The U.N. Convention on the Elimination of
All Forms of Discrimination Against Women
(CEDAW): Issues in the U.S. Ratification
Debate
Luisa Blanchfield
Specialist in International Relations
May 7, 2013
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R40750
CRS Report for Congress
Pr
epared for Members and Committees of Congress
CEDAW: Issues in the U.S. Ratification Debate
Summary
The Senate may consider providing its advice and consent to U.S. ratification of the United
Nations (U.N.) Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women
(CEDAW, or the Convention) during the 113th Congress. CEDAW is the only international human
rights treaty that specifically addresses the rights of women. It calls on States Parties to take
measures to eliminate discrimination against women in all areas of life, including political
participation, employment, education, healthcare, and family structure. CEDAW has been ratified
or acceded to by 187 States Parties. The United States is the only country to have signed but not
ratified the Convention. Other governments that have not ratified the treaty include Iran, Palau,
Somalia, Sudan, and Tonga.
U.S. Actions
President Jimmy Carter signed the Convention and submitted it to the Senate in 1980. The Senate
Foreign Relations Committee held hearings on CEDAW in 1988, 1990, 1994, and 2002. It
reported CEDAW favorably, subject to certain conditions, in 1994 and 2002. To date, however,
the Convention has not been considered by the full Senate.
The election of President Barack Obama focused renewed attention on the possibility of U.S.
ratification of CEDAW. The Administration called the Convention an “important priority,” and in
May 2009 identified it as a treaty on which it “supports Senate action at this time.” At a
November 2010 hearing on CEDAW held by the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on
Human Rights and the Law, Administration officials expressed further support for U.S.
ratification. Then-Ambassador-at-Large for Global Women’s Issues Melanne Verveer stated that
ratification is critical to U.S. efforts to promote and defend women’s rights worldwide. Secretary
of State John Kerry has also expressed support for U.S. ratification of CEDAW.
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee or the full Senate could consider providing its advice
and consent to ratification of the Convention at any time because the treaty has already been
submitted to the Senate. In practice, however, presidential support, sometimes accompanied by
executive branch suggestions for conditions to ratification, has preceded Senate action.
Policy Issues
U.S. ratification of CEDAW is a contentious policy issue that has generated considerable debate
in Congress and among the public.
• CEDAW supporters hold that the Convention is a valuable and effective
mechanism for fighting women’s discrimination worldwide. They argue that U.S.
ratification would give the United States additional legitimacy when it advocates
women’s rights internationally, and that it might empower women who fight
discrimination in specific countries.
• CEDAW opponents maintain that the treaty is not an effective mechanism for
addressing discrimination against women internationally, emphasizing that
countries widely believed to have poor women’s rights records have ratified the
Convention. Critics also contend that U.S. ratification could undermine U.S.
sovereignty and impact the private conduct of U.S. citizens.
This report will be updated as events warrant.
Congressional Research Service
CEDAW: Issues in the U.S. Ratification Debate
Congressional Research Service
CEDAW: Issues in the U.S. Ratification Debate
Contents
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1
Background and Structure ............................................................................................................... 2
Objectives .................................................................................................................................. 2
The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women ................................... 2
Optional Protocol ....................................................................................................................... 3
U.S. Actions ..................................................................................................................................... 3
Obama Administration Position ................................................................................................ 4
Previous Administration Positions............................................................................................. 5
Senate Actions ........................................................................................................................... 7
Issues and Policy Options for the Senate ......................................................................................... 8
Possible Impact on U.S. Sovereignty ........................................................................................ 8
Effectiveness of the Convention ................................................................................................ 9
CEDAW as an Instrument of U.S. Foreign Policy .................................................................. 11
Family Structure and Parental Rights ...................................................................................... 13
Abortion ................................................................................................................................... 15
Family Planning....................................................................................................................... 18
Consideration of Other Treaties ............................................................................................... 19
Options for Treaties Already Submitted to the Senate............................................................. 20
Other Issues in the Ratification Debate ................................................................................... 20
Appendixes
Appendix A. States Parties to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Discrimination Against Women .................................................................................................. 23
Appendix B. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations Consideration of CEDAW:
Timeline and Documentation ...................................................................................................... 25
Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 25
Congressional Research Service
CEDAW: Issues in the U.S. Ratification Debate
Introduction
U.S. policymakers and members of the public have contentiously debated U.S. ratification of the
United Nations (U.N.) Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against
Women (CEDAW, or the Convention) since it was drafted in 1979. CEDAW is the only
international human rights treaty that specifically focuses on the rights of women.1 As of
December 16, 2011, 187 countries have ratified or acceded to the Convention. The United States
is the only nation to have signed but not ratified CEDAW. President Jimmy Carter signed the
Convention and submitted it to the Senate in 1980. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee
(SFRC) held hearings on CEDAW in 1988, 1990, 1994, and 2002, and reported it favorably in
1994 and 2002.2 To date, the treaty has not been considered for advice and consent to ratification
by the full Senate. Other countries that are not parties to CEDAW include Iran, Palau, Somalia,
Sudan, and Tonga.3
The Senate may consider providing advice and consent to U.S. ratification of CEDAW during the
113th Congress. The Barack Obama Administration has expressed support for the Convention,
calling it “an important priority.” In a May 2009 letter to the SFRC, the Obama Administration
identified CEDAW as a human rights treaty on which it “supports Senate action at this time.”
Most recently, Secretary of State John Kerry stated that he supported U.S. ratification of the
Convention.
U.S. policymakers generally agree with CEDAW’s overall objective of eliminating discrimination
against women around the world. Many, however, question whether the Convention is an
appropriate or effective mechanism for achieving this goal. Opponents are concerned that U.S.
ratification would undermine national sovereignty and require the federal government or, worse,
the United Nations to interfere in the private conduct of citizens. They argue that the Convention
is ineffective, and emphasize that countries with reportedly poor women’s rights records—
including China and Saudi Arabia—have ratified CEDAW. Supporters, however, contend that the
Convention is a valuable mechanism for fighting women’s discrimination worldwide. They argue
that U.S. ratification will give CEDAW additional legitimacy and empower women who aim to
eliminate discrimination in their own countries.
This report addresses CEDAW’s background, objectives, and structure and provides an overview
of U.S. policy toward the Convention. It examines issues that have been raised in the U.S.
ratification debate, including the treaty’s impact on U.S. sovereignty, the effectiveness of the
Convention, and its possible use as an instrument of U.S. foreign policy. It also describes
controversial provisions and CEDAW Committee recommendations addressing the role of
women in society and women’s equal access to education and healthcare.
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 Appendix B for a timeline of SFRC consideration of CEDAW. In November 2010, the Senate Judiciary
Committee Subcommittee on Human Rights and the Law held a hearing on U.S. ratification of CEDAW.
3 See Appendix A for a list of countries that are parties to the Convention.
Congressional Research Service
1
CEDAW: Issues in the U.S. Ratification Debate
Background and Structure
U.N. member states adopted several treaties addressing 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).4 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 that laid the groundwork for CEDAW. Subsequently, the U.N.
Commission on the Status of Women drafted CEDAW, which the General Assembly adopted on
December 18, 1979.5 The Convention entered into force on September 3, 1981, after receiving the
required 20 ratifications.
Objectives
CEDAW calls on States Parties to take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination
against women in all areas of life. This includes equality in legal status, political participation,
employment, education, healthcare, and the family structure. Article 2 of the Convention specifies
that States Parties should undertake 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.6
It specifically calls for equal pay with men, more attention to the equality of rural women, the
freedom to choose a marriage partner, and the suppression of trafficking in women and girls.
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 CEDAW, as a mechanism to monitor the progress of the
Convention’s implementation. 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. Each State Party may nominate one expert, and if
elected, the expert serves a four-year term.7 The majority of the Committee members are women
4 More information on international treaty bodies relating to women’s rights is available at http://www.un.org/
womenwatch/directory/instruments_treaties_1003.htm.
5 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, and social realms.
6 Article 1, CEDAW. The text of the treaty is available at http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/text/
econvention.htm.
7 Some human rights treaties provide for a separate body to monitor implementation of the treaty by States Parties.
Congressional Research Service
2
CEDAW: Issues in the U.S. Ratification Debate
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, which are elected by Committee
members. The Chairperson directs the discussion and decision-making process of the Committee
and represents the Convention at international conferences and events. The Committee reports
annually on its activities to the U.N. General Assembly through the U.N. Economic and Social
Council and meets twice a year at the U.N. Office in Geneva. As one of seven U.N. human rights
treaty bodies, the Committee is financed from the U.N. regular budget. It was previously
supported by the U.N. Division for the Advancement of Women, but since January 2008 it has
been serviced by the U.N. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.
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 a 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 cross-cutting
issues of concern. The general recommendations are non-binding, and there is no mechanism for
their enforcement. The Committee has made nearly 30 general recommendations since 1986
covering a wide range of issues affecting women, such as improvement in education and public
information programs, elimination of female circumcision, equality in marriage and family
relations, and preventing violence against women.8
Optional Protocol
On October 6, 1999, the U.N. General Assembly adopted an Optional Protocol to strengthen the
Convention.9 The Protocol entered into force in December 2000, and has been ratified by 104
countries. It is a stand-alone treaty that can be signed or ratified by countries that are not party to
the main treaty. It includes a “communications procedure” that permits groups or individuals to
file complaints with the CEDAW Committee. It also incorporates an “inquiry procedure” that
allows the Committee to explore potential abuses of women’s rights in States Parties to CEDAW.
