by Erik Koht
They're basic. From children's games to the multilayered complexity of the European Union. They are the hallmark of human co-operation, the cornerstone of civilisations. We call them laws, regulations, rules, agreements, treaties and much else. Any child will tell you that without rules there can be no game. Even the cheat knows their value, if only to set up his scam. Only the bully and the mentally challenged will disparage them. When states take on the role of the bully we call them rogue states. These states thrive on uncertainty, on the creation of legal vacuum and on the willed danger of brinkmanship. These are the states that seek aggrandisement through the use of force and extortion. The most powerful such state is the United States of America.
Time and time again I have had cause to wonder, as another international conference draws near, about the willingness of other nations to be drawn into the game of negotiations, trying to incorporate the demands of the United States into their precious resolutions. Through the media we hear of positions, of resolve, candid exploratory talks, of fiery speeches. Don't they know it always winds up the same: Having caused a watering down of the text or numerous postponements of the negotiations, the US fails to sign the treaty.
The 2003 American attack and subsequent occupation of Iraq offers the most substantial example of the bully state at work. Cheering Americans were happy to see their boys off to devastate a defenceless country. The internationally agreed conventions the world hoped would prevent such an attack were gleefully set aside. Half a century earlier the US had been a major contributor in the writing of those rules.
Though the world now has many courts for arbitration and justice to treat cases of human rights and crimes of war, no such court ever found a home in the United States. The delaying technique was used to great effect when the UN tried to establish the International Criminal Court. The Bush administration asked for a postponement of one year in order to "aquatint itself with the proposal". That year was used to travel around the world browbeating dozens of smaller nations to legislate an exemption of US citizens from the jurisdiction of the court.
The classified documents describe the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and diplomatic cables show how United States conducts foreign policy. They show a nation that bullies, threatens, blackmails, spies, wantonly kills civilians, and commits wars of aggression - if the U.S. were not the world's lone superpower, it would be considered a rogue state. (source)
Things worked better when the US declared its aversion at the onset of the deliberation process, as in the case of the treaty outlawing cluster munitions. Not having to negotiate with the US during the deliberation process saved a lot of time. The result was very satisfactory as demonstrated by the difference in the style of attack used by Israel on Lebanon before the ban and on Gaza after the ban - even though Israel is not a signatory to the the treaty.
What does this mean, if anything, to the citizens of the bully state? Well, for most of us ordinary people, it doesn't much matter what system of government we have except for our peace of mind. Very few people need to appeal to the highest court of the land, and even fewer would dream of going beyond that, claiming the supreme court is wrong. But that is what Europeans can do. We can make sure our governments adhere to the treaties it has ratified. Not so Americans. You are cut off from internationally established human rights and the body of precedence being established. It matters not if your government ratifies treaties galore, as a citizen of the US you have no recourse to this body of laws.
To ensure that some new hidden right is not lurking in parts of the treaty for which no reservation, declaration or understanding was entered, the US government, first declares that the treaty is "not self-executing," meaning that it has no force of law without so-called implementing legislation. The result is that US citizens are left with no capacity to invoke the treaty in the US courts. The non-self-executing declaration precludes stating a cause of action under the treaty, and the lack of implementing legislation means that there is no alternative route to assert a claim. (Kenneth Roth)
The International Red Cross Red Crescent keeps track of multilateral treaties that have to do with human and civil rights and the laws of war, but not of treaties having to do with trade and commerce. I have made a note of if and when the US has ratified each treaty and how many nations (state parties) have completed the ratification process. On occasion the US has undermined the text of the treaty making reservations. Note: Digital dates are written European style dd.mm.(yy)yy.
* Declaration Respecting Maritime Law. Paris, 16 April 1856.
US: No - State parties 55
* Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded in Armies in the Field. Geneva, 22 August 1864
US: 01.03.1882 - State parties 57
* Additional Articles relating to the Condition of the Wounded in War. Geneva, 20 October 1868.
Though 15 nations have signed this, only the US has ratified it: 01.03.1882
* Declaration Renouncing the Use, in Time of War, of Explosive Projectiles Under 400 Grammes Weight. Saint Petersburg, 29 November / 11 December 1868.
