United States Human Rights Commitments and Pledges (Apr. 27, 2009)

Click here for document (approximately 2 pages)

In support of its candidacy for membership in the United Nations Human Rights Council, the Obama administration made public a document enumerating the U.S. human rights commitments and pledges.

The commitments include: 1) Commitment to advance human rights in the UN system; 2) Commitment to continue support to human rights activities in the UN System; 3) Commitment to advance human rights, fundamental freedoms and human dignity and prosperity internationally; 4) Commitment to advance human rights and fundamental freedoms in the United States."

We reported on March 31, 2009 that the United States Department of State had announced the intent to seek a seat on the Council “with the goal of working to make it a more effective body to promote and protect human rights.”

The Human Rights Council, established by the United Nations General Assembly on March 15, 2006 to replace the Human Rights Commission, is an inter-governmental body within the UN system composed of 47 States, “responsible for strengthening the promotion and protection of human rights around the globe.” The “main purpose” of the Council is to address “situations of human rights violations and make recommendations on them.”

The Bush administration had refused to join the new body, claiming that it lacked credibility and influence.

The elections are scheduled to take place in May, and the U.S. is running for one of the three available seats.

Inquiry Into the Treatment of Detainees in U.S. Custody (U. S. Senate Armed Services Committee, Nov. 20, 2008)

Click here for document (approximately 263 pages)

The U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) declassified a report from November 2008, describing the involvement of high-ranking Bush administration officials in subscribing to severe and inhumane interrogation and detention procedures used by U.S. forces against terrorism suspects:

The abuse of detainees in U.S. custody cannot simply be attributed to the actions of 'a few bad apples' acting on their own. The fact is that senior officials in the United States government solicited information on how to use aggressive techniques, redefined the law to create the appearance of their legality, and authorized their use against detainees. Those efforts damaged our ability to collect accurate intelligence that could save lives, strengthened the hand of our enemies, and compromised our moral authority.

The Inquiry notes that the February 7, 2002 Memorandum, signed by President Bush, and “stating that the Third Geneva Convention did not apply to the conflict with al Qaeda and concluding that Taliban detainees were not entitled to prisoner of war status or the legal protections afforded by the Third Geneva Convention,” was the root for later abuses of detainees in U.S. custody. The Inquiry specifically names high-ranking officials, including former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and former Attorney General John Ashcroft, as having knowledge of and direct involvement in the implementation of the severe detention and interrogation techniques.

Treaty Priority List for the 111th Congress (U.S. Dept. of State, May 11, 2009)

Click here for document (approximately 6 pages)

The United States Department of State has issued its Treaty Priority List, enumerating treaties which have the present support of the current administration and treaties on which the current administration does not presently ask for Senate action.

In the area of arms control, the administration strongly supports the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, signed by the United States on September 24, 1996 and submitted to the Senate in 1997.

There are five environmental law related treaty documents, including 1) Annex VI on Liability Arising From Environmental Emergencies to the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty; 2) Agreement on the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels; 3) International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture; 4) 1996 Protocol to the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter; and 5) Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants.

In the human rights area, the administration has asked that the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women be acted upon by the Congress. The United States signed this treaty on July 17, 1980.

Another treaty that has long awaited ratification is the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, signed by the United States on July 29, 1994.

Finally, the Hague Convention on the International Recovery of Child Support and other Forms of Family Maintenance will be considered.

For the full list of treaty documents, please refer to the above document.

Framework Agreement on Integrated Cross-Border Maritime Law Enforcement Operations between the U.S. and Canada – The Shiprider Agreement (May 26, 2009)

Click here for document (approximately 17 pages)

The United States and Canada signed a Framework Agreement making joint law enforcement teams stationed along the international maritime border permanent. The joint law enforcement operation, also called Shiprider, is an effort by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) and U.S. Coast Guard to combat criminal activity in the shared waterways, including smuggling, organized drug crime, and gun trade. According to Article 1 of the Agreement, the main aim of the joint effort is “to provide the Parties additional means in shared waterways to prevent, detect, suppress, investigate, and prosecute criminal offences or violations of law including, but not limited to, illicit drug trade, migrant smuggling, trafficking of firearms, the smuggling of counterfeit goods and money, and terrorism.”

U.S Dept. of Commerce Task Force Secures Extension of Metric Labeling Provision that Benefits U.S. Companies

Click here for statement (approximately 1 page)

The United States Department of Commerce issued a press release stating that it had successfully “ensure[d] extension of both non-metric and metric labeling provisions on product packaging for U.S. businesses exporting to the European Union—saving U.S. firms hundreds of millions of dollars.”

According to the Department of Commerce's own announcement “[t]he ruling will allow U.S. firms to use non-metric units on packaging and extends the current dual-labeling provisions indefinitely.”

The rule, published in the Official Journal of the European Union, will be enforced by all EU member states by January 1, 2010.

United States Department of State Response to Radovan Karadzic’s Allegation of an Immunity Agreement between him and Richard Holbrooke (June 25, 2009) and other documents

Click here for US Department of State press release (approximately 1 page); click here for the Invitation by the ICTY Trial Chamber to the United States to submit information pursuant to Rules 54 and 70 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the ICTY (approximately 3 pages); click here for United States Response to the Invitation (approximately 2 pages); click here for Order pursuant to Rules 54 and 70 (approximately 4 pages); click here for the Decision on the Accused’s Second Motion for Inspection and Disclosure: Immunity Issue

The United States Department of State, Bureau of Public Affairs, issued a statement concerning Radovan Karadzic’s claim that an agreement, promising him immunity for any crimes allegedly committed during the war in former Yugoslavia in exchange for his disappearance from public life, existed. The statement negates the existence of any such agreement and declares that “no such offer was made.”