U.S. Actions
Successive U.S. Administrations and Members of Congress have supported the Convention’s
overall objective of eliminating discrimination against women. They have disagreed, however, as
to whether the Convention is an effective or appropriate means of achieving this goal.
8 A full list of CEDAW Committee general recommendations can be found at http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/
cedaw/comments.htm.
9 Optional Protocols sometimes accompany treaties, and are stand-alone agreements under international law.
Congressional Research Service
3
CEDAW: Issues in the U.S. Ratification Debate
Obama Administration Position
The Obama Administration has expressed support for the Convention. On January 15, 2009,
Susan Rice, U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations, stated at her Senate
confirmation hearing that CEDAW “will be an important
priority” for the Administration.10 In May of the same year,
Steps in the U.S. Process of Making
the Obama Administration identified CEDAW as a human
Multilateral Treaties
rights treaty on which it “supports Senate action at this time,”
The making of multilateral treaties for the United
prompting some to speculate that the Administration may
States involves a series of steps that generally
include (1) negotiation and conclusion; (2) signing
transmit the treaty to the Senate Foreign Relations
by the President; (3) transmittal to the Senate by
Committee (SFRC) for its advice and consent.11 In March
the President, which may include any proposed
2010, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced that the
reservations, declarations, and understandings; (4)
Administration “will continue to work for the ratification of
referral to the Senate Committee on Foreign
CEDAW.”12
Relations; (5) committee consideration and report
to the Senate recommending approval and a
proposed resolution of ratification, which may
At a November 2010 Subcommittee on Human Rights and
include reservations, declarations, or
the Law hearing, then- Ambassador-at-Large for Global
understandings; (6) Senate approval of advice and
Women’s Issues Melanne Verveer supported U.S. ratification
consent to ratification by a two-thirds majority; (7)
of CEDAW, noting that it is critical to U.S. efforts to
ratification by the President; (8) deposit of
instrument of ratification; and (9) proclamation.
“promote and defend the rights of women” worldwide.13 At
the same hearing, Samuel Bagenstos of the Department of
While the House of Representatives does not
participate in the treaty-making process, both
Justice Civil Rights Division expressed support for CEDAW
chambers must act if a treaty requires implementing
ratification to “express more forcefully our [the United
legislation.1
States’] commitment to the rights of women in the United
States and to further opportunities for girls and women around the world.”14 Most recently,
Secretary of State John Kerry expressed his support for U.S. ratification of CEDAW at his
January 2013 nomination hearing before SFRC.15
10 Congressional Transcripts, Congressional Hearings, “Senate Foreign Relations Committee Holds Hearing on the
Nomination of Susan Rice to be the U.S. Representative to the United Nations,” Congressional Quarterly, January 15,
2009.
11 Treaty Priority List for the 111th Congress. (Letter from Richard R. Verna, Assistant Secretary, Legislative Affairs,
U.S. State Department, to Senator John F. Kerry, Chairman, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate, May
11, 2009.)
12 U.S. Department of State, Remarks at the U.N. Commission on the Status of Women by Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton, March 12, 2010. Administration officials have expressed concern regarding some aspects of the CEDAW
Committee’s country reports. In a November 2011 statement before U.N. member states, an Administration official
stated, “There is much in those [CEDAW Committee] reports with which the United States agrees. However, there are
other aspects with which we do not.” (Statement by Laurie Shestack Phipps, Adviser for Economic and Social Affairs,
of Position on draft resolution A/C.3/66/L.21 – CEDAW under Agenda Item 28(a) Advancement of Women, U.S.
Mission to the United Nations, November 3, 2011.)
13 Testimony of Melanne Verveer before the Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Human Rights and the
Law, at the hearing, Women’s Rights are Human Rights: U.S. Ratification of CEDAW, November 18, 2010.
14 Testimony of Samuel R. Bagenstos of the Department of Justice Civil Division before the Senate Judiciary
Committee Subcommittee on Human Rights and the Law, at the hearing, Women’s Rights are Human Rights: U.S.
Ratification of CEDAW, November 18, 2010.
15 Congressional Quarterly Transcript, Confirmation Hearing on the Nomination of Massachusetts Democratic Senator
John Kerry to be Secretary of State, January 24, 2013.
Congressional Research Service
4
CEDAW: Issues in the U.S. Ratification Debate
Previous Administration Positions
President Carter signed the Convention on July 17, 1980, and submitted it to the Senate for advice
and consent on November 12 of the same year. The Reagan and first Bush Administrations did
not support ratification, and the Convention
remained pending in the SFRC.
Reservations, Understandings, and
Declarations that may Accompany
U.S. Ratification of Multilateral
Clinton Administration
Treaties
The Clinton Administration supported CEDAW
The Senate Committee on Foreign Relations may
ratification and in 1994 sent a treaty package to
recommend that the Senate approve a treaty
conditionally, granting its advice and consent subject
the Senate for advice and consent to ratification.
to certain stipulations that the President must accept
The package included nine proposed reservations,
before proceeding to ratification. These stipulations
understandings, and declarations (RUDs) to the
are generally referred to as “Reservations,
Convention.16 (RUDs often accompany U.S.
Understandings, and Declarations” (RUDs). The
ratification of a treaty. See text box.) The SFRC
President may also propose RUDs at the time he
transmits the treaty to the Senate or during the
reported the Convention favorably, but it never
Senate’s consideration of the treaty.
came to vote in the full Senate because of
opposition from several Senators. The
Reservations are specific qualifications or stipulations
that modify U.S. obligations without necessarily
reservations recommended by the Clinton
changing the treaty language.
Administration addressed the following issues:
Understandings are interpretive statements that
• “private conduct,” which made clear that
clarify or elaborate, rather than change, the
provisions of an treaty. They are generally deemed to
the United States “does not accept any
be consistent with the obligations imposed by the
obligation under the Convention to
treaty.
regulate private conduct except as
Declarations are statements of purpose, policy, or
mandated by the Constitution and U.S.
position related to matters raised by the treaty in
law”;
question but not altering or limiting any of its
provisions.
• “combat assignments,” which stated that
the United States “does not accept an
obligation under the Convention to put women in all combat positions”;17
• “comparable worth,” which made clear that the United States would not accept
the doctrine of comparable worth based on the Convention’s broad description;18
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 federal or state law.19
16 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 Together with Minority Views to Accompany
Ex. R, 96-2, 103rd Cong., 2nd sess., October 3 (legislative day, September 12), 1994, Senate Exec. Rept. 103-38.
17 This reservation refers to CEDAW Article 2 that obligates States Parties to pursue “by all appropriate means ... a
policy of eliminating discrimination against women.”
18 This refers to CEDAW Article 11(1)(d) that says that States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to eliminate
discrimination against women in the field of employment in order to ensure “The right to equal remuneration, including
benefits, and to equal treatment in respect of work of equal value, as well as equality of treatment in the evaluation of
the quality of work.”
19 This reservations refers to CEDAW Article 11(2)(b) that states, “In order to prevent discrimination against women
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
5
CEDAW: Issues in the U.S. Ratification Debate
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 “necessary” and “appropriate.”20 The Clinton Administration’s proposed declarations
included a “non-self-executing” provision, which stated that no new laws would be created as a
result of CEDAW, and a “dispute settlement” provision, which stated that the United States was
not bound by Convention Article 29(1) that refers unresolved disputes to the International Court
of Justice.
George W. Bush Administration
The Bush Administration stated that it supported the Convention’s goal of eradicating
discrimination against women on a global scale but had several concerns with the Convention.21
These concerns were outlined in 2002, when the SFRC held hearings on potential CEDAW
ratification. Then-Secretary of State Colin Powell wrote a letter to the SFRC stating that the
Convention was under the State and Justice Departments’ review because of 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.”22 In particular, the
Administration cited “controversial interpretations” of the CEDAW Committee’s
recommendations to States Parties.23 Powell’s letter specifically noted a Committee report on
Belarus that “questioned the celebration of Mother’s Day,” and a report on China that “called for
legalized prostitution.” These positions, Powell argued, were “contrary to American law and
sensibilities.”24
The Bush Administration further maintained that the vagueness of the CEDAW text opened the
door for broad interpretation by international and domestic entities and that the 1994 RUDs
proposed by the Clinton Administration did not address these interpretation issues. It 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.25 In light of these
concerns, the Administration urged the SFRC not to vote on the Convention until a full legal
(...continued)
on the grounds of marriage or maternity and to ensure their effective right to work, States Parties shall take appropriate
measures ... To introduce maternity leave with pay or with comparable social benefits without loss of former
employment, seniority or social allowances.”
20 For more information, see the “Family Planning” section.
21 U.S. Mission to the United Nations press release, “Statement by Ambassador Sichan Siv, U.S. Representative to the
U.N. Economic and Social Council,” October 30, 2003.
22 Letter from Colin Powell, Secretary of State, to Senator Joseph Biden, Chairman, Senate Committee on Foreign
Relations, July 8, 2002.
23 Letter from Daniel J. Bryan, Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, to Senator Joseph Biden,
Chairman, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, July 26, 2002.