US: No - State parties 20
* Convention (II) with Respect to the Laws and Customs of War on Land and its annex: Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land. The Hague, 29 July 1899
US: 09.04.1902 - State parties 49
* Convention (III) for the Adaptation to Maritime Warfare of the Principles of the Geneva Convention of 22 August 1864. The Hague, 29 July 1899
US: 04.09.1900 - State parties 49
* Declaration (IV,1), to Prohibit, for the Term of Five Years, the Launching of Projectiles and Explosives from Balloons, and Other Methods of Similar Nature. The Hague, 29 July 1899
US: No - State parties 24
* Declaration (IV,2) concerning Asphyxiating Gases. The Hague, 29 July 1899
US: No - State parties 31
* Declaration (IV,3) concerning Expanding Bullets. The Hague, 29 July 1899
US: No - State parties 31
* Convention for the Exemption of Hospital Ships, in Time of War, from The Payment of all Dues and Taxes Imposed for the Benefit of the State. The Hague, 21 December 1904
US: 26.03.1907 - State parties 31
* Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armies in the Field. Geneva, 6 July 1906
US: 09.02.1907 - State parties 52
* Convention (III) relative to the Opening of Hostilities. The Hague, 18 October 1907
US: 27.11.1909 - State parties 34
* Convention (IV) respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land and its annex: Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land. The Hague, 18 October 1907
US: 27.11.1909 - State parties 35
* Convention (V) respecting the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers and Persons in Case of War on Land. The Hague, 18 October 1907
US: 27.11.1909 - State parties 32
* Convention (VI) relating to the Status of Enemy Merchant Ships at the Outbreak of Hostilities. The Hague, 18 October 1907.
US: No - State parties 29
* Convention (VII) relating to the Conversion of Merchant Ships into War-Ships. The Hague, 18 October 1907.
US: No - State parties 32
* Convention (VIII) relative to the Laying of Automatic Submarine Contact Mines. The Hague, 18 October 1907
US: 27.11.1909 - State parties 27
* Convention (IX) concerning Bombardment by Naval Forces in Time of War. The Hague, 18 October 1907
US: 27.11.1909 - State parties 35
* Convention (X) for the Adaptation to Maritime Warfare of the Principles of the Geneva Convention. The Hague, 18 October 1907
US: 27.11.1909 - State parties 33
* Convention (XI) relative to certain Restrictions with regard to the Exercise of the Right of Capture in Naval War. The Hague, 18 October 1907
US: 27.11.1909 - State parties 31
* Convention (XII) relative to the Creation of an International Prize Court. The Hague, 18 October 1907
No one but Nicaragua has ratified this one.
* Convention (XIII) concerning the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers in Naval War. The Hague, 18 October 1907
US: 03.12.1909 With reservation - State parties 28
Art. 23. A neutral Power may allow prizes to enter its ports and roadsteads, whether under convoy or not, when they are brought there to be sequestrated pending the decision of a Prize Court. It may have the prize taken to another of its ports. If the prize is convoyed by a war-ship, the prize crew may go on board the convoying ship. If the prize is not under convoy, the prize crew are left at liberty.
Reservation: "That the United States adheres to the said Convention, subject to the reservation and exclusion of its Article 23 and with the understanding that the last clause of Article 3 thereof implies the duty of a neutral Power to make the demand therein mentioned for the return of a strip captured within the neutral jurisdiction and no longer within that jurisdiction."
* Declaration (XIV) Prohibiting the Discharge of Projectiles and Explosives from Balloons. The Hague, 18 October 1907.
US: 27.11.1909 - State parties 20
* Treaty relating to the Use of Submarines and Noxious Gases in Warfare. Washington, 6 February 1922
US: 09.06.1923 Only 9 other nations have ratified this one, and since there are no free rides, the US is restrained only in wars with Australia, Canada, Ethiopia, India, Italy, Japan, New Zealand, South Africa and United Kingdom
* Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare. Geneva, 17 June 1925
State parties 133
08.09.1931: Subject to the reservations that the Government of Iraq is bound by the said Protocol only towards those Powers and States which have both signed and ratified the Protocol or have acceded thereto, and that the Government of Iraq shall cease to be bound by the Protocol towards any Power at enmity with him whose armed forces, or the armed forces of whose allies, do not respect the Protocol.
13.07.1952: The People's Republic of China engaged itself to apply the Protocol "under the reservation of reciprocity as from all other contracting and acceding Powers."
