Order Code RL33652
The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Discrimination against Women (CEDAW):
Congressional Issues
Updated December 14, 2006
Luisa Blanchfield
Analyst in Foreign Affairs
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division

---

The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Discrimination against Women (CEDAW):
Congressional Issues
Summary
The U.N. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against
Women calls for Parties to eliminate discrimination against women in all areas of
life, including healthcare, education, employment, domestic relations, law,
commercial transactions, and political participation, among other things. As of
August 11, 2006, the Convention had 98 signatures and was ratified or acceded to by
184 countries.
President Carter submitted the Convention to the Senate in 1980. The Senate
Foreign Relations Committee held hearings on the Convention in 1988, 1990, 1994,
and 2002, but the treaty has never been considered for ratification by the full Senate.
In 2002, the Bush Administration began conducting a full legal and policy review of
the Convention. According to the Administration, as of March 14, 2006, the review
was ongoing. A more recent update on the status could not be readily confirmed.
Some supporters of U.S. ratification contend that the Convention is a valuable
mechanism for fighting women’s discrimination worldwide. They argue that U.S.
ratification of the treaty will give the Convention additional legitimacy, and that it
will further empower women who are fighting discrimination in other countries.
Some opponents of ratification contend that the Convention is not the best or most
efficient way to eliminate discrimination against women. They believe ratification
will undermine U.S. sovereignty and impact U.S. social policy related to family
planning and abortion, among other things.
This report provides background on Convention developments, including U.S.
policy and Congressional actions, and considers arguments for and against
ratification. It will be updated as events occur.

---

Contents
CEDAW Background and Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Evolution of the Convention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women . . . . 3
Administration Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Senate Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Issues for Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
The Convention as a Tool for U.S. Foreign Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
U.S. Sovereignty
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Social Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Administration Review of the Convention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
List of Tables
Table 1. States Parties to the Convention on the Elimination of All
Forms of Discrimination against Women . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

---

The Convention on the Elimination of All
Forms of Discrimination against Women
(CEDAW): Congressional Issues
CEDAW Background and Structure
Current Status
The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against
Women (CEDAW or the Convention) is the only comprehensive international U.N.
treaty that specifically focuses on the rights of women.1 As of August 11, 2006, the
Convention had 98 signatures and was ratified or acceded to by 184 countries.2
Some States Parties3 have filed reservations with sections of the Convention that do
not align with their existing religious or national laws, and in some cases countries
have objected to the reservations of other countries.4 The United States is the only
country to have signed but not ratified the Convention.5
Mandate
The Convention requires States Parties to work towards eliminating
discrimination against women in all areas of life. This includes equality in legal
status, political participation, employment, education, healthcare, and the family
structure.6 Article 2 of the Convention specifies that States Parties should undertake
1 Women’s rights and the equality of the sexes are addressed in general terms in the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, among
others.
2 See Table 1 for a full list of countries that are States Parties to the Convention and its
Optional Protocol.
3 The term “States Parties” refers to countries who have ratified or acceded to the
Convention.
4 Article 28 of the Convention states that reservations can be filed as long as they are
compatible with the “object and purpose” of the Convention. A full list of reservations by
country can be found at [http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/reservations.htm].
5 The Convention has been adopted by several U.S. state and local governments, including
the California and Connecticut Senate, and the House of Representatives in Hawaii, South
Dakota, and Illinois, among others. As of November 2005, the Convention has also been
adopted by 18 counties and 44 cities.
6 Drawn from “The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against
(continued...)