24 Ibid. See U.N. document, A/55/38(SUPP), p. 37, paragraph 361 (2000) for the Committee’s recommendation related
to Mother’s Day; and U.N. document, A/54/38/REV.1(SUPP), paragraphs 288-289, January 1, 1999 for the
Committee’s recommendation related to prostitution.
25 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
6
CEDAW: Issues in the U.S. Ratification Debate
review was complete. The review began in mid-April 2002. On February 7, 2007, the
Administration transmitted a letter to the Senate stating that it did not support the Senate taking
action on the Convention at that time.26
Senate Actions
CEDAW has been pending in the SFRC for over 25 years. The committee held hearings in 1988
and 1990 but did not vote to recommend the Convention for advice and consent of the full
Senate.27 With support from the Clinton Administration, the SFRC held another round of
ratification hearings in June 1994. The committee reported the Convention favorably with a vote
of 13 to 5 in September 1994, but the 103rd Congress adjourned before it could be brought to vote
in the full Senate.28 The Republican Party was elected as the majority in the 104th Congress, and
the incoming chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Jesse Helms, did not allow
further consideration of CEDAW because of his concerns regarding its possible impact on U.S.
sovereignty and U.S. laws, including those related to abortion and family planning.29
In June 2002, the debate over U.S. ratification of CEDAW gained momentum as the SFRC again
held hearings on ratification of the Convention. 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.30 These included the nine RUDs recommended by the Clinton Administration in
1994, plus two additional understandings. The first additional understanding included a proposal
from Senator Jesse Helms, who was then the ranking minority Member, 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.” The second additional
understanding addressed the impact of the CEDAW Committee on U.S. law, stating, “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. (See Appendix B for a
timeline of SFRC consideration of CEDAW.)31
26 Letter from Jeffrey T. Bergner, Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs, U.S. Department of State, to Senator
Joseph Biden, Chairman, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, February 7, 2007.
27 The 1988 hearing, Issues Relating to the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Discrimination Against Women, was held before the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Narcotics and International
Operations of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.
28 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 Together with Minority Views to
Accompany Ex. R, 96-2, 103rd Cong., 2nd sess., October 3 (legislative day, September 12), 1994, Senate Exec. Rept.
103-38.
29 For more information on Senator Helms’ position, see U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations,
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, Report Together with Minority Views
to Accompany Ex. R, 96-2, 103rd Cong., 2nd sess., October 3 (legislative day, September 12), 1994, Senate Exec. Rept.
103-38, pp. 53-54. Moreover, in 2000, Senator Helms stated, “if I have anything to do with it [CEDAW ratification] –
and I think I do – it will never see the light of day on my watch.” Senate, Congressional Record, vol. 146 (May 11,
2000), p. S3926.
30 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 Cong., 2nd sess.), pp. 7-11.
31 During the 111th Congress, the Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Human Rights and the Law held a
hearing on CEDAW entitled, Women’s Rights Are Human Rights: U.S. Ratification of the Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW).
Congressional Research Service
7
CEDAW: Issues in the U.S. Ratification Debate
On November 18, 2010, the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Human Rights and
the Law held a public hearing, “Women’s Rights Are Human Rights: U.S. Ratification of the
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW),”
representing the first Senate hearing on CEDAW in eight years. Witnesses included Melanne
Verveer, then-Ambassador-at-Large for Global Women’s Issues at the Department of State;
Samuel R. Bagenstos, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General at the Department of Justice;
Wazhma Frogh of the Afghan Women’s Network; Marcia D. Greenberger of the National
Women’s Law Center; actress and activist Geena Davis; and Steven Grove of The Heritage
Foundation.
Though it has no direct role in providing advice and consent to ratification of treaties, the House
of Representatives has demonstrated a continued interest in CEDAW. In January 2013,
Representative Lynn Woolsey introduced H.Res. 19 expressing the sense of the House of
Representatives that the Senate should ratify the Convention. As of May 7, 2013, the resolution
has 57 cosponsors. Similar House resolutions were introduced in the 106th through 112th
Congresses.
Issues and Policy Options for the Senate
Some policy decisions and issues may continue to play a role in the debate if the Senate considers
providing its advice and consent to ratification during the 113th Congress.
Possible Impact on U.S. Sovereignty
For many policymakers, the question of U.S. ratification of CEDAW touches on the broader issue
of national sovereignty. The minority views in the 2002 SFRC report on the Convention, for
instance, state that CEDAW represents “a disturbing international trend” of favoring international
law over U.S. constitutional law and self-government, thereby undermining U.S. sovereignty.32
Opponents are particularly concerned that if the United States ratifies the Convention, the
CEDAW Committee would have authority over the actions of the U.S. government and private
citizens regarding discrimination against women. Many critics, for example, have taken issue
with the Committee’s recommendations regarding abortion, Mother’s Day, and prostitution.33
CEDAW advocates maintain that U.S. ratification would not affect national sovereignty. During
Senate debate in 2002, for instance, proponents argued that the Convention would impose a
“minimal burden” on the United States given that the Constitution and other existing federal and
state laws already meet the obligations of the Convention.34 Supporters also emphasize that the
32 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Discrimination Against Women, Report Together With Minority and Additional Views to Accompany Treaty Doc. 96-
53, 107th Cong., 2nd sess., September 6, 2002, Exec. Rept. 107-9, p. 16.
33 See, for instance, Patrick F. Fagan, How U.N. Conventions on Women’s and Children’s Rights Undermine Family,
Religion, and Sovereignty, Heritage Foundation, Backgrounder 1407, Washington, DC, February 5, 2001, at
http://www.heritage.org/research/internationalorganizations/bg1407.cfm.; and Wendy Wright, CEDAW Committee
Rulings, Concerned Women for America, August 27, 2002.
34 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 on December 18, 1979,
and Signed on Behalf of the United States of America on July 17, 1980, Hearing Before the Committee on Foreign
Relations, 107th Cong., 2nd sess., June 13, 2002, S. Hrg. 107-530, p. 3.
Congressional Research Service
8
CEDAW: Issues in the U.S. Ratification Debate
United States would likely file several reservations, understandings, and declarations (RUDs) to
the Convention, including a non-self-executing declaration that would require Congress to enact
implementing legislation to bring CEDAW’s provisions into use—thereby addressing any
potential conflicts with existing U.S. laws. Advocates further contend that the actions of the
CEDAW Committee would not affect domestic laws or the private lives of U.S. citizens. They
maintain that the Committee relies primarily on individual countries to fulfill their obligations
under the Convention and that it has no established rules for enforcing its recommendations or
addressing treaty non-compliance.35 In order to alleviate ongoing concerns regarding the
Committee’s role, during the 2002 Senate ratification debate then-SFRC Chairman Senator
Joseph Biden proposed an understanding stating the CEDAW Committee does not have the
authority to compel States Parties to follow its recommendations.
Effectiveness of the Convention
A major point of contention among supporters and opponents of U.S. ratification is whether
CEDAW is an effective mechanism for addressing women’s rights internationally. Opponents
generally recognize that global discrimination against women is a problem that should be
eliminated, but they do not view the Convention as an effective way to achieve this goal. They
emphasize that many countries widely believed to have poor women’s rights records ratified the
Convention. In support of this view, critics point to Saudi Arabia, a State Party to CEDAW, which
does not allow women to vote, even though such a policy contradicts Article 7 on political
participation.36 Some also contend that the Convention hurts rather than helps women struggling
to achieve human rights internationally—arguing that CEDAW serves as a “facade for continuing
atrocities” in countries that have ratified it.37
Supporters of U.S. ratification maintain that CEDAW is an effective mechanism for improving
women’s rights globally. They contend that the Convention is a formal mechanism through which
to draw attention to women’s issues on both a national and international level, particularly in
developing countries.38 To support this position, they cite studies and research conducted on
CEDAW’s implementation. The U.N. Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM) (now UN
Women), for example, found that some countries, including Brazil and Colombia, incorporated
language into their national constitutions to reflect CEDAW provisions or objectives.39 In June
35 See Leila Rassekh Milani, Sarah C. Albert, and Karina Purushotma, CEDAW: The Treaty for the Rights of Women -
Rights that Benefit the Entire Community, Working Group on the Ratification of CEDAW, Washington, DC, p. 50; and
American Bar Association, Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women: Fear vs.
Fact, Washington, DC, April 19, 2009.
36 See Helen Jones and Kas Wachala, “Watching Over the Rights of Women,” Social Policy and Society, vol. 5, no. 1
(2006), pp. 129-130; and Human Rights Watch, Saudi Arabia: Women’s Rights Promises Broken, July 8, 2009.
37 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 on December 18, 1979,
and Signed on Behalf of the United States of America on July 17, 1980, Hearing Before the Committee on Foreign
Relations, 107th Cong., 2nd sess., June 13, 2002, S. Hrg. 107-530, p. 15.
38 See, for example, a January 3, 2013, letter from over 100 non-governmental and women’s rights organizations to
Members of the U.S. Senate urging ratification of CEDAW during the 113th Congress and noting that “CEDAW is
already making a difference worldwide,” at http://cedaw2013.org/index.php/component/content/article/68; and “Op-
Ed: Senate Needs to Ratify the Treaty for the Rights of Women,” by Senators Joseph Biden and Barbara Boxer, San
Francisco Chronicle, June 13, 2002.