US: 10.04.1975 With reservation(s) The Protocol shall cease to be binding on the government of the United States with respect to the use in war of asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and of all analogous liquids, materials, or devices, in regard to an enemy state if such state or any of its allies fails to respect the prohibitions laid down in the Protocol.
15.03.1983 The Coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea (CGDK) reserves the right not to be bound by the aforesaid Protocol as regards any enemy whose armed forces or allies no longer respect the prohibitions contained in this Protocol.
* Treaty relating to Spitzbergen (Svalbard), with annex. Done at Paris February 9, 1920;
US: entered into force 14.8.1925.- State parties 40
* Convention on Maritime Neutrality. Havana, 20 February 1928
US: 22.03.1932 With reservation. Only 8 other nations, all Western Hemisphere, have ratified this convention, the US the only one with reservation Subject to a reservation regarding Article 12, Section 3, which the Government of the United States does not accept.
Art. 12. Where the sojourn, supplying, and provisioning of belligerent ships in the ports and jurisdictional waters of neutrals are concerned, the provisions relative to ships of war shall apply equally:
(1) To ordinary auxiliary ships; (2) To merchant ships transformed into warships, in accordance with Convention VII of The Hague of 1907. The neutral vessel shall be seized and in general subjected to the same treatment as enemy merchantmen: (a) When taking a direct part in the hostilities. (b) When at the orders or under direction of an agent placed on board by an enemy government; (c) When entirely freight-loaded by an enemy government; (d) When actually and exclusively destined for transporting enemy troops or for the transmission of information on behalf of the enemy. In the cases dealt with in this article, merchandise belonging to the owner of the vessel ship shall also be liable to seizure. (3) To armed merchantmen
* Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armies in the Field. Geneva, 27 July 1929.
US: 04.02.1932 - State parties 60
* Convention for the unification of certain rules relating to international transportation by air, with additional protocol. Concluded at Warsaw October 12, 1929 entered into force February 13, 1933 ("Warsaw Convention")
US: 29.10.1934 With reservation(s) The United States of America has deposited the following reservation: "Article 2, paragraph 1, of the present Convention shall not apply to international air transport which may be effected by the U.S.A. or any territory or possession under its jurisdiction."
* Other aviation treaties (dates uncertain): Hague Protocol (1963), Guadalajara (1935), Guatemala (1983), Montreal No: 1, Montreal No: 2, Montreal No: 3. Montreal No: 4 (1997-8)
US: No
* Protocol to amend the Convention for the unification of certain rules relating to international carriage by air signed at Warsaw on October 12, 1929. Done at The Hague September 28, 1955; entered into force August 1, 1963;
US: 14.12.2003.
* Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. Geneva, 27 July 1929
US: 04.02.1932 - State parties 53
* Treaty for the Limitation and Reduction of Naval Armaments, (Part IV, Art. 22, relating to submarine warfare). London, 22 April 1930.
US: 27.10.1930 - State parties 11
* Treaty on the Protection of Artistic and Scientific Institutions and Historic Monuments (Roerich Pact). Washington, 15 April 1935.
US: 13.07.1935 Only 10 other nations, all Western Hemisphere, have ratified this convention.
* Procès-verbal relating to the Rules of Submarine Warfare set forth in Part IV of the Treaty of London of 22 April 1930. London, 6 November 1936
US: No - State parties 39
* Agreement for the Prosecution and Punishment of the Major War Criminals of the European Axis, and Charter of the International Military Tribunal. London, 8 August 1945
US: No - State parties 19
* Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
US: 02.02.1956 With statement., With reservation to ''field'' convention - State parties 192
"The United States in ratifying the Geneva Convention for the amelioration of the condition of the wounded and sick in armed forces in the field does so with the reservation that irrespective of any provision or provisions in said convention to the contrary, nothing contained therein shall make unlawful, or obligate the United States of America to make unlawful, any use or right of use within the United States of America and its territories and possessions of the Red Cross emblem, sign, insignia, or words as was lawful by reason of domestic law and a use begun prior to January 5, 1905, provided such use by pre-1905 users does not extend to the placing of the Red Cross emblem, sign, or insignia upon aircraft, vessels, vehicles, buildings or other structures, or upon the ground."