---

CRS-2
to “embody the principle of equality of men and women in their national
constitutions or other appropriate legislation ... to ensure, through law and other
appropriate means, the practical realization of this principle.” The Convention
defines discrimination against women as
any distinction, exclusion or restriction made on the basis of sex which has the
effect or purpose of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or
exercise by women irrespective of their marital status, on a basis of equality of
men and women, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political,
economic, social, cultural, civil, or any other field.
Among other things, the Convention specifically calls for the suppression of female
trafficking; equal pay with men; more attention to the equality of rural women; and
the freedom to choose a marriage partner.
On October 6, 1999, the U.N. General Assembly adopted an Optional Protocol
to strengthen the Convention.7 The Protocol entered into force on December 22,
2002, and has been ratified by 79 countries. The Protocol includes a
“communications procedure” which allows groups or individuals to file complaints
with the Committee. It also incorporates an “inquiry procedure” that allows the
Committee to explore potential abuses of women’s rights in countries that are party
to the Protocol.
Evolution of the Convention
The United Nations adopted several treaties addressing specific aspects of
women’s rights prior to adoption of CEDAW in 1979, including the Convention on
the Political Rights of Women (1952), and the Convention on the Consent to
Marriage (1957).8 In 1967, after two years of negotiations, the U.N. General
Assembly adopted the Declaration on the Elimination of Discrimination against
Women, a non-binding document which laid the groundwork for CEDAW.
Subsequently, the U.N. Commission on the Status of Women began drafting
CEDAW, which the General Assembly adopted on December 19, 1979.9 CEDAW
entered into force on September 3, 1981, after receiving the required 20 ratifications.
6 (...continued)
Women,” available at [http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/text/econvention.htm].
7 Optional Protocols are often added to some treaties. The Optional Protocol for the
Convention is a stand-alone treaty that can be signed and/or ratified by countries that are
party to the main treaty. For more information on the Optional Protocol to the Convention,
see [http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/protocol/].
8 More information on international treaty bodies relating to women’s right is available at
[http://www.un.org/womenwatch/asp/user/list.asp?ParentID=1003].
9 The Commission on the Status of Women was established in 1946 as a functional
commission of the U.N. Economic and Social Council. It is responsible for preparing
recommendations and reports for the Council on women’s rights in the political, economic,
civil, and social realms.

---

CRS-3
The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against
Women
The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (the
Committee) was established in 1982 under Article 17 of the Convention as a
mechanism to monitor the progress of implementation.10 It is composed of 23
independent experts who are elected at a meeting of States Parties to the Convention
by secret ballot, with consideration given to the principle of equitable geographic
distribution.11 Each State Party may nominate one expert, and if elected, the expert
serves a four-year term. The majority of the Committee experts are women who,
according to the Convention, should have “high moral standing and competence,”
and “represent different forms of civilization as well as principal legal systems.” The
Committee is led by a Chairperson, three Vice Chairpersons, and a rapporteur elected
by the States Parties. The Chairperson directs the discussion and decision-making
process and represents the Convention at international conferences and events. The
Committee reports annually on its activities to the U.N. General Assembly through
the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), and meets twice a year at U.N.
Headquarters in New York.
The Committee is responsible for reviewing the reports on national CEDAW
implementation submitted by States Parties. Countries are required to submit an
initial report within the first year of ratification or accession, followed by one report
every four years. The reports identify areas of progress as well as concerns or
difficulties with implementation. The Committee engages in an open dialogue and
exchange of ideas with the reporting country and compiles recommendations and
conclusions based on its findings, which include general recommendations on
crosscutting issues of concern. The Committee has made over 25 recommendations
since 1986 covering a wide range of women’s issues such as: improvement in
education and public information programs; elimination of female circumcision;
equality in marriage and family relations; and violence against women.12
The 36th session of the CEDAW Committee was held from August 7 to 25,
2006. The Committee considered reports from Cape Verde, Chile, China, Cuba,
Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of Congo, Denmark, Georgia, Ghana,
Jamaica, Mauritius, Mexico, Philippines, Republic of Moldova, and Uzbekistan. The
Committee made significant progress on the general recommendations related to the
migrant rights of women and Article 2 of the Convention. The Committee also
recognized China’s progress since its last review, but urged faster improvement and
expressed concern over the high male to female birth ratio. It also, among other
things, acknowledged that the tense political situation in Uzbekistan impacted its
10 Some human rights treaties provide for a separate body to monitor implementation of the
treaty among States Parties.
11 Currently, the 23 experts come from Algeria; Bangladesh; Brazil; China; Croatia; Cuba;
Egypt; France; Germany; Ghana; Israel; Italy; Jamaica; Japan; Malaysia; Mauritius;
Netherlands; Portugal; Republic of Korea; Singapore; Slovenia; South Africa; and Thailand.
12 A full list of CEDAW Committee recommendations can be found at
[http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/recommendations/index.html].