While the statement concedes that Karadzic signed a statement, “the text of which was negotiated in Belgrade on July 18, 1996, by Ambassador Holbrooke and a team of United States government officials with senior Serbian officials at a meeting where Dr. Karadzic was not present. In this statement, Dr. Karadzic pledged to leave office and withdraw from public life. There was no ‘quid pro quo.’”

On December 17, 2008 the Trial Chamber issued a decision on Radovan Karadzic’s second motion requesting the inspection and disclosure of certain documents relating to an alleged immunity agreement between Karadzic and Holbrooke. The Trial Chamber held that the documents requested, including the alleged immunity agreement, “could shed light on the behavior of the Accused after the fact, and, if so, would be items which may be taken into consideration in the determination of any eventual sentence.” For this reason the Chamber ordered the Prosecution to disclose to Karadzic any written agreement and related notes in its possession that were made during the meeting between Karadzic and Holbrooke.

On March 5, 2009, the Trial Chamber granted Karadzic’s motion requesting “that the Trial Chamber order that the provisions of Rule 70 should apply to any information, including that provided orally during the interview of Ambassador Goldberg, provided by the United States of America in response to [Karadzic’s] request”. According to the decision to grant the motion, Karadzic had “provide[d] a letter dated 11 December 2008 to the Government of the United States of America, specifying the nature and scope of the Accused's request, namely, to interview Ambassador Goldberg and to be provided with certain materials concerning the alleged meetings held on 18-19 July 1996 between Richard Holbrooke, Slobodan Miloševic, and others.”

Rule 70 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the Tribunal “creates an incentive for co-operation by States, organisations, and individuals, by allowing them to share sensitive information with the Tribunal ‘on a confidential basis and by guaranteeing information providers that the confidentiality of the information they offer and of the information's sources will be protected.’” Rule 70, paragraphs (B) to (E) apply to documents in the possession of the Prosecutor, and paragraph (F) authorizes the Trial Chamber “to order that the same provisions apply mutatis mutandis to specific information in the possession of the Defence.” Referring to a US response to the Chamber’s initial Invitation to submit information pursuant to Rule 54 and 70, the Chamber was “satisfied that [United States] ha[d] consented to provide any information responsive to the Accused's request, so long as there is an order from the Chamber that applies Rule 70 to that information.”

Karadzic, who is facing charges of genocide, complicity in genocide, extermination, murder, willful killing, and other crimes, has repeatedly demanded that the purported agreement promising him immunity from prosecution be disclosed.

United States Signs Landmark Disability Agreement (July 30, 2009)

Click here for press release (approximately 1 page); click here for United Nations press release (approximately 1 page); click here for the text of the Convention and Optional Protocol (approximately 37 pages); click here for Ambassador Susan Rice remarks (approximately 1 page)

On July 30, 2009, Ambassador Susan Rice signed the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities on behalf of the U.S. government. The United States is now one of 141 signatory nations.

The Convention and its Optional Protocol were adopted on December 13, 2006 and were opened for signature on March 30, 2007. According to the United Nations website, on the opening day of the Convention, “[t]here were 82 signatories to the Convention, 44 signatories to the Optional Protocol, and 1 ratification of the Convention. This is the highest number of signatories in history to a UN Convention on its opening day.” The Convention has been called “the first comprehensive human rights treaty of the 21st century and is the first human rights convention to be open for signature by regional integration organizations.” The purpose of the Convention “is to promote, protect and ensure the full and equal enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms by all persons with disabilities, and to promote respect for their inherent dignity.”

The Convention, which recalls the existence of other human rights instruments (including the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families), notes that “despite these various instruments and undertakings, persons with disabilities continue to face barriers in their participation as equal members of society and violations of their human rights in all parts of the world.”

The United States and Swiss government to Settle Bank Secrecy Case (August 1, 2009)

Click here for press release (approximately 2 pages); click here for Department of Justice press release (approximately 2 pages)

The Washington Post reports that the United States and the Swiss government have “‘reached an agreement in principle on the major issues’ and expect to resolve remaining points over the next week” over a “legal dispute in which the U.S. government was demanding the names of thousands of Americans suspected of using Swiss bank accounts to hide money from the Internal Revenue Service.” While the terms of the agreement remain secret, this development is significant especially since the “dispute had escalated into a serious confrontation between the two countries, pitting U.S. law enforcement and tax collection efforts against Swiss economic interests.”

In February of this year, the U.S. government filed a lawsuit in a Miami federal court against Swiss bank UBS AG, asking the court to order the international bank to disclose to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) the identities of the bank’s U.S. customers with secret Swiss accounts. According to the U.S. government, as many as 52,000 U.S. customers have been hiding their UBS accounts from the government in violation of the tax laws. The U.S. government alleged that “as of the mid-2000s, those secret accounts held about $14.8 billion in assets” and “UBS engaged in cross-border securities transactions in the United States that it knew violated U.S. security laws.” Furthermore, UBS allegedly “helped hundreds of U.S. taxpayers set up dummy offshore companies, to make it easier for those taxpayers to avoid their reporting obligations under U.S. tax laws.”

Prepared by:

• Djurdja Lazic, Esq., Managing Editor International Legal Materials, International Law in Brief (ILIB) and Insights, American Society of International Law
• Maria A. Taurisani, LL.M., ILIB Research Assistant, American Society of International Law