39 UNIFEM further reported that CEDAW was cited in court decisions related to women’s rights in Australia,
Colombia, Costa Rica, and India. See Bringing Equality Home: Implementing the Convention on the Elimination of All
Forms of Discrimination Against Women, edited by Ilana Landsber-Lewis, UNIFEM, 1998.
Congressional Research Service
9
CEDAW: Issues in the U.S. Ratification Debate
2000, York University and the International Women’s Rights Project (IWRP) conducted the First
CEDAW Impact Study, which highlighted evidence of CEDAW’s effectiveness at the national
level and identified circumstances that contributed to successful implementation of the
Convention. The study found that in Turkey CEDAW was cited in numerous court cases
regarding discrimination against women; while in Nepal, the Ministry of Women and Social
Welfare formed a taskforce to review all laws that were inconsistent with the Convention.40 In
addition, a 2010 study by the International Center for Research on Women found that:
• in Saudi Arabia, CEDAW is being used to draft a new law that allows women
lawyers to try family cases in court (under current law they cannot do so);
• in the Philippines in 2009, the government introduced the Magna Carta of
Women (Republic Act No. 9710), a comprehensive women’s rights law that relies
heavily on CEDAW provisions and definitions;
• in Costa Rica in 2003, the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court ruled
that the Legislative Assembly President had not named a proportionate number of
women to the Assembly’s permanent committees, which was inconsistent with
the Costa Rican constitution and Article 7 of CEDAW; and
• in Zambia in 1997, the High Court ruled in Longwe v. Intercontinental Hotels
that the Intercontinental Hotel discriminated against women under the Zambian
constitution and Articles 1, 2, and 3 of CEDAW because it refused to allow
women to enter the premises unaccompanied by a male companion.41
Despite such progress, supporters have acknowledged that much work needs to be done to
achieve full implementation of CEDAW. In particular, the IWRP impact study identified several
barriers to the Convention’s implementation, including (1) the alienation of national governments
from civil society, (2) lack of support from governments, (3) difficulty in implementing gender-
integrated policies, and (4) lack of public awareness. Similarly, UNIFEM acknowledged that
CEDAW’s effectiveness is “largely dependent on the political will of governments.”42
Both supporters and opponents of U.S. ratification have expressed concern with some of the
RUDs filed by States Parties that appear to undermine the intent and effectiveness of the treaty.43
For instance, several countries—including Egypt, Iraq, Malaysia, and Syria—submitted
reservations stating that certain provisions would not apply if they are deemed incompatible with
Islamic Shari’a law or values. Similarly, Niger filed a reservation to a provision calling on States
Parties to modify social and cultural patterns related to the conduct of men and women, while
40 The First CEDAW Impact Study: Final Report, York University Centre for Feminist Research and the International
Women’s Rights Project, June 2000, available at http://www.iwrp.org/CEDAW_Impact_Study.htm.
41 Drawn from Ann Warner, Recognizing Rights, Promoting Progress, The Global Impact of the Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), International Center for Research on Women,
Washington, DC, 2010.
42 Bringing Equality Home: Implementing the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against
Women, edited by Ilana Landsber-Lewis, UNIFEM, 1998, p. 9. In addition, the American Bar Association (ABA) Rule
of Law Initiative, in collaboration with USAID, has developed assessments tools measuring CEDAW implementation
in specific countries, including Armenia, Georgia, Russia and Serbia.
43 See, for instance, “U.S. Ratification of Human Rights Conventions: The Ghost of Senator Bricker,” by Louis Henkin,
The American Journal of International Law, vol. 89:431, (April 1995) pp. 341-350; and “Making CEDAW Universal:
A Critique of CEDAW’s Reservation Regime under Article 28 and the Effectiveness of the Reporting Process,” by
Jennifer Riddle, George Washington University International Law Review, vol. 34, (2002) pp. 605-638.
Congressional Research Service
10
CEDAW: Issues in the U.S. Ratification Debate
North Korea filed a reservation to a provision that calls on States Parties to modify or abolish
existing laws that constitute discrimination against women.44 When filing their own reservations,
other States Parties—including Canada, France, and the United Kingdom—formally objected to
the inclusion of these reservations, stating that they conflict with Article 28(2) of CEDAW, which
states that a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention shall not be
permitted.45
Many CEDAW proponents acknowledge the concerns regarding RUDs; however, they maintain
that the benefits of the Convention’s almost universal ratification outweighs the drawbacks of
conditions imposed by some States Parties.46 Supporters also emphasize that a number of
governments have decided to withdraw or modify RUDs because their national laws, policies, or
priorities have changed. Examples of countries that have withdrawn reservations include the
Bahamas, France, Germany, and Ireland.47
CEDAW as an Instrument of U.S. Foreign Policy
CEDAW proponents 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.48 They argue
that U.S. non-ratification leads other governments to question the U.S. commitment to combating
discrimination against women, thereby hindering its ability to advocate women’s rights
internationally. For example, at a 2010 hearing before the Senate Subcommittee on Human Rights
and the Law, then-Ambassador Verveer stated that CEDAW non-ratification “deprives us [the
United States] of a powerful tool to combat discrimination against women ... because as a non-
party, it makes it more difficult for us to press other parties to live up to their commitments under
the treaty.”49 At the same hearing, Wazhma Frogh, a women’s rights activist from Afghanistan,
44 States Parties that filed similar RUDs regarding Islamic law include Bahrain, Kuwait, Libya, Maldives, Mauritania,
Monaco, Morocco, Oman, Pakistan, and the United Arab Emirates. See Article 5(a) for Niger, and Article 2(f) for
North Korea.
45 Denmark, for instance, objected to the reservations of Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and Syria which stated that CEDAW
would not apply if it was not in accordance with Islamic law. Austria, Canada, the Czech Republic, France, and the
United Kingdom filed objections to similar reservations made by other Islamic countries. Finland, France, and Portugal
objected to the reservations filed by North Korea, while Denmark and Norway objected to the reservations of Niger.
46 Specifically, some argue that maximizing the number of countries that ratify human rights treaties such as CEDAW
may also enhance the force and impact of national laws developed as a result of a country’s ratification. See Catherine
Logan Piper, “Reservations to Multilateral Treaties: The Goal of Universality,” University of Iowa Law Review, vol.
71, (1985) p. 1.
47 For example, the Bahamas withdrew reservations related to Article 16 (equality in marriage and family relations);
France withdrew reservations related to Article 7 (equality in political and public life), Article 15 (equality under the
law), and Article 16; Germany withdrew reservations related to Article 7; Ireland withdrew reservations related to
Article 9 (equal right to nationality), Article 11 (equality in employment), Article 13 (equality in economic and social
life), and Article 15. Other countries that have withdrawn reservations include New Zealand, South Korea, and the
United Kingdom. A list of RUDs and withdrawals are available at http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=
TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-8&chapter=4&lang=en#28.
48 A 2002 SFRC report, for example, states that the United States should support ratification because it would “give our
[U.S.] diplomats a tool ... to press other governments to fulfill their obligations under the Convention.” See 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 Cong., 2nd sess.), p. 5. Also see Nancy F. Kaufman, “New Tools for Mideast Peace,” The Hill, March 18, 2013.
49 The Ambassador also noted that “Some governments use the fact that the U.S. has not ratified the treaty as a pretext
for not living up to their own obligations under it.” Testimony of Melanne Verveer before the Senate Judiciary
Committee Subcommittee on Human Rights and the Law, at the hearing, Women’s Rights are Human Rights: U.S.
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
11
CEDAW: Issues in the U.S. Ratification Debate
stated that U.S. failure to ratify CEDAW “is of huge international significance,” and noted that
conservative elements in Afghanistan “use American’s failure to ratify CEDAW to attack
[Afghan] women’s rights defenders.”50
Supporters also maintain that the United States might be viewed as hypocritical because it expects
countries to adhere to international standards that it does not itself follow.51 In support of this
position, some point to U.S. statutes that require foreign assistance to be based on a recipient
country’s compliance with “internationally recognized human rights.”52 Many also hold that U.S.
ratification would give the United States additional fora in which to combat discrimination
against women, particularly if a U.S. citizen were elected to the CEDAW Committee. Serving on
the Committee, supporters argue, would provide the United States with an opportunity to share its
expertise and experience in combating discrimination against women with other countries.53
Critics contend that the United States is already an international leader in promoting and
protecting women’s rights and that CEDAW ratification would not affect its ability to advocate
such issues internationally.54 They argue that current U.S. laws and policies regarding gender
discrimination serve as an example of the United States’ commitment to women’s equality. In
addition, many assert that CEDAW and, more broadly, other human rights treaties, are meant for
countries with lesser human rights records than the United States.55 Some critics have also voiced
reluctance to bring the question of U.S. obligations under international human rights treaties to
other countries, particularly those with poor human rights records. Many opponents are also
concerned that the CEDAW Committee could be used as a platform for unfounded political
criticisms of the United States.56 Moreover, they contend that U.S. ratification would not affect
(...continued)
Ratification of CEDAW, November 18, 2010.