---

CRS-4
ability to implement the Convention, but noted that progress was made in the area of
legislative reform.13
U.S. Policy
Administration Actions
Successive U.S. Administrations have strongly supported the Convention’s
overall goal of eliminating discrimination against women. However, they have
disagreed on whether the Convention is the most efficient and appropriate means of
achieving this goal. President Jimmy Carter signed the Convention on July 17,1980,
and transmitted it to the Senate on November 12 of the same year. The Reagan and
first Bush Administrations did not support ratification and the Convention remained
pending in the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. The Clinton Administration
supported ratification, and in 1994 submitted a treaty package to the Senate for
advice and consent to ratification. The package included nine proposed “conditions,”
or “RUDs” to the Convention, including four reservations, three understandings, and
two declarations.14 The Foreign Relations Committee reported the Convention
favorably, but it never came to vote in the full Senate. The reservations
recommended by the Clinton Administration addressed the following:
! “private conduct,” which made clear that the United States “does not
accept any obligation under the Convention to regulate private
conduct except as mandated by the Constitution and U.S. law”;
! “combat assignments,” which stated that the United States “does not
accept an obligation under the Convention to put women in all
combat positions”;
! “comparable worth,” which made clear that the United States would
not accept the doctrine of comparable worth based on the
Convention’s broad description; and
! “paid maternity leave,” which stated that the United States could not
guarantee paid maternity leave as the Convention stipulates because
it is not a requirement under U.S. federal or state law.
The three understandings submitted by the Clinton Administration stated that:
1) the United States will fulfill its obligations under the Convention in a “manner
consistent with its federal role,” recognizing that issues such as education are the
responsibility of state and local governments; 2) the United States will not accept
Convention obligations that restrict freedom of speech or expression; and 3) the
United States and other States Parties may decide the nature of the health and family
planning services referred to in the Convention, and may determine whether they are
13 Additional information and links to specific country reports from the 36th Session of the
CEDAW Committee can be found at [http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/
36sess.htm].
14 RUDs refers to the “reservations, understandings, and declarations” that traditionally
accompany U.S. ratification of a treaty.

---

CRS-5
“necessary” and “appropriate” to distribute. The proposed Clinton Administration
declarations included a “non-self-executing” provision, which proposed that no new
laws would be created as a result of Convention ratification; and a “dispute
settlement” provision, which stated that the United States was not bound by
Convention Article 29(1) which refers unresolved disputes to the International Court
of Justice.15
The Bush Administration supports the Convention’s goal of eradicating
discrimination against women on a global scale, but has several concerns with the
Convention itself.16 These concerns were outlined in 2002, when the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee held hearings on potential ratification of the Convention. A
July 8, 2002 letter from then-Secretary of State Colin Powell to the Foreign Relations
Committee stated that the Convention was under State and Justice Department
review due to concerns regarding “the vagueness of the text of CEDAW and the
record of the official U.N. body [the CEDAW Committee] that reviews and
comments on the implementation.”17 In particular, the Administration cited
“controversial interpretations” of the CEDAW Committee’s recommendations to
States Parties.18 The letter specifically cited a Committee report on Belarus that
“questioned the celebration of mother’s day,”19 and a report on China that “called for
legalized prostitution.”20 According to the Administration, these positions are
“contrary to American law and sensibilities.”21
The Bush Administration also argued that the vagueness of the text opened the
door for broad interpretation by international and domestic entities, and contended
that the 1994 RUDs did not address these interpretation issues. The Administration
also emphasized the importance of ensuring the Convention would not conflict with
U.S. constitutional and statutory laws in areas typically controlled by the States.22 In
light of these concerns, the Administration urged the Foreign Relations Committee
not to vote on the Convention until a full review was complete. The Administration
15 For detailed descriptions of the RUDs, see U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Foreign
Relations, “Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women,”
Report, September 12, 1994. Washington, DC, Government Printing Office (Senate Exec.
Rept. 103-38, 103d Congress, 2d Session), p. 6-8.
16 “Statement by Ambassador Sichan Siv, U.S. Representative to the U.N. Economic and
Social Council,” U.S. Mission to the United Nations Press Release, October 30, 2003.
17 Letter from Secretary of State Colin Powell to Senator Joseph Biden, Chairman of the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee, July 8, 2002.
18 Letter from Daniel J. Bryan, Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, to
Senator Joseph Biden, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, July 26, 2002.
19 U.N. document, A/55/38(SUPP), paragraph 361, January 1, 2000.
20 U.N. document, A/54/38REV.1(SUPP), paragraphs 288-289, January 1, 1999.
21 Letter from Daniel J. Bryan, Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, to
Senator Joseph Biden, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, July 26, 2002.
22 Ibid.

