America's Breach Of International Law: Who Holds Them Accountable?

The United States has a history of breaking international laws and treaties, often acting as if international law does not apply to them. The US has refused to sign or ratify foundational international laws and treaties that most other countries have signed, such as the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). The US has also violated several international treaties, including the Chemical Weapons Convention, the Biological Weapons Convention, and UN treaties prohibiting torture and kidnapping. Additionally, the US has withdrawn from treaties such as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) with Iran and the Geneva Conventions. These actions have led to a loss of credibility for the US on the international stage.

The US refuses to sign or ratify foundational international laws and treaties

The US has a history of refusing to sign or ratify foundational international laws and treaties, and this has led to criticism from organisations such as Human Rights Watch. The US Constitution's Treaty Clause gives the President the power to negotiate and sign treaties, but these only enter into force if ratified by at least two-thirds of the Senate. This means that the US President does not have the final say in whether a treaty is ratified, and this has resulted in many treaties being left unsigned or unratified.

Some of the most notable treaties that the US has not ratified include the Kyoto Protocol, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), and the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance (ICPPED). The US is also one of the few countries not to have ratified the Kyoto Protocol, which is aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions and combating climate change.

In addition to not ratifying certain treaties, the US has also withdrawn from others. For example, in 2018, the US withdrew from the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) and has also withdrawn from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty with Russia. The US has also threatened to withdraw from the World Trade Organization (WTO) and has criticised the International Criminal Court (ICC).

The US's refusal to sign or ratify certain treaties can be attributed to various ideological, political, and practical reasons. For example, some senators have blocked the ratification of treaties due to ideological differences, while in other cases, the President may decide not to seek the Senate's consent for political reasons. The US has also argued that some UN agencies and bodies have "drifted" from their original mission and are acting "contrary to the interests of the United States".

The US violates treaties with Native American tribes

Between 1778 and 1871, the US government entered into more than 500 treaties with Native American tribes. All of these treaties have since been violated or broken in some way by the US government, with Native Americans still fighting for their treaty rights in federal courts and at the United Nations.

The treaties were based on the idea that each tribal group was an independent nation, with the right to self-determination and self-rule. However, as white settlers began encroaching on Native American lands, this idea clashed with the relentless pace of westward expansion, resulting in broken promises on the part of the US government.

One example is the Treaty of Fort Pitt in 1778, the first official peace treaty between the new United States and a Native American nation. In it, both sides agreed to maintain friendship and support each other against the British. However, mutual suspicion continued, and after the American victory, more and more white settlers moved onto Lenape territory, until the Treaty of Greeneville in 1795 forced them and other Ohio Country Native Americans to surrender most of their lands.

Another example is the Treaty of Canandaigua or Pickering Treaty in 1794, in which the US government sought to improve relations with the Haudenosaunee Confederacy, a powerful group of six Iroquois-speaking tribes. The treaty restored more than 1 million acres of land to the Seneca and recognised the sovereignty of the Six Nations to govern themselves and set laws. However, as the Six Nations' territory continued to be reduced, some tribes moved to Canada and others remained on reservations in New York.

The Treaty of Greeneville in 1795 was signed after a Native American confederacy including the Shawnee and Delaware, who had already been driven westward by US expansion, as well as the Miami, Ottawa, Ojibwa and Potawatomi, mounted an armed resistance. After US troops defeated them, the treaty ceded large parts of what would become Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois and Wisconsin to the US. However, it only provided a short-term resolution, as continued US expansion quickly nullified its effect.

The Treaty of Fort Wayne in 1809, negotiated by William Henry Harrison, then governor of Indiana Territory, acquired 2.5 million acres of land for the US in what is now Michigan, Indiana, Illinois and Ohio, for the equivalent of about two cents per acre. Tecumseh and others argued that the treaty's signers had no authority to sell the land and warned Americans not to settle there. In 1811, Harrison led an attack on a Native American camp on the Tippecanoe River, beginning a new US-Native conflict that would last through the War of 1812.

In 1830, Andrew Jackson, who had served as a federal commissioner and negotiated nine out of 11 treaties signed with Native American tribes in the Southeast, spearheaded the Indian Removal Act through Congress. Through this Act, the US government granted land west of the Mississippi River to Native tribes who agreed to give up their homelands. Although removal was supposed to be voluntary, Jackson used threats of withheld payments and legal and military action to conclude nearly 70 removal treaties, opening up some 25 million acres of land in the South to white settlement and slavery.

The US undermines international institutions

The US has a long history of undermining international institutions. Since World War II, the US has been central to the creation and maintenance of the liberal international order, with its hegemonic role proving necessary for the forging of multilateral institutions. However, this role has now become a potential liability, with the international system vulnerable to the democratic process within its member nations.