"Rejecting the reservations which States have made with respect to the Geneva Convention for the amelioration of the condition of the wounded and sick in armed forces in the field, the United States accepts treaty relations with all parties to that Convention, except as to the changes proposed by such reservations."
"Rejecting the reservations which States have made with respect to the Geneva Convention for the amelioration of the condition of wounded, sick and shipwrecked members of armed forces at sea, the United States accepts treaty relations with all parties to that Convention, except as to the changes proposed by such reservations."
"Rejecting the reservations which States have made with respect to the Geneva Convention relative to the treatment of prisoners of war, the United States accepts treaty relations with all parties to that Convention, except as to the changes proposed by such reservations."
"The United States reserves the right to impose the death penalty in accordance with the provisions of Article 68, paragraph 2, without regard to whether the offenses referred to therein are punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory at the time the occupation begins" (Reservation formulated by the Representative of the United States of America at the time of signature.)
"Rejecting the reservations - other than to Article 68, paragraph 2 - which States have made with respect to the Geneva Convention relative to the protection of civilian persons in time of war, the United States accepts treaty relations with all parties to that Convention, except as to the changes proposed by such reservations."
* Convention (II) for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
US: 02.02.1956 With reservation(s) - State parties 192
"The United States reserve the right to impose the death penalty in accordance with the provisions of Article 68, paragraph 2, without regard to whether the offences referred to therein are punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory at the time the occupation begins" etc, same as Convention I
* Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
US: 02.02.1956 With declaration(s) - State parties 192
"The United States reserve the right to impose the death penalty in accordance with the provisions of Article 68, paragraph 2, without regard to whether the offences referred to therein are punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory at the time the occupation begins"
* Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Geneva, 12 August 1949.
US: 02.02.1956 With reservation to ''civilians'' convention - State parties 192
"The United States reserve the right to impose the death penalty in accordance with the provisions of Article 68, paragraph 2, without regard to whether the offences referred to therein are punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory at the time the occupation begins" etc, same as Convention I
* Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity, 26 November 1968.
US: No - State parties 49
* Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 9 December 1948
US: 25.11.1988 With reservation(s) - State parties 138 Reservations: "(1) That with reference to article IX of the Convention, before any dispute to which the United States is a party may be submitted to the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice under this article, the specific consent of the United States is required in each case. (2) That nothing in the Convention requires or authorizes legislation or other action by the United States of America prohibited by the Constitution of the United States as interpreted by the United States."
Understandings: "(1) That the term `intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group as such' appearing in article II means the specific intent to destroy, in whole or in substantial part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group as such by the acts specified in article II. (2) That the term `mental harm' in article II (b) means permanent impairment of mental faculties through drugs, torture or similar techniques. (3) That the pledge to grant extradition in accordance with a state's laws and treaties in force found in article VII extends only to acts which are criminal under the laws of both the requesting and the requested state and nothing in article VI affects the right of any state to bring to trial before its own tribunals any of its nationals for acts committed outside a state. (4) That acts in the course of armed conflicts committed without the specific intent required by article II are not sufficient to constitute genocide as defined by this Convention. (5) That with regard to the reference to an international penal tribunal in article VI of the Convention, the United States declares that it reserves the right to effect its participation in any such tribunal only by a treaty entered into specifically for that purpose with the advice and consent of the Senate."
* Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, Vienna 18 April 1961
US: 13 Nov 1972 (With reservations, with objections) - State parties 186
* Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, Vienna 24 April 1963
US: 24 Nov 1969 - (With reservations, with objections) - State parties 172
4 September 1987 "The Government of the United States wishes to state its objection to the reservation regarding the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations made with respect to paragraph 3 of article 35 by the Yemen Arab Republic. The Government of the United States Notes that the reservation made with respect to paragraph l of Article 46 and Article 49 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations by the Yemen Arab Republic states that the Yemen Arab Republic understands the term "members of their families forming part of their households" in paragraph l of Article 46 and Article 49 as being restricted to members of the consular posts and, inter alia , their wives for the purpose of the privileges and immunities enjoyed by them. The United States understands this term to include members of the consular posts and their spouses, regardless of whether the spouse is a husband or wife. Accordingly, the Government of the United States wishes to state its objection if the Yemen Arab Republic does not include all spouses of the members of the consular posts as being within the meaning of the term "members of their families forming part of their households" in paragraph l of Article 46 and Article 49. The Government of the United States, however, considers the [Convention] as continuing in force between it and the respective above-mentioned States except for the provisions to which the reservations are addressed in each case."
* Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts. Geneva, 8 June 1977.
US: No - State parties 163
* Declaration provided for under article 90 AP I. Acceptance of the Competence of the International Fact-Finding Commission according to article 90 of AP I.
US: No - State parties 69
* Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts. Geneva, 8 June 1977.
US: No - State parties 163
* Convention on the Rights of the Child, New York, 20 November 1989.
US: No - State parties 192
At the UN, only the United States and Somalia, which has no functional government, have not ratified the Convention. Conservatives who favor the death penalty for minors strongly oppose the treaty.
* Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict, New York, 25 May 2000.
US: 23.12.2002 With declaration(s). With understanding(s). January 23, 2003.. - State parties 104
Declaration: "The Government of the United States of America declares, pursuant to Article 3 (2) of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict that - (A) the minimum age at which the United States permits voluntary recruitment into the Armed Forces of the United States is 17 years of age; (B) The United States has established safeguards to ensure that such recruitment is not forced or coerced, including a requirement in section 505 (a) of title 10, United States Code, that no person under 18 years of age may be originally enlisted in the Armed Forces of the United States without the written consent of the person's parent or guardian, if the parent or guardian is entitled to the person's custody and control; (C) each person recruited into the Armed Forces of the United States receives a comprehensive briefing and must sign an enlistment contract that, taken together, specify the duties involved in military service; and (D) all persons recruited into the Armed Forces of the United States must provide reliable proof of age before their entry into military service."
Understandings: (1) NO ASSUMPTION OF OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD. -The United States understands that the United States assumes no obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child by becoming a party to the Protocol.
(2) IMPLEMENTATION OF OBLIGATION NOT TO PERMIT CHILDREN TO TAKE DIRECT PART IN HOSTILITIES. -The United States understands that, with respect to Article 1 of the Protocol - (A) the term "feasible measures" means those measures that are practical or practically possible, taking into account all the circumstances ruling at the time, including humanitarian and military considerations; (B) the phrase "direct part in hostilities"- (i) means immediate and actual action on the battlefield likely to cause harm to the enemy because there is a direct causal relationship between the activity engaged in and the harm done to the enemy; and (ii) does not mean indirect participation in hostilities, such as gathering and transmitting military information, transporting weapons, munitions, or other supplies, or forward deployment; and (C) any decision by any military commander, military personnel, or other person responsible for planning, authorizing, or executing military action, including the assignment of military personnel, shall only be judged on the basis of all the relevant circumstances and on the basis of that person's assessment of the information reasonably available to the person at the time the person planned, authorized, or executed the action under review, and shall not be judged on the basis of information that comes to light after the action under review was taken.
(3) MINIMUM AGE FOR VOLUNTARY RECRUITMENT.- The United States understands that Article 3 of the Protocol obligates States Parties to the Protocol to raise the minimum age for voluntary recruitment into their national armed forces from the current international standard of 15 years of age. (4) ARMED GROUPS.- The United States understands that the term "armed groups" in Article 4 of the Protocol means nongovernmental armed groups such as rebel groups, dissident armed forces, and other insurgent groups. (5) NO BASIS FOR JURISDICTION BY ANY INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL.- The United States understands that nothing in the Protocol establishes a basis for jurisdiction by any international tribunal, including the International Criminal Court."
* Optional protocol to the convention on the rights of the child on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography. Portugal
US: With declaration(s). With understanding(s). January 23, 2003
* Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 17 July 1998.
US: No Signed Dec. 31, 2000, unsigned June 6, 2002 - State parties 100
In 2002, the US made the unprecedented move to "unsign" the treaty establishing the ICC. Since then, the US has systematically undermined the ICC by signing bilateral agreements with states to exempt US military and government personnel from the court's jurisdiction.
The establishment of an ICC represents a major progress for better implementation of international humanitarian law and a clear step forward in the battle against impunity. Hence, for the Court to be truly effective, a very large number of States must ratify the Statute.
The ICC will be established in the Hague and will have jurisdiction over suspected perpetrators of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes or aggression, including superiors or military commanders. The Court may exercise its jurisdiction, if the State on the territory of which the act or omission occurred or the State of nationality of the suspect is Party to the Statute or has accepted the jurisdiction of the Court. The Prosecutor can refer cases proprio motu ( on his/her own initiative). The Court has not a retroactive effect.