---

CRS-6
review of the Convention began in mid-April 2002, and was confirmed to be ongoing
as of March 14, 2006.23 The current status of the review cannot be readily confirmed.
Senate Actions
The Convention has been pending in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
for over 25 years. The Committee held hearings in 1988 and 1990, but did not vote
to favorably recommend the Convention for advice and consent to the Senate. In June
1994, hearings were held at the request of the Clinton Administration. The
Convention was reported favorably out of the Committee by a vote of 13 to 5, but
was never brought to vote in the full Senate.24
In June 2002, under the Chairmanship of Senator Joseph Biden, the Foreign
Relations Committee held hearings on potential ratification of the Convention. The
Committee heard testimony from non-governmental organizations, individuals from
the academic and other fields, and relevant agencies and organizations arguing for
and against ratification.25 On July 30, 2002, the Committee reported the Convention
favorably by a vote of 12 to 7, subject to four reservations, five understandings, and
two declarations.26 These included the nine RUDs recommended by the Clinton
Administration in 1994, plus two additional understandings. These included a 1994
understanding proposed by Senator Jesse Helms which stated that “nothing in this
Convention shall be construed to reflect or create any right to abortion and in no case
should abortion be promoted as a method of family planning.” In 2002, Senator
Biden sponsored an understanding which stated that “the CEDAW Committee has
no authority to compel parties to follow its recommendations.” The 107th Congress
adjourned before the Senate could vote on the Convention, which remains pending
in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
In subsequent years, the House of Representatives continued to demonstrate an
ongoing interest in the Convention. On February 2, 2005, Representative Lynn
Woolsey introduced a resolution expressing the sense of the House of
Representatives that “the Senate should ratify the Convention on the Elimination of
All Forms of Discrimination against Women.” The proposed resolution currently has
23 “State’s Ponticelli Discusses Women’s Political Participation,” USINFO Webchat
Transcript, March 14, 2006.
24 For more information on the 1994 hearings, see U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on
Foreign Relations, “Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against
Women,” Report, September 12, 1994. Washington, DC, Government Printing Office
(Senate Exec. Rept. 103-38, 103d Congress, 2d Session).
25 Witnesses included Members of Congress, representatives from the World Family Policy
Center, the American Enterprise Institute, Business and Professional Women/USA, and the
former U.S. Representative to the U.N. Commission on the Status of Women.
26 U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Foreign Relations, “Convention on the Elimination
of All Forms of Discrimination against Women,” Report, September 6, 2002. Washington,
DC, Government Printing Office (Senate Exec. Rept. 107-9, 107th Congress, 2d Session),
p. 7-11.

