There has been a lot of literature on RUDs. A good article is David Sloss, The Domestication of International Human Rights Law: Non-Self-Executing Declarations and Human Rights Treaties, 24 Yale J. Int’l L. 129 (1999). You also may want to check out my book, CHALLENGING HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS: USING INTERNATIONAL LAW IN U.S. COURTS (2001).
> [Original Message] > From: Parry, John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 9/26/2003 5:07:37 PM > Subject: Re: Question about Treaty/Constitution Interaction > > OK, now for the follow-up. Are there any commentaries on this practice and the U.N.'s response? > > > John T. Parry > Associate Professor of Law > University of Pittsburgh School of Law > 3900 Forbes Avenue > Pittsburgh, PA 15260 > 412-648-7006 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Discussion list for con law professors [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Francisco Martin > Sent: Friday, September 26, 2003 4:57 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Question about Treaty/Constitution Interaction > > Prof. Parry asks: > > > The Convention Against Torture bans state use of torture and other > > cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. The Convention defines torture > > but does not define cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. As a > > condition of its consent to the Convention, the U.S. Senate, among other > > things, declared its understanding that cruel, inhuman, or degrading > > treatment means conduct proscribed by the 5th, 8th, and 14th amendments. > > That is, if it is unconstitutional, it is cruel, inhuman, or degrading > > treatment. > > > > My question is factual. Is anyone aware of other treaties towards which > > the Senate has taken a similar approach? Put differently, has the > > Senate consented to other treaties on the condition that they proscribe > > only conduct that already is unconstitutional? > > Yes, the Senate consented to the ICCPR subject to the same reservation it > made to the CAT. Pres. Bush Sr. submitted the reservation (and others) to > the UN Secretary General with the U.S.' instrument of ratification. > Subsequently, the UN Human Rights Committee effectively invalidated the > reservation on a number of grounds in its General Comment No. 24 (52). See, > e.g., § 19 ("reservations should not systematically reduce the obligations > undertaken only to the presently existing in less demanding standards of > domestic law. Nor should interpretative declarations or reservations seek > to remove an autonomous meaning to Covenant obligations, by pronouncing > them to be identical, or to be accepted only insofar as they are identical, > with existing provisions of domestic law."). > > Francisco Forrest Martin