The ICC is not intended to take over jurisdiction exercised by national courts: the ICC is intended to exercise its jurisdiction only when the state is unwilling or genuinely unable to prosecute. States continue to have the primary duty to prosecute suspected war criminals before their own courts.
* Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, The Hague, 14 May 1954.
US: No - State parties 114
* First Protocol to the Hague Convention of 1954 for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, The Hague, 14 May 1954.
US: No - State parties 92
* Second Protocol to the Hague Convention of 1954 for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, The Hague, 26 March 1999.
US: No - State parties 37
* Convention on the prohibition of military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques, New York, 10 December 1976.
US: No - State parties 72
* Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and Warfare, Geneva, 17 June 1925.
US: With reservation(s). April 10, 1975 - State parties 133
The Protocol shall cease to be binding on the government of the United States with respect to the use in war of asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and of all analogous liquids, materials, or devices, in regard to an enemy state if such state or any of its allies fails to respect the prohibitions laid down in the Protocol.
* Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction. Opened for Signature at London, Moscow and Washington. 10 April 1972.
US: 26.03.1975 - State parties 155
* Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons which may be deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to have Indiscriminate Effects. Geneva, 10 October 1980.
US: 24.9.1995 With declaration(s). With reservations. With understanding(s) - State parties 100
Reservation: Article 7 (4) (b) of the Convention shall not apply with respect to the United States.
Declaration: The United States declares, with reference to the scope of application defined in article 1 of the Convention, that the United States will apply the provisions of the Convention, Protocol I, and Protocol II to all armed conflicts referred to in articles 2 and 3 common to the Geneva Conventions for the Protection of War Victims of August 12, 1949.
Understandings : The United States understands that article 6 (1) of the Protocol II does not prohibit the adaptation for use as booby-traps of portable objects created for a purpose other than as a booby-trap if the adaptation does not violate paragraph (1)(b) of the article. The United States considers that the fourth paragraph of the preamble to the Convention, which refers to the substance of provisions of article 35 (3) and article 55 (1) of additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions for the Protection of War Victims of August 12, 1949, applies only to States which have accepted those provisions.
* Protocol on non-detectable fragments (I)
US: With declaration(s). With reservations. With understanding(s) September 24, 1995
Reservation: Article 7 (4) (b) of the Convention shall not apply with respect to the United States.
Declaration: The United States declares, with reference to the scope of application defined in article 1 of the Convention, that the United States will apply the provisions of the Convention, Protocol I, and Protocol II to all armed conflicts referred to in articles 2 and 3 common to the Geneva Conventions for the Protection of War Victims of August 12, 1949.
Understandings : The United States understands that article 6 (1) of the Protocol II does not prohibit the adaptation for use as booby-traps of portable objects created for a purpose other than as a booby-trap if the adaptation does not violate paragraph (1)(b) of the article. The United States considers that the fourth paragraph of the preamble to the Convention, which refers to the substance of provisions of article 35 (3) and article 55 (1) of additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions for the Protection of War Victims of August 12, 1949, applies only to States which have accepted those provisions.
* Protocol on prohibitions or restrictions on the use of mines, booby-traps and other devices (II)
US: With declaration(s). With reservations. With understanding(s) same as for "non-detectable fragments" September 24, 1995 - State parties 87
"Mine Ban Treaty": Never signed The US remains the only member of NATO besides Turkey, and the only state in the Western Hemisphere besides Cuba, not to sign the Mine Ban Treaty. The US used anti-personnel land mines in the first Gulf War, and claims that land mines are essential to protect US soldiers in heavily armed places like the demilitarized zone between North and South Korea.
* Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons (Protocol III). Geneva, 10 October 1980
US: No - State parties 93
* Protocol on Blinding Laser Weapons (Protocol IV to the 1980 Convention), 13 October 1995.
US: No - State parties 81
* Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices as amended on 3 May 1996 (Protocol II to the 1980 Convention).
US: No - State parties 85
* Amendment to the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons which may be deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to have Indiscriminate Effects (with Protocols I, II and III), Geneva 21 December 2001.