---

CRS-7
115 cosponsors.27 Representative Woolsey introduced similar legislation in the 108th
and 106th Congresses, with 104 and 122 cosponsors, respectively.28
Issues for Congress
This section addresses issues that have emerged in the ongoing debate over
ratification of the Convention. These issues may continue to play a role in the debate
if the Senate considers the Convention during the 110th Congress. Since the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee held hearings on CEDAW in 2002, it appears that the
momentum for ratification within Congress and the Administration has declined, and
it is unclear when and if the Convention might be considered again.
Under the U.S. Constitution, the Senate, along with the President, is responsible
for making treaties.29 Once the President transmits a treaty to the Senate, it is
referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations. The House of Representatives plays
a role in the treaty process only when separate legislative action for implementation
is required. Thus, the issues for Congress discussed herein are issues that may be
included in any consideration of the Convention by the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee and/or the full Senate. If the Senate decides to consider the Convention,
some of the following issues may continue to play a role in the debate over
ratification.
The Effectiveness of the Convention
Whether the Convention has been an effective mechanism for addressing
women’s rights internationally has been a topic of controversy. Proponents of the
Convention, such as Representative Woolsey, describe the Convention as a
“powerful tool” for women globally and emphasize that the United States is the only
industrialized country that has not ratified the Convention.30 Advocates such as
Senators Joseph Biden and Barbara Boxer (D-CA) argue that the Convention
empowers women to achieve equality in their own countries, and cite specific
examples of the Convention’s success in achieving its purpose.31 Some non-
27 H.Res. 67 [109th], introduced February 2, 2005, by Representative Lynn Woolsey,
referred to the Subcommittee on Africa, Global Human Rights and International Relations,
March 17, 2005.
28 H.Res. 21 [108th], introduced January 7, 2003; and H.Res. 107 [106th], introduced March
10, 1999.
29 See Article II, section 2 of the U.S. Constitution. More information on the treaty process
is available at [http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Treaties.htm].
30 Congressional Record, House of Representatives, June 16, 2005, H4612.
31 Senators Joseph Biden and Barbara Boxer, “Op-Ed: Senate Needs to Ratify the Treaty for
the Rights of Women,” San Francisco Chronicle, June 13, 2002. Senators Biden and Boxer
described a Tanzanian woman who reportedly “used the provisions of the treaty to ensure
that she could sell land she inherited from her father, overcoming an initial court ruling
which held that, as a woman, she could not sell land held by the clan.”

---

CRS-8
governmental organizations (NGOs) have also recorded the Convention’s
effectiveness in improving women’s rights in specific countries and regions.32
Opponents of ratification recognize that global discrimination against women
is a problem that should be eliminated, but they do not view the Convention as the
most effective way to achieve this goal. Some contend that the Convention hurts
rather than helps women struggling for human rights internationally. They argue that
the Convention “serves as a facade for continuing atrocities,” in countries that are
State Parties to the Convention, such as China and North Korea.33 Some opponents
also contend that when considering treaty ratification, the Senate should act based on
the standard of what is best for the American people.34
The Convention as a Tool for U.S. Foreign Policy
Congressional and non-congressional supporters of the Convention contend that
U.S. ratification will increase the credibility of the United States abroad and enhance
its ability to champion women’s rights in other countries.35 The 2002 Foreign
Relations Committee report stated that the United States should support ratification
because, among other things, it “will give our diplomats a tool — a means to press
other governments to fulfill their obligations under the Convention.”36 To illustrate
this point, some ratification supporters cite a June 12, 2002 letter to the Foreign
Relations Committee from Dr. Sima Samar, the then-Afghan Minister of Women’s
Affairs. In the letter, Dr. Samar asks the Senate to ratify the Convention, and says
that “we will then be able to tell our countrymen that the United States, where
women already have full legal rights, has just seen the need to ratify this treaty ... we
32 Amnesty International examples of the Convention successes can be found at
[http://www.amnestyusa.org/women/cedaw/world.html].
33 U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Foreign Relations, “Treaty Doc. 96-53; Convention
on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, Adopted by the U.N.
General Assembly on December 18, 1979, and signed on behalf of the United States of
America on July 17, 1980.” Hearing, June 13, 2003. 107th Congress, 2d Session.
Washington, DC, U.S. Government Printing Office, 2002, S.Hrg. 107-530, p. 15.
34 U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Foreign Relations, “Convention on the Elimination
of All Forms of Discrimination against Women,” Report, September 6, 2002. Washington,
DC, Government Printing Office (Senate Exec. Rept. 107-9, 107th Congress, 2d Session),
p. 21.
35 Human Rights Watch stated in a June 13, 2002 letter to the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee, “By ratifying CEDAW, the U.S. government will be in a stronger position to
support women’s rights.... Having not ratified CEDAW, U.S. intervention in support of
women’s rights may be construed as ‘cultural imperialism’ or an ‘American’ agenda, as
opposed to a rights-based approach.”
36 U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Foreign Relations, “Convention on the Elimination
of All Forms of Discrimination against Women,” Report, September 6, 2002. Washington,
DC, Government Printing Office (Senate Exec. Rept. 107-9, 107th Congress, 2d Session),
p. 5.

