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 United States 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. Human Rights Watch 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, arms control, 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; Ottawa 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 United Nations 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,