FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1508798480> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1508798480 endingPage "476" @default.
• W1508798480 startingPage "419" @default.
• W1508798480 abstract "As of this day, the United States has ratified three of the major seven global rights treaties (HRTs). (1) The three it has ratified have been assented to only conditionally. They have been qualified by reservations, understandings, and declarations (RUDs) to prevent their direct enforcement in U.S. courts, and bring their provisions into sync with U.S. domestic law. This being said, the greater issues remain far from settled. Limited and conditional consent to HRTs provokes controversy in the form of two interrelated questions: first, whether U.S. RUDs are legal under international law (the question), and, second, why the United States has chosen not to increase domestic rights protection through fuller adherence to HRTs (the human rights question). Conditional consent to HRTs--i.e., the policy that raises the legality question--can only be explained by answering the rights question. Further, unlike the answer to the legality question, the answer to the rights question responds to the assumedly desirable goal of guaranteeing the protection of rights. Accordingly, this article examines various theories asserting claims to truth as to why the United States has tendered only conditional and limited consent to HRTs. This examination of theories and the diverse hypotheses they produce yields a socio-structural theory of rights. From this theory, a policy suggestion emerges: to construct social arrangements for a minimum substantive floor of rights protection. This policy suggestion disposes of the legality question, because it effectively reinterprets U.S. RUDs in a manner that satisfies applicable international rules. Most significantly, it directly addresses the concerns underlying the rights question. In times of war and external threat, domestic rights guarantees have been repealed within the United States--consider, for example, McCarthyism and Japanese internment. Parting from the premise that such practices are undesirable, this article assumes first that such practices may recur during present and future threats, and, second, that it is possible that future instances of such rights infringement will not be as brief. Both assumptions are worth entertaining, given the ongoing and potentially protracted struggle against terrorism in the post-September 11th era. At its close, the article suggests that although the United States has severely curtailed the effect of rights treaties within its territory, the HRTs--even in their diminished state--can serve to establish a substantive standard of rights protection. That standard would be a mast to which the United States could bind itself to ensure that a meaningful level of freedom be maintained and preserved within its territory, come what may. Part I contains a summary of relevant U.S. law and practice as regards HRTs. Part II analyzes existing explanations for this law and practice and presents a socio-structural theory for rights protection. Finally, in Part III, the article surveys two existing proposals for change and suggests a minimum floor approach for U.S. rights law and policy that builds off the socio-structural theory. Given the breadth and quantity of the issues germane to this matter, this article does not seek to arrive at definitive or exhaustive answers. Rather, it seeks to re-conceptualize a complex problem and facilitate a resolution responsive to the multiple underpinnings of limited and conditional consent, on the one hand, and the necessity for certain inalienable and permanent rights within the United States on the other. I. HRTs IN DOMESTIC LAW Traditional U.S. judicial conceptions of international law are both antithetical to and insistent upon the enforcement of international rights. In respect to the former, the U.S. Supreme Court has depicted international law as concerned not with domestic rights and duties, but instead with international rights and duties. …" @default.
• W1508798480 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1508798480 creator A5024333232 @default.
• W1508798480 date "2003-03-22" @default.
• W1508798480 modified "2023-09-26" @default.
• W1508798480 title "Human Rights Treaties in U.S. Law: The Status Quo, its Underlying Bases, and Pathways for Change" @default.
• W1508798480 hasPublicationYear "2003" @default.
• W1508798480 type Work @default.
• W1508798480 sameAs 1508798480 @default.
• W1508798480 citedByCount "1" @default.
• W1508798480 countsByYear W15087984802013 @default.
• W1508798480 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W1508798480 hasAuthorship W1508798480A5024333232 @default.
• W1508798480 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W1508798480 hasConcept C169437150 @default.
• W1508798480 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W1508798480 hasConcept C190253527 @default.
• W1508798480 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W1508798480 hasConcept C22299250 @default.
• W1508798480 hasConcept C27357055 @default.
• W1508798480 hasConcept C2779777834 @default.
• W1508798480 hasConcept C42027317 @default.
• W1508798480 hasConcept C86615163 @default.
• W1508798480 hasConcept C95691615 @default.
• W1508798480 hasConceptScore W1508798480C144024400 @default.
• W1508798480 hasConceptScore W1508798480C169437150 @default.
• W1508798480 hasConceptScore W1508798480C17744445 @default.
• W1508798480 hasConceptScore W1508798480C190253527 @default.
• W1508798480 hasConceptScore W1508798480C199539241 @default.
• W1508798480 hasConceptScore W1508798480C22299250 @default.
• W1508798480 hasConceptScore W1508798480C27357055 @default.
• W1508798480 hasConceptScore W1508798480C2779777834 @default.
• W1508798480 hasConceptScore W1508798480C42027317 @default.
• W1508798480 hasConceptScore W1508798480C86615163 @default.
• W1508798480 hasConceptScore W1508798480C95691615 @default.
• W1508798480 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W1508798480 hasLocation W15087984801 @default.
• W1508798480 hasOpenAccess W1508798480 @default.
• W1508798480 hasPrimaryLocation W15087984801 @default.
• W1508798480 hasRelatedWork W119921481 @default.
• W1508798480 hasRelatedWork W2100522925 @default.
• W1508798480 hasRelatedWork W2146254763 @default.
• W1508798480 hasRelatedWork W2286121643 @default.
• W1508798480 hasRelatedWork W2484439169 @default.
• W1508798480 hasRelatedWork W2534823135 @default.
• W1508798480 hasRelatedWork W2991539365 @default.
• W1508798480 hasRelatedWork W3023827117 @default.
• W1508798480 hasRelatedWork W306191340 @default.
• W1508798480 hasRelatedWork W3121138761 @default.
• W1508798480 hasRelatedWork W3122292171 @default.
• W1508798480 hasRelatedWork W3123801040 @default.
• W1508798480 hasRelatedWork W3125454919 @default.
• W1508798480 hasRelatedWork W3150834853 @default.
• W1508798480 hasRelatedWork W351346887 @default.
• W1508798480 hasRelatedWork W645879615 @default.
• W1508798480 hasRelatedWork W67150896 @default.
• W1508798480 hasRelatedWork W757748911 @default.
• W1508798480 hasRelatedWork W2586151251 @default.
• W1508798480 hasRelatedWork W3123401436 @default.
• W1508798480 hasVolume "13" @default.
• W1508798480 isParatext "false" @default.
• W1508798480 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W1508798480 magId "1508798480" @default.
• W1508798480 workType "article" @default.