Re ICCPR and ICESCR- you're right, those are distinguishable parts of the UDHR. The US has signed and ratified the ICCPR, but with enough reservations to make it virtually non-enforceable against us. As for the ICESCR, it's been signed and not ratified (has to go through Congress), which many consider politically improbable because the ICESCR has been read by to include the right to universal health care, abortion services, etc, all of which are contested and highly controversial in the US (similar to the conflict with CEDAW)` Re American exceptionalism- I meant scholars who support the existence of an inclusive and superseding international human rights regime, which they see threatened by the existence of American exceptionalism. I'll try to make this more clear.

Re justifications- I'm not entirely sure American hesitation is due to the fact that we think our policies might be objectively wrong, although they may very well be. I think the concern is that by committing to international covenants, our ability to make unilateral decisions in the best interest of our country is arguably reduced and we are made vulnerable to political persecution from unfriendly nations. While this may or may not be true, it does relate to the second point you make, that we have no need to make these concessions in our unique status as a superpower; hence, our exemption. The argument is we either already abide by human rights standards or we have good reason not to. But this speaks to my point- while there is no imperative, our acquiescence to the human rights regime, if we are as supportive as we say we are, would only strengthen it-if human rights are really consistent with our political philosophy, this should be incentive enough.

Re hypocrisy- I think you're right. My point is that this our hypocritical stance is problematic for the credibility of the regime we purportedly helped design. While it's true we may not accept certain universal economic rights, I think it's safe to say that the rights of the child or unqualified ratification of the ICCPR would not conflict with our mores. And your second point is correct in that this is a larger problem with the legitimacy of international law in general- it is Western dominated and often unenforceable. But I think greater US support would bolster the viability of the regime, and at least indicate our willingness to engage in a serious dialogue about international human rights on a world stage.

Re ATCA- I know In Re Union Carbide involved tort claims made by the Indian government against a U.S. company, but the case was dismissed to be tried in India under forum non conveniens. Finding cases against the military might be tricky, since they operate in a different jurisdiction, but I'll look. I think the Roper case fits better as well. Maybe a good case to mention might be Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, where the court struck down military commissions in Guantanamo because they violated both military law and the Geneva Conventions?

Anyway, thanks for the detailed comments, they were very helpful!

-- NovikaIshar - 27 Apr 2010

<--/commentPlugin-->