US: No - State parties 44
* Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction, Paris 13 January 1993.
US: 10.04.1975 With reservation - State parties 175 "Subject to the condition which relates to the Annex on Implementation and Verification, that no sample collected in the United States pursuant to the Convention will be transferred for analysis to any laboratory outside the territory of the United States."
EU: 27.01.1997 With reservation "As a Member State of the European Community, the Government of [EU member state] will implement the provisions of the Convention on the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, in accordance with its obligations arising from the rules of the Treaties establishing the European Communities to the extent that such rules are applicable."
* UN Framework Convention on Climate Control (UNFCCC) and the Kyoto Protocol Ratified UNFCCC Oct. 15, 1992
Signed Kyoto Protocol Nov. 12, 1998, never ratified Although President Clinton signed the Kyoto Protocol, mandating a reduction in carbon emissions to below 1990 levels by 2012, a 2001 State Department memo rejected the protocol on the basis that it would harm the US economy and exempt developing countries from reduction requirements. Of industrialized states, only the US, Australia and Israel haven't ratified the protocol. The US did ratify the UNFCCC, but has not complied.
* Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction, Oslo, 18 September 1997.
US: No - State parties 147 (not including Russia and China)
The International Bill of Human Rights consists of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and its two Optional Protocols. The US government's approach to the ratification of international human rights treaties is unique. Once the government signs a treaty, the pact is sent to Justice Department lawyers who comb through it looking for any requirement that in their view might be more protective of US citizens' rights than pre-existing US law. In each case, a reservation, declaration, or understanding is drafted to negate the additional rights protection. These qualifications are then submitted to the Senate as part of the ratification package. n1
* International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, New York, 16 December 1966
US: No - State parties 148 (source: http://www.hri.ca/fortherecord2002/documentation/reservations/cescr.htm)
International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (CESCR) Signed Oct. 5, 1977, never ratified The US maintains that economic, social and cultural rights are "aspirational," not inalienable or enforceable. 142 countries have already (2003) ratified the Covenant.
* The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
US: 8 June 1992, With reservation(s)
In ratifying the ICCPR on 8 June 1992, the USA made a reservation stating "[t]hat the United States reserves the right, subject to its Constitutional constraints, to impose capital punishment on any person (other than a pregnant woman) duly convicted under existing or future laws permitting the imposition of capital punishment, including such punishment for crimes committed by persons below eighteen years of age.
Eleven other states parties - Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain and Sweden - objected formally to the US reservation. Germany stated that this provision is incompatible with the text as well as the object and purpose of article 6 [of the ICCPR], which, as made clear by paragraph 2 of article 4, lays down the minimum standard for the protection of the right to life. Belgium, the Netherlands and Portugal made similar statements. Several other states stated that the right to life, protected in Article 6 of the ICCPR, is one of the most fundamental human rights and noted that under Article 4(2) of the ICCPR, no derogation is permitted from Article 6. The texts of the US reservation and the objections to the reservation can be found on the UN human rights website at www.unhchr.ch.
* The first Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
US: No
* Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty, 15 December 1989
US: No
* Convention on Discrimination against Women (CEDAW)
US: No
Signed July 17, 1980, never ratified The US remains one of a handful of countries, including Iran and Sudan, not to ratify CEDAW. Although Bush has called the treaty "generally favorable," the treaty faces resistance from US conservatives.
* Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty
Signed Sep. 24, 1996, never ratified The US Senate voted in 1999 to reject ratification of the test ban treaty. Taking another step away from the agreement, the White House released the Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) in early 2002 hinting at a return to testing and reserving the right to use nuclear weapons in a first-strike attack. The NPR also states that arms reductions can be reversed.
* Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty
Signed and ratified Summer 1972, US unilateral withdrawal Dec. 13, 2001 The US became the first major power to unilaterally withdraw from a nuclear arms control treaty. Citing "terror threats," the Bush administration will pursue an enormously costly missile defense program, even though its scientific feasibility remains dubious.
* Convention on Biological Diversity
US: No
* Treaty on the Non Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons
Entered into force March 5, 1970 - State parties 188
* Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora
US: 14.01.1974
* Protocol on Explosive Remnants of War (Protocol V to the 1980 Convention), 28 November 2003
US: No - State parties 16
* International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries, 4 December 1989
US: No
* Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977. US: No - State parties 153