect as ratification, but is not preceded by an act of signature. The formal procedure for accession varies according to the national legislative requirements of the State. To accede to a human rights treaty, the appropriate national organ of a State - Parliament, Senate, the Crown, Head of State or Government, or a combination of these - follows its domestic approval procedures and makes a formal decision to be a party to the treaty. Then, the instrument of accession, a formal sealed letter referring to the decision and signed by the State's responsible authority, is prepared and deposited with the United Nations Secretary-General in New York. Treaty (treaties) Unicef.org, Introduction to the Convention on the Rights of the Child: Treaty: A 'treaty' is a formally concluded and ratified agreement between States. The term is used generically to refer to instruments binding at international law, concluded between international entities (States or organizations). Under the Vienna Conventions on the Law of Treaties, a treaty must be (1) a binding instrument, which means that the contracting parties intended to create legal rights and duties; (2) concluded by states or international organizations with treaty-making power; (3) governed by international law and (4) in writing.

International OED: Existing, occurring, or carried on between two or more nations; agreed on by all or many nations; used by people of many nations. Human rights UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights: What are human rights? Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, whatever our nationality, place of residence, sex, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, language, or any other status. We are all equally entitled to our human rights without discrimination. These rights are all interrelated, interdependent and indivisible. Universal human rights are often expressed and guaranteed by law, in the form of treaties, customary international law, general principles and other sources of international law. International human rights law lays down obligation of Governments to act in certain ways or to refrain from certain acts, in order to promote and protect human rights and fundamental freedoms of individuals or groups. Arms control OED: International disarmament or arms limitation, especially by mutual consent. Legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com, Arms Control and Disarmament: One of the major efforts to preserve international peace and security in the twenty-first century has been to control or limit the number of weapons and the ways in which weapons can be used. Two different means to achieve this goal have been disarmament and arms control. Disarmament is the reduction of the number of weapons and troops maintained by a state. Arms control refers to treaties made between potential adversaries that reduce the likelihood and scope of war, usually imposing limitations on military capability. Although disarmament always involves the reduction of military forces or weapons, arms control does not. In fact, arms control agreements sometimes allow for the increase of weapons by one or more parties to a treaty. Abrogate Black's Law Dictionary: 1. To nullify a contract by means of mutual agreement. 2. To officially abolish a law.

Bibliography Arms Control Association. (2013, March). The Ottawa Convention at a Glance. Retrieved April 26, 2015, from https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/ottawa Arms Control Association. (2015, March). The Status of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty: Signatories and Ratifiers. Retrieved April 26, 2015, from https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/ctbtsig Dunlop, S., & Preez, J. d. (2009, February 1). The United States and the CTBT: Renewed Hope or Politics as Usual? Retrieved April 26, 2015, from The Nuclear Threat Initiative: http://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/united-states-and-ctbt/ Groves, S., & Bromund, T. R. (2010, December 13). The Ottawa Mine Ban Convention: Unacceptable on Substance and Process. Retrieved April 26, 2015, from The Heritage Foundation: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/12/the-ottawa-mine-ban-convention- unacceptable-on-substance-and-process Human Rights First. (2014, June 27). Ottawa Convention Ratification Urged as U.S. Makes Welcome Landmine Policy Shift. Retrieved April 26, 2015, from Human Rights First: http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/press-release/ottawa-convention-ratification-urged-us-makes- welcome-landmine-policy-shift Medalia, J. E. (2014, September 29). Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty: Background and Current Developments . Retrieved April 26, 2015, from Congressional Research Service: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/RL33548.pdf National Catholic Reporter. (2014, July 16). Editorial: Why won't the US sign a treaty? Retrieved April 26, 2015, from National Catholic Reporter: http://ncronline.org/news/peace-justice/editorial-why-wont-us-sign-land-mine-treaty Spring, B. (2011, May 26). U.S. Should Reject Ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Retrieved April 26, 2015, from The Heritage Foundation: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/05/us-should-reject-ratification-of-the- comprehensive-test-ban-treaty Child’s Rights Information Network. ‘United States: Is Obama’s Win Also a Victory for Children’s Rights? http://www.hrw.org/news/2009/07/24/united-states-ratification-international- human-rights-treaties, Retrieved 4/24/2015. Conventions of the Right’s of the Child. The Campaign for U.S. Ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child brief on the Convention, http://childrightscampaign.org/documents/InformationPacket.pdf, Retrieved 4/25/2015 CRC FAQs- Myths and Facts. The Campaign for U.S. Ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. http://childrightscampaign.org/the-facts/questions-a-answers-about-the-crc, Retrieved 4/26/2015. Gainborough, Jenni and Elisabeth Lean, 'Convention on the Rights of the Child and Juvenile Justice', The Link (2008, Volume 7, number 1), Child Welfare League of America, page 1. Klicka, C.J. "The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child: The Most Dangerous Attack on Parents' Rights In the History of the United States", Home School Legal Defense Association. Retrieved 4/26/2015. U.N. Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights, “Convention on the Rights of the Child”, http://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/crc.aspx. Retrieved 4/25/2015. U.N. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. "Fact Sheet No. 22, Discrimination Against Women: The Convention and the Committee". http://www.refworld.org/cgi- bin/texis/vtx/rwmain?docid=47947740d Retrieved 4/26/2015. U.N. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. "Membership of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women". http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/CEDAW/Pages/Membership.aspx. Retrieved 4/25/2015. U.N. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. "UN human rights experts set out countries’ obligations to tackle harmful practices such as FGM and forced marriage". http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=15250&LangID=E, Retrieved 4/26/2015. UN Women, “Declarations, Reservations and Objections to CEDAW”, http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/reservations-country.htm Retrieved 4/26/15. United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women."Overview of the current working methods of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women" (PDF). http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/wk-methods/Overview- English.pdf. Retrieved 4/25/2015. United Nations Development Fund for Women, "CEDAW and Security Council Resolution 1325: A Quick Guide" Women, Peace & Security. (2006) Retrieved 4/25/2015. “United States Ratification of International Human Rights Treaties”, July 24, 2009. http://www.hrw.org/news/2009/07/24/united-states-ratification-international-human-rights- treaties, Retrieved 4/24/2015. Walker, Nancy, E., Catherine M. Brooks, Lawrence S. Wrightsman, Children's rights in the United States: in search of a national policy (SAGE, 1999), page 40.