50 Testimony of Wazhma Frogh of the Afghan Women’s Network before the Senate Judiciary Committee
Subcommittee on Human Rights and the Law, at the hearing, Women’s Rights are Human Rights: U.S. Ratification of
CEDAW, November 18, 2010.
51 “The Charade of U.S. Ratification of International Human Rights Treaties,” by Kenneth Roth, Executive Director of
Human Rights Watch, Chicago Journal of International Law, Fall 2000. In addition, Human Rights Watch stated in a
June 13, 2002, letter to the SFRC, “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.”
52 For instance, §116(a) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended (P.L. 87-195) states, “No assistance may be
provided ... to the government of any country which engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of
internationally recognized human rights.” Similarly, §502B(a)(1) of that Act states, “a principal goal of the foreign
policy of the United States shall be to promote the increased observance of internationally recognized human rights by
all countries.” Further, §502B(a)(2) states, “no security assistance may be provided to any country the government of
which engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights.”
53 Leila Rassekh Milani et al., CEDAW: The Treaty for the Rights of Women - Rights that Benefit the Entire
Community, Working Group on the Ratification of CEDAW, Washington, DC, p. 18.
54 Prepared statement of Steven Groves of The Heritage Foundation before the Senate Judiciary Committee
Subcommittee on Human Rights and the Law, at the hearing, Women’s Rights are Human Rights: U.S. Ratification of
CEDAW, November 18, 2010.
55 Christopher J. Kicka and William A. Estrada, Special Report: The U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, The
Most Dangerous Attack on Parent’s Rights in the History of the United States, Home School Legal Defense
Association, November 1, 1999, updated March 2007.
56 See Rebecca J. Cook, “Reservations to the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women,”
Virginia Journal of International Law, vol. 30, (1990) p. 643; and Belinda Clark, “The Vienna Convention
Reservations Regime and the Convention on Discrimination Against Women,” American Journal of International Law,
vol. 85, (April 1991) pp. 281-321.
Congressional Research Service
12
CEDAW: Issues in the U.S. Ratification Debate
the laws and policies addressing discrimination against women in other countries. They further
emphasize that improvements in the status of women in nations such as China and Sudan can be
made only by the governments of these countries.57
Family Structure and Parental Rights
Many opponents of CEDAW are concerned that U.S. ratification would undermine U.S. privacy
laws and policies—particularly those relating to family structure and the rights and
responsibilities of parents.58 Some, for example, have taken issue with provisions that they
believe could be interpreted to undermine traditional family roles. Article 5(a), for instance, calls
on States Parties to take all appropriate measures
(a) To modify the social and cultural patterns of conduct of men and women, with a view to
achieving the elimination of prejudices ... which are based on ... the idea of the inferiority or
the superiority of either of the sexes or on stereotyped roles for men and women;
(b) To ensure that family education includes ... recognition of the common responsibility of
men and women in the upbringing and development of their children, it being understood
that the interest of the children is the primordial consideration in all cases.
Such language has prompted critics to contend that CEDAW obligates governments, families, and
individuals to adhere to a predetermined or artificial set of values, regardless of whether they
align with national law, family traditions, or personal convictions. Specifically, some argue that
the Convention dismisses “established moral and ethical principles” that are based on human
nature and experience, and discriminates against the “traditional” family and a “diversity of
cultures and religious beliefs.”59
CEDAW proponents counter that the Convention does not obligate States Parties to redefine or
regulate gender roles or family structures. They note that Article 5 calls on States Parties to take
“all appropriate measures” [emphasis added], thereby leaving it to governments to determine
what actions are appropriate based on their domestic laws and policies.60 Some further argue that
Article 5 addresses gender stereotypes in the context of their possible link to violence against
women. To support this position, they point to the CEDAW Committee General
Recommendations on Violence Against Women. Recommendation 19, for instance, relates
“traditional attitudes by which women are regarded as subordinate to men or as having
stereotyped roles” to “practices involving violence or coercion.”61 Consequently, some contend,
57 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 Cong., 2nd sess.), p. 54.
58 Laurel MacLeod and Catherina Hurlburt, Exposing CEDAW: Concerned Women for America Strongly Opposes
CEDAW, Concerned Women for America, September 5, 2000.
59 “Women for Faith and Family Statement on the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Discrimination Against Women,” Women for Faith and Family, May 25, 2000.
60 Testimony of Marcia D. Greenberger of the National Women’s Law Center before the Senate Judiciary Committee
Subcommittee on Human Rights and the Law, at the hearing, Women’s Rights are Human Rights: U.S. Ratification of
CEDAW, November 18, 2010.
61 CEDAW Committee General Recommendation 19 (11th session, 1992). Also see General Recommendation 12 (8th
session, 1989).
Congressional Research Service
13
CEDAW: Issues in the U.S. Ratification Debate
Article 5(b) addressing family planning education primarily refers to public education, grant, or
information programs that aim to combat violence against women.62
Another area of concern is CEDAW’s possible impact on the role of women as mothers and
caregivers. Many opponents are particularly critical of the CEDAW Committee’s
recommendation to Belarus in 2000 that expressed concern regarding the “continuing prevalence
of sex-role stereotypes and by the reintroduction of such symbols as a Mother’s Day ... which it
sees as encouraging women’s traditional roles.”63 Some point to this statement as evidence of
CEDAW redefining the family and the role of women in society.64 In response to such concerns,
supporters argue that the Committee was not criticizing Mother’s Day; rather, it was responding
to Belarus’s celebration of the holiday as the only response to the obstacles women face in that
country. Proponents further emphasize that the Committee has reviewed the reports of many other
countries that celebrate Mother’s Day and made no similar comments.65
A number of critics also contend that U.S. ratification of CEDAW may undermine parental rights.
Opponents have taken issue with Article 16(d), which says that States Parties shall take all
appropriate measures to ensure that women receive “the same rights and responsibilities as
parents ... in matters relating to their children; in all cases the interest of the children shall be
paramount.”66 Opponents are concerned that such language could be interpreted to give the
CEDAW Committee authority to determine what is in the best interest of U.S. children, thereby
undermining the rights and responsibilities of parents.67 Proponents, however, contend that
CEDAW supports the role of parents in child-rearing, emphasizing that it calls for the “common
responsibility of men and women in the upbringing and development of their children.”68
Furthermore, they argue that CEDAW would not affect parental rights because the U.S.
Constitution limits government interference in private matters, including parenting.69
Recognizing the concerns of many CEDAW opponents regarding the Convention’s possible
impact on the private lives of U.S. citizens—particularly relating to family and parenting—in
1994 the Clinton Administration proposed a “private conduct” reservation to the Convention. It
stated 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.”70 Some CEDAW
62 Leila Rassekh Milani et al., CEDAW: The Treaty for the Rights of Women - Rights that Benefit the Entire
Community, Working Group on the Ratification of CEDAW, Washington, DC, p. 51.
63 U.N. document, A/55/38(SUPP), p. 37, paragraph 361 (2000).
64 See Laurel MacLeod and Catherina Hurlburt, Exposing CEDAW, Concerned Women for America strongly opposes
CEDAW, Concerned Women for America, September 5, 2000; and U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee, Why a
Pro-Women Senate Should Not Ratify CEDAW, August 14, 2002.
65 Testimony of Marcia D. Greenberger before the Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Human Rights and
the Law, at the hearing, Women’s Rights are Human Rights: U.S. Ratification of CEDAW, November 18, 2010.
66 Leila Rassekh Milani et al., CEDAW: The Treaty for the Rights of Women - Rights that Benefit the Entire
Community, Working Group on the Ratification of CEDAW, Washington, DC, pp. 54, 61-62.
67 See, for instance, Women for Faith and Family Statement on the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All
Forms of Discrimination Against Women, Women for Faith and Family, May 25, 2000. Similar language is included in
Article 5(b), which says that States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to recognize “the common responsibility
of men and women in the upbringing and development of their children, it being understood that the interest of the
children is the primordial consideration in all cases.”
68 Article 5(b), CEDAW.
69 American Bar Association, Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women: Fear vs.
Fact, Washington, DC, April 19, 2009.
70 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
14
CEDAW: Issues in the U.S. Ratification Debate
supporters object to the inclusion of the proposed reservation, arguing that the United States
should strive to adhere to the treaty’s provisions regarding gender stereotypes. They contend that
a private conduct reservation implies a “lack of political commitment” by the United States and
indicates that it views CEDAW as “applicable only in other countries.”71
Abortion
A significant issue in the CEDAW ratification debate centers on whether the Convention takes a
position on abortion or is “abortion neutral.” Many who support U.S. ratification hold that the
treaty is abortion neutral because the word “abortion” is never mentioned in the Convention’s
text. This point of view was shared by the Clinton Administration, which declared the treaty
abortion neutral in 1994.72 Supporters also emphasize that many countries where abortion is
regulated or illegal, including Burkina Faso, Colombia, and Ireland, ratified the Convention
without associated reservations, understandings, or declarations (RUDs), and regularly report to
the CEDAW Committee.73
Many opponents of U.S. ratification argue that while CEDAW does not include the word
“abortion,” parts of the Convention text could be interpreted to undermine current U.S. abortion
law. Specifically, some have taken issue with Article 12(1), which states that countries “shall take
all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women in the field of health care in
order to ensure ... access to health care services, including those related to family planning.”