---

CRS-9
will be able to refer to its terms and guidelines in public debates over what our laws
should say.”37
Opponents of this argument emphasize that the United States “has the strongest
record on opportunities and rights for women in the world,”38 and maintain the
United States does not need to ratify the Convention to further its women’s rights
policies. In the minority views of the 2002 Foreign Relations Committee report,
Senators Helms, Brownback, and Enzi stated that Afghan women were “relieved of
the burden of an oppressive, anti-woman government” by “the personal heroism and
sacrifice” of American forces, and not through a multilateral treaty such as
CEDAW.39
U.S. Sovereignty
The question of whether to ratify the Convention has generated considerable
debate regarding U.S. sovereignty and international law. The minority views in the
2002 Senate Foreign Relations Committee report stated that the Convention
represents “a disturbing international trend” of favoring international law over U.S.
constitutional law and self-government, thereby undermining U.S. sovereignty.40 In
particular, they were concerned that the Convention’s description of discrimination
against women is too broad, and that it may “apply to private organizations and areas
of personal conduct not covered by U.S. law.”41
Supporters of the Convention maintain that ratification would not affect U.S.
sovereignty. Senator Biden stated that the Convention will impose a “minimal
burden” on the United States given that the U.S. Constitution and other existing
federal and state laws already meet the obligations of the Convention. He also stated
that the United States would file several RUDs to ensure that no new laws were
created to meet the obligations of the Convention.42
Social Issues
Some opponents of ratification are concerned that the Convention may catalyze
a pro-abortion movement in the United States and interfere with family rights such
as marriage and parenting. They contend that the Convention is an effort to “redefine
37 Ibid, 6.
38 Ibid, 16.
39 Ibid, 21.
40 Ibid.
41 Ibid, 16.
42 U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Foreign Relations, “Treaty Doc. 96-53; Convention
on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, Adopted by the U.N.
General Assembly on December 18, 1979, and signed on behalf of the United States of
America on July 17, 1980.” Hearing, June 13, 2003. 107th Congress, 2d Session.
Washington, DC, U.S. Government Printing Office, 2002, S.Hrg. 107-530, p. 3.

---

CRS-10
the family,”43 arguing that CEDAW will “help lawyers and other pro-abortion
advocates reach the goal of enshrining unrestricted access to abortion in the United
States.”44 Some opponents are also particularly concerned with the Convention’s
references to “family planning,”45 and state that U.S. ratification of the Convention
will, among other things, undercut parental rights, and lead to gender re-education,
homosexual rights, and legalized prostitution.46
In response to criticism that ratification may impact family planning or abortion
policy in the United States, some supporters emphasize that the word “abortion” is
never mentioned in the Convention text. They refer to a 1994 State Department
determination that the Convention is “abortion neutral,” and contend that several of
the RUDs proposed, such as the understandings on the CEDAW Committee and
abortion, adequately address the concerns of ratification opponents concerned with
family, abortion and family planning issues.47 Some supporters of ratification also
emphasize that countries where abortion is illegal, such as Ireland and Rwanda, have
ratified the Convention.48
Administration Review of the Convention

Opponents of ratification objected to Senate consideration of the Convention
without a full legal and policy review from the Administration. In 2002 some
Members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee argued that the Senate should
not consider the Convention because “eight years of U.S. federal and state
jurisprudence,” had not yet been taken into account.49 Senators representing the
minority view recommended that “the Senate defer action on the Convention until
43 “Women for Faith and Family Statement on CEDAW,” May 25, 2000, available at
[http://www.wf-f.org/CEDAW.html].
44 U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Foreign Relations, “Convention on the Elimination
of All Forms of Discrimination against Women,” Report, September 6, 2002. Washington,
DC, Government Printing Office, (Senate Exec. Rept. 107-9, 107th Congress, 2d Session),
p. 22.
45 The words “family planning” are mentioned in the Introduction, Article 10(h), Article 12,
and Article 14(b) of the Convention.
46 Laurel MacLeod, Catherina Hurlburt, “Exposing CEDAW,” Concerned Women for
America Publication, September 5, 2000. Available at [http://www.cwfa.org/
articledisplay.asp?id=1971&department=CWA&categoryid=nation]. For further
information, see “How U.N. Conventions on Women’s and Children’s Rights Undermine
Family, Religion, and Sovereignty,” by Patrick F. Fagan, The Heritage Foundation
Backgrounder, February 5, 2001.
47 “Myths and Realities: The U.N. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Discrimination against Women,” The United Nations Association of the United States of
America, August 2002, available at [http://www.unausa.org/site/pp.asp?c=fvKRI8MPJpF&
b=337341].
48 “Letter to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Urging that CEDAW Move to the Full
Senate,” Human Rights Watch, July 29, 2002.
49 Ibid, 20.

