American opposition to the convention stems primarily from political and religious conservatives.Ā For example,Ā The Heritage FoundationĀ considers that āa civil society in which moral authority is exercised by religious congregations, family, and other private associations is fundamental to the American orderā
No surprise there
The US did sign and help to draft it, but to ratify you need a 2/3rd majority in the Senate. And the conservatives in Congress want domestic control over all law making and enforcement.
This could be an international treaty against punching kittens, and they would still vote no.
Edit: Itās also worth adding that a) this (like US law) has carve outs that allow kids to work under certain conditions, and b) this isnāt a labor specific treaty. This covers corporal, punishment, criminal punishment, education, gender, and sexuality, healthcare and a number of other things that are hot button issues for American conservatives.
Also, after this was drafted, the US has ratified international agreements on child labor.
Saying this is just a labor thing isnāt the full story at all.
This could be an international treaty against punching kittens, and they would still vote no.
Plus McConnell would never ratify a treaty that outlaws his favorite pastime.
It has been claimed that American opposition to the convention stems primarily from political and religious conservatives.
Shocking.
The US barely ever ratifies treaties that require international oversight. Itās the same reason we have the UCMJ and not the Hague court.
More like the US would rather keep its territorial integrity. They have the ability to deal with violations in house, no need to have international boards be used against us.
They have the ability to deal with violations in house
riiiiiiight, no bias at all in that. Hey, we investigated ourselves and found we are not liable to war crimes we commit abroad. how bloody fucking convenient.
Good job at giving Russia an excuse to be free of consequences when it finally loses in Ukraine. Theyāre probably going to make a case that they donāt need to have international boards be used against them too, no?
You canāt expect any country to take the international court seriously if you donāt do it yourself. The logic that youāve just used is exactly the kind of logic that countries would use that donāt want to be held accountable for their actions that go against international law.
These high-minded treaties donāt actually mean anything - thereās no enforcement mechanism and countries with a much worse human-rights record than the USA have signed them without consequences. IMO itās better not to sign them than it is to pretend that signing does any good and lend unearned legitimacy to those other countries.
The treaty itself does not have any enforcement mechanism; however the US does. US courts recognize ratified treaties as having equal weight to laws passed the normal way Ratifying the Treaty would immediately make it federal law. The US has a robust enough legal system that the courts would the (over years of building up case law) determine exactly what that means.
This perception arises from the fact that people think signing and ratifying are the same thing. They are not.
A treaty needs to be ratified to be legally binding, and ratification takes 2/3rd of the senate to OK it.
The executive branch signs international shit all the time, but they canāt get it through Congress. Which is why recent treaties lack teeth.
Ah yes the oft-used American Exceptionalist attitude of āweāre too good to bind ourselves to treaties like thisā.
Tale as old as time. Itās why the US isnāt a member of the ICJ and many other international treaties. Kingās donāt follow rules - they make them!
The US is a member of the International Court of Justice - every country in the United Nations is. Are you thinking of the International Criminal Court?
Other than that, my answer is āyes but thatās not a bad thingā.