Critics have also expressed concern regarding Article 16(1)(e), which requires that States Parties
take all appropriate measures to ensure that women have the right to “decide freely and
responsibly on the number and spacing of their children.” Opponents suggest that such language
could lead to the abolishment of state parental notification laws, require federal funding for
abortions, or obligate the U.S. government to promote and provide access to abortion.74 Two
States Parties to the Convention—Malta and Monaco—explicitly stated in their reservations to
CEDAW that they do not interpret Article 16(1)(e) as imposing or forcing the legalization of
abortion in their respective countries.
(...continued)
Discrimination Against Women, Report Together with Minority Views to Accompany Ex. R, 96-2, 103rd Cong., 2nd
sess., October 3 (legislative day, September 12), 1994, Senate Exec. Rept. 103-38. This reservation was also included
in 2002 when the SFRC reported the Convention favorably in July of that year.
71 National Organization for Women (NOW), Legal Analysis of CEDAW RDUs: Joint Position of the Lawyers
Committee for Human Rights and the NOW Legal Defense Fund, September 26, 1994, available at
http://www.now.org/issues/global/cedaw_analysis.html.
72 Prepared Testimony of Jamison S. Borek, Deputy Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State, on U.S. Ratification of
CEDAW. U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Discrimination Against Women (Ex. R, 96-2), Hearing Before the Committee on Foreign Relations, 103rd Cong., 2nd
sess., October 27, 1994, S. Hrg. 103-892, p. 13.
73 See Leila Rassekh Milani et al., CEDAW: The Treaty for the Rights of Women - Rights that Benefit the Entire
Community, Working Group on the Ratification of CEDAW, Washington, DC, pp. 59-60; and American Bar
Association, Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, Fear vs. Fact, April 19,
2009.
74 Letter from Douglas Johnson, Legislative Director, National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), and Jeanne E. Head,
R.N., Vice President for International Affairs, NRLC, to Members of the U.S. Senate, March 25, 2009; and Grace
Smith Melton, CEDAW: How U.N. Interference Threatens the Rights of American Women, Heritage Foundation,
Backgrounder No. 2227, Washington, DC, January 9, 2009.
Congressional Research Service
15
CEDAW: Issues in the U.S. Ratification Debate
CEDAW supporters counter such criticisms by emphasizing that Articles 12 and 16 call on States
Parties to take all “appropriate measures” [emphasis added], thereby leaving it up to States
Parties to determine what actions are appropriate based on their domestic laws and policies. To
support this view, some have cited the negotiating history of CEDAW,75 which appears to
demonstrate the intent of some countries to keep the Convention’s text intentionally ambiguous
so that the treaty could be ratified by countries with a wide range of domestic laws and policies.76
CEDAW Committee Recommendations Related to Abortion
The CEDAW Committee’s recommendations to States Parties regarding abortion are a
particularly controversial aspect of the U.S. ratification debate. Many opponents of CEDAW,
particularly pro-life advocates, are strongly critical of the Committee because, in their view, it
calls on States Parties to support and encourage abortion despite the fact that it is never
mentioned in the CEDAW text.77 As evidence of this, critics point to the Committee’s General
Recommendation 24, which elaborates on CEDAW Article 12(1) addressing women’s equal
access to health care, including family planning services. The Committee recommends that “when
possible, legislation criminalizing abortion could be amended to remove punitive provisions
imposed on women who undergo abortion.”78 Opponents also criticize Committee
recommendations to individual countries that appear to encourage the decriminalization or
legalization of abortion and oppose conscientious objector policies. In 1998, for example, the
Committee recommended to Mexico that “all states ... should review their legislation so that,
where necessary, women are granted access to rapid and easy abortion.”79 More recently, in 2007,
the Committee urged Poland “to ensure that women seeking legal abortion have access to it, and
that their access is not limited by the use of the conscientious objection clause.”80 In addition,
opponents have suggested that the Committee’s interpretation of CEDAW could be used as a
basis for challenging abortion laws in the United States and other countries. In particular, some
critics have expressed concern with a May 2006 decision by the Constitutional Court of
Colombia, which cited CEDAW when it determined that abortion should not be considered a
crime in all circumstances (such as rape or incest and when the life of the mother is in danger).81
75 According to international law, a treaty may be interpreted by taking into account the preparatory work and
negotiations related to the treaty text. Specifically, Article 32 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
states, “Recourse may be had to supplementary means of interpretation, including the preparatory work of the treaty
and the circumstances of its conclusion, in order to confirm the meaning resulting from the application of Article 31, or
to determine the meaning when the interpretation according to Article 31: (a) leaves the meaning ambiguous or
obscure; or (b) leads to a result which is manifestly absurd or unreasonable.” The United States signed the Vienna
Convention on April 24, 1970, but the Senate has not given its advice and consent to ratification. According to the State
Department, the United States “considers many of the provisions of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties to
constitute customary international law on the law of treaties.”
76 See, for instance, U.N. document, A/C.3/33/L.47/Add.2*, December 4, 1978, paragraph 223, “Introducing his
amendment, the representative of Bahrain stated that its intention was to allow a wide range of understanding, since it
was important that [CEDAW] articles on civil and family rights be consistent with national laws.”
77 Wendy Wright, CEDAW Committee Rulings - Examples of U.N. CEDAW Committee Rulings Reveal How Dangerous
the Treaty Would be to Americans, Concerned Women for America, August 27, 2002.
78 CEDAW Committee General Recommendation 24, 20th session, 1999, at http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/
cedaw/recommendations/recomm.htm#recom24.
79 U.N. document, A/53/38/Rev.1, May 14, 1998.
80 U.N. document, CEDAW/C/POL/CO/6, February 2, 2007.
81 Ioana Ardelean, An Ominous Sampling of International Efforts to Force Abortion on Reluctant Nations, Culture of
Life Foundation, at http://culture-of-life.org//content/view/497/1/. Excerpts from the Colombian Court’s decision (C-
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
16
CEDAW: Issues in the U.S. Ratification Debate
As mentioned previously, many CEDAW supporters emphasize that the purpose of the
Committee is to consider the progress of States Parties’ implementation of the Convention. They
point out that CEDAW has no established mechanism for non-compliance and that it relies
primarily on States Parties to fulfill their treaty obligations.82 Further, proponents contend that
many of the Committee recommendations to States Parties demonstrate its overall opposition to
abortion as a method of family planning. In 2006, for example, the Committee expressed concern
that in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia “abortion continues to be used as a method
of birth control.”83 Similarly, in 2007 the Committee noted with concern that in Greece “due to
inadequate access to family planning and contraceptive methods, abortion is often used by
women and adolescent girls as a method of birth control.”84 Moreover, supporters maintain that
the overall goal of the Committee is to encourage States Parties to reduce abortion rates through
education and family planning. Consequently, some argue, the Committee makes
recommendations regarding abortion only in very specific circumstances, such as when (1) a
nation demonstrates a high rate of abortion, indicating that voluntary family planning education
and resources are needed to reduce the abortion rate; (2) a country appears to rely on abortion as a
method of family planning; or (3) a country reports that unsafe and illegal abortions contributed
to high mortality rates.85
The U.S. “Helms Understanding” on Abortion (2002)
In June 2002, under the chairmanship of former Senator Joseph Biden, the SFRC held hearings
on CEDAW ratification. On July 30, 2002, the committee reported the Convention favorably by a
vote of 12 to 7, subject to several RUDs. One of the understandings was a proposal from Ranking
Member Senator Jesse Helms that stated “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.”86 This “Helms understanding” was included as a compromise to alleviate the concerns
of pro-life advocates who were concerned that CEDAW ratification could affect U.S. abortion
laws.
Though some pro-choice women’s groups favoring U.S. ratification questioned whether the
understanding was necessary or appropriate, they recognized that its inclusion could increase the
chances of U.S. ratification—which they believed would improve the lives of women both
domestically and abroad. Conversely, other women’s groups that supported U.S. ratification
opposed the inclusion of the Helms understanding because, in their view, it would encourage
(...continued)
355/06) are available at http://www.womenslinkworldwide.org/pdf_pubs/pub_c3552006.pdf.
82 Leila Rassekh Milani et al., CEDAW: The Treaty for the Rights of Women - Rights that Benefit the Entire
Community, Working Group on the Ratification of CEDAW, Washington, DC, pp. 59-60.
83 U.N. document, CEDAW/C/MKD/CO/3, February 3, 2006, paragraph 31.
84 U.N. document, CEDAW/C/GRC/CO/6, February 2, 2007, paragraph 25. Also see paragraph 36 of U.N. document,
CEDAW/C/CTI/CO/7, February 10, 2009, addressing Haiti, which states that the Committee is concerned at the
“frequent use of abortion as a family planning measure.”
85 Leila Rassekh Milani et al., CEDAW: The Treaty for the Rights of Women - Rights that Benefit the Entire
Community, Working Group on the Ratification of CEDAW, Washington, DC, pp. 59-60.
86 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 Cong., 2nd sess.), p. 7. The “Helms understanding” was originally proposed in 1994. (See
Senate Exec. Rep. 103-38, 103rd Cong., 2nd sess., p. 52.)