---

CRS-11
the Administration’s analysis and views are available.”50 A timetable for review was
not put forward or agreed to at the hearing. As of March 14, 2006, the
Administration review was currently ongoing, and there is no indication as to when
it will be completed.
50 U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Foreign Relations, “Convention on the Elimination
of All Forms of Discrimination against Women,” Report, September 6, 2002. Washington,
DC, Government Printing Office, (Senate Exec. Rept. 107-9, 107th Congress, 2d Session)
p. 15.

---

CRS-12
Table 1. States Parties to the Convention on the Elimination of
All Forms of Discrimination against Women
(as of August 11, 2006)
*ratified or acceded to the Optional Protocol
Afghanistan Gabon
Oman
Albania *
Gambia
Pakistan
Algeria Georgia
Panama
*
Andorra *
Germany *
Papua New Guinea
Angola Ghana
Paraguay
*
Antigua and Barbuda *
Greece *
Peru *
Argentina Grenada
Philippines
*
Armenia
Guatemala *
Poland *
Australia Guinea
Portugal
*
Austria *
Guinea-Bissau
Republic of Korea
Azerbaijan *
Guyana
Republic of Moldova *
Bahamas
Haiti
Romania *
Bahrain
Honduras
Russian Federation *
Bangladesh *
Hungary *
Rwanda
Barbados
Iceland *
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Belarus *
India
Saint Lucia
Belgium *
Indonesia
St. Vincent & the Grenadines
Belize *
Iraq
Samoa
Benin
Ireland *
San Marino *
Bhutan
Israel
Sao Tome and Principe
Bolivia *
Italy *
Saudi Arabia
Bosnia & Herzegovina *
Jamaica
Senegal *
Botswana
Japan
Serbia and Montenegro*
Brazil *
Jordan
Seychelles
Brunei Darussalam
Kazakhstan *
Sierra Leone
Bulgaria
Kenya
Singapore
Burkina Faso *
Kiribati
Slovakia *
Burundi
Kuwait
Slovenia *
Cambodia
Kyrgyzstan *
Solomon Islands *
Cameroon *
Lao Peoples Democratic Rep.
South Africa *
Canada *
Latvia
Spain *
Cape Verde
Lebanon
Sri Lanka *
Central African Republic
Lesotho *
Suriname
Chad
Liberia
Swaziland
Chile
Libyan A. Jamahiriya *
Sweden*
China
Liechtenstein *
Switzerland
Colombia
Lithuania *
Syrian Arab Republic
Cook Islands
Luxembourg *
Tajikistan
Comoros
Madagascar
Thailand *
Congo
Malawi
The former Yugoslav Republic
of Macedonia *
Costa Rica *
Malaysia
Timor-Leste
Cote d’Ivoire
Maldives *
Togo
Croatia *
Mali *
Trinidad and Tobago
Cuba
Malta
Tunisia
Cyprus *
Marshall Islands
Turkey *
Czech Republic *
Mauritania
Turkmenistan
Democratic People’s Republic of Korea Mauritius
Tuvalu
Democratic Republic of the Congo
Mexico *
Uganda
Denmark *
Micronesia
Ukraine *
Djibouti
Monaco
United Arab Emirates
Dominica
Mongolia *
United Kingdom *
Dominican Republic *
Morocco
United Republic of Tanzania *
Ecuador *
Mozambique
Uruguay *
Egypt
Myanmar
Uzbekistan
El Salvador
Namibia *
Vanuatu
Equatorial Guinea
Nepal
Venezuela *
Eritrea
Netherlands *
Viet Nam
Estonia
New Zealand *
Yemen
Ethiopia
Nicaragua
Zambia
Fiji
Niger *
Zimbabwe
Finland *
Nigeria *
France *
Norway *

---