Tuesday, May 17, 2011

CEDAW Teleconference Materials

Please join us tomorrow, May 18, from 11:00 a.m. - 12:30 p.m. for a free teleconference discussing global perspectives on the impact of CEDAW on legal reform efforts regarding rights of women.  Included below is a powerpoint presentation for the program.
Penny Wakefield (moderator) has recently authored an article, CEDAW Ratification:  Backseated Once Again, which provides useful insight into U.S. failure to ratify CEDAW.

Saturday, May 14, 2011

Do You Know CEDAW? You Should.

The word “CEDAW” may not ring a bell even for committed women’s rights supporters in the United States. But the Convention to Eliminate All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) is a landmark international women’s rights agreement that almost every country in the world has ratified in the 30-plus years since its introduction. The only countries that have not are Iran, Somalia, Sudan, three small Pacific Islands—and the U.S. This Wednesday, the International Human Rights Committee of the ABA Section of International Law is offering a valuable opportunity to all who want to learn more about the convention, its impact internationally, and its prospects here at home.

What does CEDAW mean for ratifying countries? Countries that ratify CEDAW affirm that women’s rights are human rights and commit themselves to ending discrimination against women and girls. CEDAW provides a practical blueprint for these efforts and has had a real impact on women and girls around the world. Guided by CEDAW, policymakers and advocates internationally have taken important steps toward stopping sex trafficking and domestic violence, expanding girls’ educational opportunities, providing access to maternal health care, and ensuring women’s right to vote.

Empowerment of women also leads to more prosperous, stable, peaceful societies. Institutions such as the World Bank and the World Economic Forum recognize that empowering women is one of the most effective paths for international development and for building stable communities. Improving the lives of women and girls worldwide thus is of great importance not only for those individuals, but also for global prosperity and our national security.

The United States should have a seat at the table when the international community discusses how best to continue to promote progress for women and girls. Ratification also would create an important opportunity for continuing our own national conversation about how best to overcome persistent barriers women still face here at home. By ratifying CEDAW, the U.S. would continue a proud tradition of advancing human rights and strengthen our role as a global leader in standing up for the rights of women and girls. The National Women’s Law Center, as a co-chair of the CEDAW Task Force of the Leadership Conference of Civil Rights, is working to ensure that we join the international community in ratifying CEDAW and affirming our commitment to women’s empowerment.

To learn more about CEDAW, about the National Women’s Law Center’s efforts in support of ratification, and about the impact of CEDAW internationally, register for “However Long the Night”: Global Perspectives on the Impact of CEDAW, a free teleconference being held this Wednesday, sponsored by the International Human Rights Committee of the ABA Section of International Law. Or, if you are in Washington, D.C., register to attend in person. It’s time for all of us to understand CEDAW’s promise.


Emily J. Martin
Vice President and General Counsel, National Women’s Law Center

Wednesday, May 4, 2011

Domestic Violence Victims Seek Protection Using International Human Rights Law

During my law school tenure, a number of cases and decisions caused me great consternation. However, fewer, if any, caused greater gut-wrenching than Castle Rock v.Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005).

On June 22, 1999, after obtaining a restraining order against her estranged husband, Jessica Gonzales (now Lenahan) contacted Castle Rock (Colorado) police because her husband had taken her 3 little girls from in front of her home during the late afternoon, directly violating the order. At 7:30 PM, police arrived at the home and Ms. Gonzales showed them the restraining order, which read on the back:

“WARNING: A KNOWING VIOLATION OF A RESTRAINING ORDER IS A CRIME … YOU MAY BE ARRESTED.”

Additionally, a further notice to law enforcements stated:

YOU SHALL USE EVERY REASONABLE MEANS TO ENFORCE THIS RESTRAINING ORDER. YOU SHALL ARREST...” (Emphasis added.)

The police officers, having been shown the restraining order and informed that no previous visitation arrangements were made, told Ms. Gonzales to wait until 10:00 PM and if her daughters were not returned by then, to contact the police again. Near 8:30 PM, her husband phoned to tell her that he had taken the girls to an amusement park in Denver, Colorado. At 10:00 PM, the girls had not been returned, so Ms. Lenahan phoned the police. There was no response for 2 hours, so she went to the police station. At 3:10 AM, her husband showed up at the police station and opened fire. After an exchange of shots, the husband was killed and the truck that he arrived in contained the dead bodies of the 3 girls.

Ms. Gonzales sued the town of Castle Rock for violating her Fourteenth Amendment Due Process rights arguing that she had a property interest in having the restraining order enforced, and that the town’s police department did not take her interest seriously. The case reached the Supreme Court, where Justice Scalia delivered a majority opinion holding that Ms. Gonzales did not have such a property interest. Justice Scalia opined that deference should not be given to the Tenth Circuit’s determination that the restraining order was grounded in Colorado law because the order’s language was little more than contractual boilerplate language providing the police with relatively unfettered discretion on how to respond to situations involving restraining orders.