Congressional Research Service
17
CEDAW: Issues in the U.S. Ratification Debate
countries that have ratified CEDAW to view it as abortion neutral. They argued that such an
interpretation could add legitimacy to efforts of other governments that prohibit abortion and
infringe on women’s reproductive rights.87
Some pro-life opponents of U.S. ratification were satisfied that the Helms understanding would
address their concerns regarding the Convention’s impact on U.S. abortion laws. Many, however,
believed that it would fail to ensure that domestic abortion laws would not be affected by U.S.
ratification. In particular, they argued that abortion should be addressed as a “reservation” to the
Convention instead of as an “understanding.” (An understanding is an interpretive statement that
is generally considered to have less authority than a reservation under international law.) Some
also suggested that the inclusion of the Helms understanding would have no impact on the
recommendations of the CEDAW Committee. They further argued that the understanding would
most likely not prevent pro-choice organizations from advocating for fewer abortion restrictions
in the United States.88
Family Planning
A number of CEDAW opponents are concerned with specific references to family planning in the
Convention text, including the following:
• Article 10(h), addressing education, calls on States Parties to take all appropriate
measures to ensure “access to specific educational information to help and ensure
the health and well-being of families, including information and advice on family
planning.” Many fear that this could lead to mandatory sex education in both
public and private U.S. schools.89
• Article 12(1), addressing healthcare, calls on States Parties to take all appropriate
measures to “eliminate discrimination against women in the field of health care
in order to ensure, on a basis of equality of men and women, access to health care
services, including those related to family planning.”90 Many are concerned that
such language could require the U.S. government to distribute family planning
materials or contraceptives at schools or in public. Some also assert that
CEDAW’s references to access to family planning could be interpreted to include
abortion.91
87 See Global Justice Center, False Choices, Sacrificing Equality to Get CEDAW (Draft Version), November 9, 2007;
and Joanna Pozen, The High Price of Compromise, RH Reality Check, September 18, 2007.
88 See Letter from Douglas Johnson, Legislative Director, National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), and Jeanne E.
Head, R.N., Vice President for International Affairs, NRLC, to Members of the U.S. Senate, March 25, 2009, Women
for Faith and Family, WFF Statement on the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Discrimination Against Women, May 25, 2000; and Laurel MacLeod and Catherina Hurlburt, Exposing CEDAW,
Concerned Women for America Strongly Opposes CEDAW, Concerned Women for America, September 5, 2000.
89 Some have also expressed concern regarding CEDAW Committee recommendations regarding sex education. On
January 28, 2002, for instance, the Committee urged Russia to “include sex education in the school curriculum.” See
U.N. document, A/57/38. For further examples, see Wendy Wright, CEDAW Committee Rulings, Concerned Women
for America, August 27, 2002.
90 In addition, Article 12(2) states, “States Parties shall ensure to women appropriate services in connection with
pregnancy, confinement and the post-natal period, granting free services where necessary, as well as adequate nutrition
during pregnancy and lactation.”
91 See Letter from Douglas Johnson, Legislative Director, National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), and Jeanne E.
Head, R.N., Vice President for International Affairs, NRLC, to Members of the U.S. Senate, March 25, 2009; and
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
18
CEDAW: Issues in the U.S. Ratification Debate
• Article (12)(2) calls on States Parties to “ensure to women appropriate services in
connection with pregnancy, confinement and the post-natal period, granting free
services where necessary, as well as adequate nutrition during pregnancy and
lactation.” Some interpret this to mean that the U.S. government could be
required to pay for family planning services, including abortion.
• Article 14(2)(b), addressing problems faced by rural women, calls on States
Parties to take all appropriate measures to “have access to adequate health care
facilities, including information, counseling and services in family planning.”
The concerns regarding this provision are similar to those expressed regarding
Article 12(1).
CEDAW supporters counter these concerns by emphasizing that the Convention calls on States
Parties to take “all appropriate measures” [emphasis added], thereby leaving it to governments to
determine what constitutes access to family planning. In support of this, they point to the
negotiating history of the Convention that indicates that the text was left intentionally ambiguous
to allow for states with different family planning policies to ratify the Convention.92 To address
the concerns of some Convention opponents, in 1994 the Clinton Administration proposed an
understanding to CEDAW that said that the United States
understands that Article 12 permits States Parties to determine which health care services are
appropriate in connection with family planning, pregnancy, confinement, and the post-natal
period, as well as when the provision of free services is necessary, and does not mandate the
provision of particular services on a cost-free basis.93
Proponents argue that such an understanding allows for the United States to provide its own
interpretation of family planning; however, others counter that its inclusion is “superfluous”
because the CEDAW text already provides for such interpretations through its use of the terms
“appropriate” and “necessary.”94
Consideration of Other Treaties
The Senate may consider providing its advice and consent to other treaties during the 113th
Congress—including the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, the U.N. Convention on the
Rights of the Child (CRC), and the U.N. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
(CRPD).95 These treaties, like CEDAW, have generated considerable debate because of concerns
(...continued)
Women for Faith and Family, CEDAW Action Alert, August 22, 2002.
92 According to accounts of CEDAW’s negotiating history, “Some countries were opposed to the mention of ‘family
planning services’ in paragraph 1 [of Article 12], since these did not exist everywhere and it could result in the refusal
to ratify the convention.” See Lars Adam Rehof, Guide to the Trauvaux Preparatoires of the United Nations
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (The Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff
Publishers, 1993), p. 145.
93 This understanding was also included in the list of RUDs accompanying CEDAW when it was reported favorably by
the SFRC on July 30, 2002. See Senate Exec. Rept. 107-9, 107th Cong., 2nd sess., p. 12.
94 National Organization for Women (NOW), Legal Analysis of CEDAW RDUs: Joint Position of the Lawyers
Committee for Human Rights and the NOW Legal Defense Fund, September 26, 1994.
95 For more information on CRC and CRPD, see CRS Report R40484, The United Nations Convention on the Rights of
the Child, by Luisa Blanchfield, and CRS Report R42749, The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons
with Disabilities: Issues in the U.S. Ratification Debate, coordinated by Luisa Blanchfield.
Congressional Research Service
19
CEDAW: Issues in the U.S. Ratification Debate
that they might undermine U.S. sovereignty and affect current U.S. laws and policies. In
particular, the debate over U.S. ratification of CRC, which aims to protect the rights of children,
includes many issues similar to CEDAW—including the Convention’s possible effect on
education, parental rights, and healthcare. Unlike CEDAW, however, CRC has not been submitted
to the Senate by the President. Consequently, the Senate cannot yet consider providing its advice
and consent to ratification.
Options for Treaties Already Submitted to the Senate
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee (SFRC) or the full Senate could consider providing its
advice and consent to ratification of the Convention at any time because the treaty has already
been submitted to the Senate. In practice, however, presidential support, sometimes accompanied
by executive branch suggestions for conditions on ratification, has preceded Senate action. For
example, the Senate considered the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime
of Genocide, the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment
or Punishment, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights after being strongly
urged to do so by Presidents Reagan (with respect to Genocide and Torture) and George H. W.
Bush (with respect to Torture and Civil and Political Rights).
Options for the Senate include the following:
• The SFRC continuing to take no action on CEDAW. The treaty may be left as it
currently stands, as pending SFRC business, with the Senate neither giving nor
rejecting advice and consent to ratification.
• The Senate giving its advice and consent to ratification without recommending
any reservations, understandings, and declarations (RUDs).
• The Senate giving its advice and consent subject to the RUDs proposed by
previous Administrations (Presidents Carter and Clinton) and/or by the current
Administration.
• The Senate giving its approval for advice and consent, with RUDs proposed by
the SFRC or by Members on the Senate floor.
• The Senate rejecting the treaty if more than one-third of the Senators present vote
against U.S. ratification.
• The Senate requesting, by resolution, that the Convention be withdrawn and sent
back to the President without any action.
Other Issues in the Ratification Debate
A number of other issues may arise in the CEDAW ratification debate if the Senate considers
providing its advice and consent to ratification during the 113th Congress. These issues involve
the effect of the Convention on the private conduct of citizens, as well as its impact on current
U.S. laws and policies.
Congressional Research Service
20
CEDAW: Issues in the U.S. Ratification Debate
Decriminalization of Prostitution
Article 6 of CEDAW says that States Parties shall take all appropriate measures, including
legislation, to “suppress all forms of traffic of women and exploitation of prostitution of women.”
Some critics contend that the CEDAW Committee has made recommendations that contradict the
intent of this provision and could obligate States Parties to decriminalize or legalize prostitution.96
Specifically, in 1999 the Committee expressed its concern in a report on China that prostitution
“which is often a result of poverty and economic deprivation, is illegal,” and recommended that it
be decriminalized by the Chinese government.97 Supporters, however, assert that the Convention
does not support prostitution, and emphasize that the Committee made the recommendation in an
effort to reduce high levels of prostitution in China. They argue that regulating prostitution might
make it easier for prostitutes who are victims of violence to come forward without fear of
retaliation or shame, undergo treatment for sexually transmitted diseases, or receive access to
education.98
Definition of Discrimination
CEDAW opponents argue that the Convention’s definition of discrimination against women is too
broad and that it could apply to private organizations and areas of personal conduct not covered
by U.S. law.99 A primary point of contention is the use of the phrase “any other field,” which
some interpret to mean that CEDAW could interfere in the private lives of individuals—including
family life or religious practices. Critics have also expressed concern that such a broad definition
could lead to an increase in “frivolous” lawsuits.100 Supporters, however, hold that the CEDAW
definition of violence against women would not undermine U.S. laws regarding discrimination,
particularly if the Senate files a non-self-executing declaration stating that no new laws would be
created as a result of the treaty’s ratification. They also emphasize that U.S. ratification of the
International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD),
which includes a definition of racism, did not lead to an increase in the number of lawsuits.101
Still others maintain that applying the CEDAW definition to U.S. law would improve domestic
96 Prepared statement of Steven Groves of The Heritage Foundation before the Senate Judiciary Committee
Subcommittee on Human Rights and the Law, at the hearing, Women’s Rights are Human Rights: U.S. Ratification of
CEDAW, November 18, 2010.