Two-Page Summary Report

Title

International Treaties

Top Resolutions 1. The United States should ratify or accede to one or more of the following: Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, Convention on the Rights of the Child, Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities, Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture. 2. The United States should ratify or accede to one or more international treaties. 3. The United States should ratify or accede to one or more international human rights treaties. 4. The United States should ratify or accede to one or more international arms control treaties. 5. The United States should abrogate one or more of the treaties it has ratified.

Affirmative Cases The most common affirmatives would simply choose one of the listed (or topical, if no list is mandated) treaties and defend its full implementation by the United States. Cases can focus narrowly on the benefits of the treaty and of US ratification of the treaty. They can also take a broader perspective and assert the advantages of US multilateralism or of international cooperation on the issues addressed in the topic. Policy-oriented affirmatives will be most successful if they focus on the unique benefits of US participation in the treaty regime as opposed to merely the generic benefits of the agreement. In addition to traditional policy advocacy, affirmatives will also have access to critical and performance arguments. Entry into a multilateral treaty regime is a meaningful step away from the statism and exceptionalism that form the basis of many critiques of Western civilization. The social justice issues these treaties address provide ready links to compelling victim narratives (and thus performance-oriented cases) and also to deontological advocacies (and thus links to a variety of critiques). Negative Approaches Ample case ground is available on all of the treaties the United States has not ratified. American objections to each treaty provide negative arguments for debaters. In many instances, existing legal protections deny the need for the treaty, and there are significant concerns about whether multilateral treaty action is sufficient to solve the harms the treaties seek to address. Thus, debaters who wish to make case-specific arguments have ground without being forced to defend human rights violations or social injustices. A variety of counterplans are also possible. Unilateral US action outside the treaty regime is often a viable policy alternative. Negatives could also advocate new or significantly amended treaties as counterplans. One could even suggest signing but not fully ratifying a treaty. Whether paired with a counterplan or not, negatives can also access many generic disadvantages. Ratification requires action by the Senate and thus provides links to politics disads. Treaty ratification also has implications for US hegemony. Relations between the US and various countries may also be affected by a decision to ratify a treaty. Some treaty actions may have significant cost or other economic implications. Debatability Ground exists on both sides of this topic. Significant needs exist in the areas of global human rights, arms control and environmental policy, but there is substantial debate about whether these treaties are the best means of meeting those needs. Unlike many topics, authority for resolutional action rests exclusively with the federal government, and therefore the states counterplan does not eat away at affirmative ground. Access to generic positions is divided relatively equally between the sides of the topic. It is also unlikely that real-world developments would change the landscape of the topic mid-season. There is little prospect that any of the treaties specified in a proposed list resolution would suddenly be ratified, and even if one was, the rest of the list (or the remainder of the treaties that fit within an open-ended topic) provides debatable ground. Synopsis America's status as a global advocate for peace, cooperation and human rights is often put to the test when multilateral treaties are on the table. In recent decades, the United States has incurred international criticism when it has failed to ratify a variety of treaties. For instance, the U.S. is one of only three countries, along with Somalia and South Sudan, that has not ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. This and other treaties (such as the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, and the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture) enjoy widespread international support but have encountered intractable American opposition. This resolution presents debaters with the opportunity to advocate ratification of one or more global treaties and to weigh the benefits of multilateral action against US exceptionalism.