The Castle Rock decision stunned advocates working to eliminate domestic violence and brought into question the U.S.’ sincerity regarding women’s rights, particularly if the highest court of the land could render so callous a decision. 

As advocates searched for a solution, determined that the wrongful state action which blatantly disregarded the protection of women and children’s rights should be remedied, they were confounded by the proposition that the Supreme Court was the final arbiter in the Castle Rock matter. Nevertheless, Columbia Law School students and professors, recalling that “international law is part of our law,” found another avenue of justice for Ms. Lenahan, her children and other victims and survivors beyond the Supreme Court of the United States. Paquete Habana.

Discussed in a recent ABA International Human Rights Committee teleconference, “Domestic Violence as a Human Rights Violation,” link provided infra, while the U.S. may not have ratified Covenant on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), the U.S. is nevertheless a Party to other international legal instruments, including, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Thus, the U.S. has an obligation to ensure that the rights provided under these international instruments are protected, and that obligation not only extends to non-U.S. persons, but to U.S. persons as well.

Recognizing that international human rights doctrine provides a basis for remedies against state actors, in 2005, the Human Rights Law Clinic and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a petition on behalf of Ms. Lenahan with the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights, arguing that U.S. law enforcement has an obligation to respond to calls of domestic violence and the U.S. has a duty to hold law enforcement accountable. Specific to international human rights law are charges involving the rights of non-discrimination, family life/unity, Due Process, petition of government, personal security, and special protections for victims of domestic violence. The fundamental issue is whether a government has a duty to remedy the situation when it knows or should know that human rights violations are being committed.

In September 2008, the Commission agreed to hear Gonzales v. U.S. on the merits, and the hearing subsequently took place in October 2008.

Challenges with respect to Gonzales v. U.S. stem from the fact that international orders from the Commission and other international human rights judicial bodies are not technically enforceable. This has been a long-acknowledged disadvantage of international human rights law. However, if the Commission finds for Ms. Lenahan, the U.S. will be morally obligated to ensure its laws comport with international human rights laws that recognize the critical need for protecting the rights of women and children, particularly the abused and vulnerable.

The decision from the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in Gonzales v. U.S. is pending, perhaps forthcoming this August (2011).

The ABA IHRC teleconference can be accessed through this link. Additional information and resources are available on the Human Rights Law Clinic of Columbia Law School’s web site and on the ACLU’s web site

Respectfully,
Max Elliott, J.D.

Monday, May 2, 2011

"However Long the Night" Global Perspectives on the Impact of CEDAW (Convention to Eliminate all Forms of Discrimination Against Women) on Legal Reform Efforts Regarding the Rights of Women

Join us in person (Crowell & Moring LLP, Washington, DC) or by telephone on Wednesday, May 18 from 11:00 a.m. - 12:30 p.m. for "However Long the Night" Global Perspectives on the Impact of CEDAW (Convention to Eliminate all Forms of Discrimination Against Women) on Legal Reform Efforts Regarding the Rights of Women.

This FREE teleconference is proudly presented by ABA Section of International Law International Human Rights Committee and co-sponsored by ABA SIL Africa Committee, ABA SIL NGO and Not-for-Profit Organizations, and Committee ABA SIL Women's Issues Network (WIN) ABA IMPOWR (International Models Project on Women's Rights), and in cooperation with ABA Section of Individual Rights and Responsibilities - Women's Rights Committee, District of Columbia Women's Bar Association: International Law Forum, Amnesty International USA, and TransAfrica Forum.

The United States remains one of the few nations in the world that has not ratified the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). This 90-minute non-CLE program will provide a concise overview of the history, development and implementation of CEDAW, including the status of CEDAW ratification in the United States. Afterwards, our panel of women’s rights advocates and lawyers from around the world will deliver short presentations on the advocacy strategies for eradicating discriminatory laws and fostering gender-equality law reform efforts that have been effective (or unsuccessful) in their countries.

Participants will gain an understanding of the treaty provisions of CEDAW; understanding of CEDAW’s status internationally and in the US; awareness of how CEDAW has been utilized by advocates and lawyers internationally to advance women’s rights; and awareness of opportunities to support gender reform projects that utilize CEDAW to advance women’s rights.

Speakers:

  • Emily Martin, Vice President and General Counsel, National Women's Law Center, Washington, DC
  • Mahdere Paulos, Former Judge to the High Court in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia; Former Executive Director, Ethiopian Women Lawyers Association (EWLA), Washington, DC
  • Carolyn Reynolds, Executive Director, Women's Issues Network of Belize (WIN-Belize); Commissioner, Belize National Women's Commission Belize City, Belize
  • Rosa Celorio, Human Rights Specialist, Special Rapporteurship on the Rights of Women Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Washington, DC
  • Penny Wakefield, Executive Board, ABA Center for Human Rights, Washington, DC (moderator)
Please register at the link above. Registration closes prior to the event.