97 U.N. document, A/54/38 (Part I), May 4, 1999, p. 32, paragraphs 288-289.
98 Leila Rassekh Milani et al., CEDAW: The Treaty for the Rights of Women - Rights that Benefit the Entire
Community, Working Group on the Ratification of CEDAW, Washington, DC, p. 52.
99 Article 1 of CEDAW 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.”
100 Women for Faith and Family, Women for Faith and Family Statement on the United Nations Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, May 25, 2000.
101 CERD defines racial discrimination as “any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, color,
descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition,
enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic,
social, cultural or any other field of public life.” It entered into force on January 4, 1969, has been ratified or acceded to
by 173 U.N. member states. It was ratified by the United States on October 21, 1994, and entered into force on
November 20 of the same year.
Congressional Research Service
21
CEDAW: Issues in the U.S. Ratification Debate
discrimination laws; however, they acknowledge that to do so would likely require separate
action by Congress or the Administration.102
Equal Access to Education
Some opponents have taken issue with CEDAW provisions addressing equal access to education.
Specifically, Article 10(b) calls on States Parties to take all appropriate measures to ensure that
men and women receive “access to the same curricula ... examinations, teaching staff with
qualifications of the same standard and school premises and equipment of the same quality.”
Some contend that this provision could require U.S. parents to send their children to public
schools instead of single-sex schools, private schools, or home schools. Some have also expressed
concern with Article 10(d), which calls on States Parties to ensure “the elimination of any
stereotyped concept of the roles of men and women at all levels and in all forms of education ...
by the revision of textbooks and school programs and the adaptation of teaching methods.” Some
critics hold that implementation of this provision might lead to “gender re-education” in U.S.
schools that could include re-writing curricula to reflect gender neutrality.103 CEDAW supporters
argue that the intent of the text is to ensure that girls and boys have equal access to education
services, facilities, and curricula, regardless of whether they attend a single or mixed-sex school.
They also note that CEDAW does not specifically mention single-sex schools.104
Same-Sex Marriage
Some CEDAW opponents who oppose same-sex marriage hold that Article 1, which defines
discrimination against women as “any distinction, exclusion or restriction made on the basis of
sex,” could obligate the United States to legalize same-sex marriage because not allowing a
woman to marry another woman could be viewed as a form of discrimination.105 Others, however,
maintain that CEDAW’s aim is to address discrimination against women rather than men.
Consequently, they argue, a same-sex marriage claim in the context of CEDAW would be
ineffective because the treaty applies only to women.106
102 See Leila Rassekh Milani et al., CEDAW: The Treaty for the Rights of Women - Rights that Benefit the Entire
Community, Working Group on the Ratification of CEDAW, Washington, DC, p. 51; and American Bar Association,
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women: Fear vs. Fact, April 19, 2009.
103 Laurel MacLeod and Catherina Hurlburt, Exposing CEDAW, Concerned Women for America strongly opposes
CEDAW, Concerned Women for America, September 5, 2000.
104 Amnesty International USA, Support the Treaty for the Rights of Women (CEDAW): Fact Versus Fiction, 2009.
105 Grace Smith Melton, CEDAW: How U.N. Interference Threatens the Rights of American Women, Heritage
Foundation, Backgrounder No. 2227, Washington, DC, January 9, 2009.
106 American Bar Association, Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women: Fear vs.
Fact, April 19, 2009. Proponents also point out that many countries that have ratified CEDAW have banned same-sex
marriage. For more information, see CRS Report RL31994, Same-Sex Marriages: Legal Issues, by Alison M. Smith.
Congressional Research Service
22
CEDAW: Issues in the U.S. Ratification Debate
Appendix A. States Parties to the Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against
Women
Afghanistan
Central African Republic
Georgia*
Albania* Chad
Germany*
Algeria
Chile
Ghana*
Andorra* China
Greece*
Angola*
Colombia*
Grenada
Antigua and Barbuda*
Cook Islands*
Guatemala*
Argentina* Comoros
Guinea
Armenia*
Congo
Guinea-Bissau*
Australia* Costa
Rica* Guyana
Austria* Cote
d’Ivoire*
Haiti
Azerbaijan* Croatia*
Honduras
Bahamas Cuba
Hungary*
Bahrain Cyprus*
Iceland*
Bangladesh* Czech
Republic* India
Barbados
Democratic People’s Republic of
Indonesia
Korea
Belarus*
Democratic Republic of the Congo
Iraq
Belgium* Denmark* Ireland*
Belize* Djibouti Israel
Benin
Dominica
Italy*
Bhutan Dominican
Republic*
Jamaica
Bolivia* Ecuador* Japan
Bosnia & Herzegovina*
Egypt
Jordan
Botswana* El
Salvador
Kazakhstan*
Brazil* Equatorial
Guinea*
Kenya
Brunei Darussalam
Eritrea
Kiribati
Bulgaria* Estonia
Kuwait
Burkina Faso*
Ethiopia
Kyrgyzstan*
Burundi
Fiji
Lao Peoples Democratic Rep.
Cambodia* Finland*
Latvia
Cameroon* France*
Lebanon
Canada* Gabon*
Lesotho*
Cape Verde*
Gambia
Liberia
Congressional Research Service
23
CEDAW: Issues in the U.S. Ratification Debate
Libyan A. Jamahiriya*
Pakistan
Suriname
Liechtenstein*
Papua New Guinea
Swaziland
Lithuania* Paraguay*
Sweden*
Luxembourg* Peru*
Switzerland*
Madagascar
Philippines*
Syrian Arab Republic
Malawi Poland*
Tajikistan
Malaysia Portugal* Thailand*
Maldives*
Qatar
The former Yugoslav Republic
of Macedonia*
Mali*
Republic of Korea*
Timor-Leste*
Malta
Republic of Moldova*
Togo
Marshall Islands
Romania*
Trinidad and Tobago
Mauritania
Russian Federation*
Tunisia*
Mauritius* Rwanda*
Turkey*
Mexico*
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Turkmenistan*
Micronesia Saint
Lucia
Tuvalu
Monaco
St. Vincent & the Grenadines
Uganda
Mongolia* Samoa
Ukraine*
Montenegro*
San Marino*
United Arab Emirates
Morocco
Sao Tome and Principe
United Kingdom*
Mozambique*
Saudi Arabia
United Republic of Tanzania*
Myanmar Senegal*
Uruguay*
Namibia* Serbia*
Uzbekistan
Nauru Seychel es* Vanuatu*
Nepal* Sierra
Leone
Venezuela*
Netherlands* Singapore
Viet
Nam
New Zealand*
Slovakia*
Yemen
Nicaragua Slovenia*
Zambia
Niger* Solomon
Islands*
Zimbabwe
Nigeria* South
Africa*
Norway* Spain*
Oman Sri
Lanka*
Panama*
St. Kitts and Nevis*
Source: U.N. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.
Note: * = ratified or acceded to the Optional Protocol.
Congressional Research Service
24
CEDAW: Issues in the U.S. Ratification Debate
Appendix B. Senate Committee on Foreign
Relations Consideration of CEDAW: Timeline and
Documentation
• November 12, 1980—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. Ex. R, 96-2. (Treaty Doc. 96-53.)
• December 5, 1988—Public hearing. (S. Hrg. 100-1039.)
• August 2, 1990—Public hearing. (S. Hrg. 101-1119.)
• September 27, 1994—Public hearing. (S. Hrg. 103-892.)
• September 29, 1994—Ordered reported, 13 in favor, 5 against.
• October 3, 1994—Reported, with four reservations, four understandings, and
two declarations, and with minority views. (Exec. Rept. 103-38.)
(Automatically re-referred under Paragraph 2 of Rule XXX of the Standing Rules of the Senate.)
• June 13, 2002—Public hearing. (S. Hrg. 107-530.)
• July 25, 2002—Discussion during business meeting.
• July 30, 2002—Ordered reported, 12 in favor, 7 against.
• September 6, 2002—Reported with four reservations, five understandings and
two declarations. (Exec. Rept. 107-9.)
(Automatically re-referred under paragraph 2 of Rule XXX of the Standing Rules of the Senate.)
Sources: Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, CRS.
Notes: Due to Senate computerization of Executive Clerk records, all treaties must conform to
the same numbering system. In the case of treaties prior to the 97th Congress, the new treaty
number is denoted in parentheses. All votes are by voice unless otherwise indicated.
Author Contact Information
Luisa Blanchfield
Specialist in International Relations
lblanchfield@crs.loc.gov, 7-0856
Congressional Research Service
25