The United States and Somalia feature prominently in the recent movie “Captain Phillips,” which stars Tom Hanks as a U.S. merchant sea captain battling Somali pirates off the Somali coast. Currently this unusual pairing occurs, somewhat surprisingly, at the United Nations as well.
Neither nation has ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and they are the only countries in the world (along with the new nation, South Sudan) not to have done so. Nonetheless, both the U.S. and Somalia were right not to do so, and should stand firm. In fact, the United States should be wary not solely of the Convention but of any so-called “human rights” treaty. Such treaties can become the proverbial slippery slope, leading to many unintended consequences.
Case in point: the CRC made the news recently when something called the “Committee of the CRC” issued critical comments to a party to the Convention, criticizing the stance of the Catholic Church on life, abortion and other issues that can be decided in part based on personal values.
It told the Catholic Church to “ensure its interpretation of scripture” was in line with the Committee’s liberal views, and it told the Church to change its internal laws and practices to ensure conformity. In essence, it ordered the church to violate the conscience and beliefs to conform to the CRC’s views.
This incident sheds light on an on-going, though largely unreported, story about using “international law” to advance a radical agenda on life and other issues.
As a treaty, the Convention is a legally binding international agreement on all those who are a party to it. While technically, the “Holy See,” which is a sovereign entity under international law, is the actual party to the treaty, the Convention Committee’s efforts have implications for the Catholic Church worldwide.
In fact, all parties – sovereign nations and entities such as the Holy See – that have ratified the Convention are bound much as anyone would be bound by a written contract, that is, to the words in the document. To evaluate the demands the Committee made upon the Catholic Church (Holy See), it’s important to understand the terms of the treaty.
Does it mention “abortion”? No, it does not. But it does say that “the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth,” and it says the word “child” in the treaty “means every human being below the age of eighteen years.” It goes on to say: “States Parties recognize that every child has the inherent right to life … States Parties shall ensure to the maximum extent possible the survival and development of the child.”
If anything, this protects a child against abortion, or, at the very least, should preclude the assertion that abortion is guaranteed by the CRC. Yet, ignoring the actual words of the Convention, the Committee told the Catholic Church (Holy See) “to review its position on abortion … with a view to identifying circumstances under which access to abortion services can be permitted.”
Does the Committee have the authority to interpret the Convention in this manner and to make such demands? The short answer is, no.
In essence, what the Committee is trying to do is to bind the Catholic Church (Holy See) to do something it did not agree to do, exerting authority it does not possess. The CRC committee is presenting a proverbial bill for something the Church had no intention of buying.
In all these respects, the CRC and its committee are like the other human rights treaties, such as the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities that is pending before the Senate. Such international treaties can have huge and unintended consequences on U.S. laws if ratified.
These kinds of international treaties have express terms to which nations agree, and establish a committee to receive reports from the States Parties. Yet the committees go on to push states to agree to things (such as abortion) that the treaty does not cover. Even worse, ideological lawyers use the statements from these committees as “evidence” of an unwritten agreement, and demand courts bind the state to obey.
It is a “heads-I-win, tails-you-lose” ploy. When combined with a willing judiciary, as it has been in nations like Columbia and Argentina, where courts have committee statements to constitute evidence of unwritten obligations, it is a knockout punch against traditional values.
This could happen in the United States. For instance, a suit brought by the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy against President George Bush in 2001, which was later dismissed on technical grounds, claimed there was an “international human right to abortion” which the U.S. was bound to recognize (apart from Roe v. Wade).
The wiser course is to steer clear of these shoals, avoiding such treaties entirely, at least until the committee process is thoroughly reformed, and it is made clear none of the treaties provide a right to abortion. Human rights are the true possession of all human beings, but UN committees regularly hijack such treaties to advance an agenda far removed from true human rights.
The allure of these treaties, with sympathetic subjects such as protection for the disabled or for children, is actually a siren song, robbing the U.S. of sovereignty and subjecting it to unreasonable demands to change its laws.
The lesson from the absurd demands the CRC made on the Catholic Church is simple: the U.S. is right to sail away from the CRC and other so-called human rights treaties. Underneath the smooth surface of lovely language and charged rhetoric lay dangers that can wreck national sovereignty.
Attorney William Saunders is Senior Vice President for Legal Affairs and Senior Counsel of Americans United for Life. The Harvard University alumna has twice been featured in Harvard’s Guide to Conservative Public Interest Law.