The Trump administration sought to erode confidence in the international system, which it saw as an affront to national sovereignty. Trump's "America First" policy undermined the US-German solidarity that was the foundation of transatlantic security cooperation and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO). Trump also criticised and withdrew funding from multilateral institutions such as the World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Criminal Court (ICC).

The US has also undermined the stability of the international order by embracing unilateralism and protectionism. Trump's "America First" policy led to a decline in long-standing collective security arrangements and criticised multilateral agreements such as the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).

Furthermore, the US has a history of using foreign aid as a tool to maintain its hegemonic position and engage in geopolitical games. The US has been criticised for providing selfish, arrogant, hypocritical, and ugly aid that interferes in other countries' internal affairs and negatively impacts world peace and development. The US has also been accused of using aid as a bargaining chip, imposing American values, and forcing other countries to undergo "democratic transformations".

Overall, the US has undermined international institutions by eroding confidence in the international system, embracing unilateralism and protectionism, and using foreign aid to maintain its hegemonic position.

The US has violated the law of war

The law of war is a component of international law that regulates the conditions for initiating war and the conduct of hostilities. The law of war defines sovereignty and nationhood, states and territories, occupation, and other critical terms of law. The law of war prohibits force unless force has been approved by the U.N. Security Council or unless a country has been attacked and is acting in self-defence. Even under those conditions, force is regarded as a last resort, permissible only if it is likely to be successful.

The US has a history of violating the law of war. For example, the Clinton administration bombed Iraq to help the Kurds in the north and the Shias in the south. This was considered unlawful and counterproductive by France and Russia. The UK also supported the US in this action, which led to a great deal of unnecessary and counterproductive violence in Yugoslavia. This was the beginning of the mindset that military force could be used without regard for the UN Charter.

Another example of the US violating the law of war is its intervention in Syria, which has been described as "an illegal use of force" and "a crime of aggression" by Michael Ratner, president emeritus of the Center for Constitutional Rights. President Obama's actions in Syria have been likened to Vladimir Putin's actions in Ukraine, with both arming rebels and conducting airstrikes.

US drone attacks around the world also constitute an unlawful use of force. The US has not been attacked, nor does it have UN approval for its targeted killings in Libya, Yemen, Somalia, and other countries. These actions are in direct violation of the law of war, which requires that force be used only as a last resort and with UN approval or in self-defence.

The consequences of these violations of the law of war are far-reaching. They have led to millions of refugees fleeing war, instability, and the breakdown of law and order in the world. It is important to note that discussions about the justice, legality, and necessity of US military actions are largely absent from American politics, and there is a decline in the knowledge of international law at all levels of American society.

The US has violated the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights

The United States is one of only a few UN member states that have yet to ratify the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). The ICESCR is a multilateral treaty that was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) in 1966 and came into force in 1976. It commits its signatories to work towards granting economic, social, and cultural rights (ESCR) to all individuals, including those living in non-self-governing and trust territories. These rights include labour rights, the right to health, the right to education, and the right to an adequate standard of living.

The United States signed the ICESCR in 1977 under the Carter administration, but no steps toward ratification have ever been taken. This is despite the fact that the gap between the rich and the poor in the country continues to grow, and is among the highest of any democracy on Earth. Historically, the United States has been suspicious of even recognizing economic, social and cultural rights as “rights” that might be amenable to any method of enforcement. As a result, the poor in the US continue to grow poorer, while the rich get richer.

The ICESCR has its roots in the same process that led to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). A "Declaration on the Essential Rights of Man" had been proposed at the 1945 San Francisco Conference which led to the founding of the United Nations. The Economic and Social Council was tasked with drafting it, and early in the process, the document was split into a declaration setting forth general principles of human rights, and a convention or covenant containing binding commitments. The former evolved into the UDHR and was adopted in 1948, while the latter eventually became two separate covenants: one on civil and political rights, and the other on economic, social and cultural rights.

The ICESCR, therefore, follows the structure of the UDHR, with a preamble and thirty-one articles, divided into five parts. Part 1 (Article 1) recognises the right of all peoples to self-determination, including the right to "freely determine their political status", pursue their economic, social and cultural goals, and manage and dispose of their own resources. Part 2 (Articles 2–5) establishes the principle of "progressive realisation", which acknowledges that some of the rights may be difficult to achieve in a short period of time, and that states may be subject to resource constraints. Part 3 (Articles 6–15) lists the rights themselves, including the rights to work, social security, family life, an adequate standard of living, health, education, and participation in cultural life. Part 4 (Articles 16–25) governs reporting and monitoring of the Covenant and the steps taken by the parties to implement it, while Part 5 (Articles 26–31) governs ratification, entry into force, and amendment of the Covenant.

If the United States were to ratify the ICESCR and enact implementing legislation, it would be an effective tool to ensure that the economic, social and cultural rights of all its citizens are domestically enforceable.

Frequently asked questions