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

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.

Date of Report: May 7, 2013
Number of Pages: 29
Order Number: R40750
Price: $29.95

To Order:

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

The United Nations Human Rights Council: Issues for Congress

Luisa Blanchfield
Specialist in International Relations

On March 15, 2006, the U.N. General Assembly passed a resolution replacing the Commission on Human Rights with a new Human Rights Council (the Council). The Council was designed to be an improvement over the Commission, which was widely criticized for the composition of its membership when perceived human rights abusers were elected as members. The General Assembly resolution creating the Council modified voting procedures, increased the number of meetings per year, and introduced a “Universal Periodic Review” process to assess each member state’s fulfillment of its human rights obligations, among other things.

The United States, under the George W. Bush Administration, was one of four countries to vote against the resolution. The Administration maintained that the Council structure was no better than the Commission and that it lacked mechanisms for maintaining credible membership. During the Council’s first two years, the Bush Administration expressed concern with the Council’s disproportionate focus on Israel and lack of attention to other human rights situations. In mid- 2008, it announced that the United States would withhold a portion of its contributions to the 2008 U.N. regular budget equivalent to the U.S. share of the Human Rights Council budget. The Administration further stated that the United States would engage with the Council only in matters of deep national interest.

In March 2009, the Barack Obama Administration announced that the United States would run for a seat on the Council. The United States was elected as a Council member by the U.N. General Assembly in May 2009, and its term began its term in June. The Administration argues that it furthers the United States’ interest “if we are part of the conversation and present at the Council’s proceedings.” At the same time, however, it calls the Council’s trajectory “disturbing,” particularly its “repeated and unbalanced” criticisms of Israel. On November 5, 2010, the United States underwent the Council’s universal periodic review process for the first time. It was elected to the Council for a second consecutive term in November 2012.

Since its establishment, the Council has held 22 regular sessions and 19 special sessions. The regular sessions addressed a combination of specific human rights abuses and procedural and structural issues. Six of the 19 special sessions addressed the human rights situation in the Occupied Palestinian territories and in Lebanon. Four of the special sessions focused on Syria, while others addressed Burma (Myanmar), Cote d’Ivoire, Darfur, Haiti, Libya, and Sri Lanka. The Council held a five-year review of its work in March 2011. Some participants, including the United States, felt the review did not sufficiently address the Council’s weaknesses, particularly its focus on Israel and lack of mechanisms for ensuring credible membership.

Congress maintains an ongoing interest in the credibility and effectiveness of the Council in the context of both human rights and broader U.N. reform. Most recently, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012 (Division I, the Department of State Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2012, P.L. 112-74) required that the Secretary of State report to Congress on resolutions adopted by the Council. The Act also stated that funds may be made available for voluntary contributions or payments of U.N. assessments in support of the Human Rights Council “if the Secretary of States determines and reports to the Committees on Appropriations that participation in the Council is in the national interest of the United States.”


Date of Report: April 30, 2013
Number of Pages: 25
Order Number: RL33608
Price: $29.95

To Order:

RL33608.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

U.S.-EU Cooperation Against Terrorism

Kristin Archick
Specialist in European Affairs

The September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States and the subsequent revelation of Al Qaeda cells in Europe gave new momentum to European Union (EU) initiatives to combat terrorism and improve police, judicial, and intelligence cooperation among its member states. Other deadly incidents in Europe, such as the Madrid and London bombings in 2004 and 2005 respectively, injected further urgency into strengthening EU counterterrorism capabilities and reducing barriers among national law enforcement authorities so that information could be meaningfully shared and suspects apprehended expeditiously. Among other steps, the EU has established a common definition of terrorism and a common list of terrorist groups, an EU arrest warrant, enhanced tools to stem terrorist financing, and new measures to strengthen external EU border controls and improve aviation security.

As part of its drive to bolster its counterterrorism capabilities, the EU has also made promoting cooperation with the United States a top priority. Washington has largely welcomed these efforts, recognizing that they may help root out terrorist cells both in Europe and elsewhere, and prevent future attacks against the United States or its interests abroad. Contacts between U.S. and EU officials on police, judicial, and border control policy matters have increased substantially since 2001. A number of new U.S.-EU agreements have also been reached; these include informationsharing arrangements between the United States and EU police and judicial bodies, two new U.S.-EU treaties on extradition and mutual legal assistance, and accords on container security and airline passenger data. In addition, the United States and the EU have been working together to curb terrorist financing and to strengthen transport security. Despite the death of Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in May 2011, both the United States and the EU maintain that continued vigilance against terrorism remains essential. Some observers note that the July 2012 terrorist attack on Israeli tourists in EU member Bulgaria—which has been linked to Hezbollah—serves as a stark reminder that Europe remains vulnerable to terrorist activity.

U.S.-EU cooperation against terrorism has led to a new dynamic in U.S.-EU relations by fostering dialogue on law enforcement and homeland security issues previously reserved for bilateral discussions. Nevertheless, some challenges persist in fostering closer U.S.-EU cooperation in these fields. Among the most prominent are data privacy and data protection concerns. The EU considers the privacy of personal data a basic right and EU rules and regulations strive to keep personal data out of the hands of law enforcement as much as possible. The negotiation of several U.S.-EU information-sharing agreements, from those related to tracking terrorist financial data to sharing airline passenger information, has been complicated by ongoing EU concerns about whether the United States could guarantee a sufficient level of protection for European citizens’ personal data. Other issues that have led to periodic tensions include detainee policies, differences in the U.S. and EU terrorist designation lists (especially regarding Hezbollah), and balancing measures to improve border controls and border security with the need to facilitate legitimate transatlantic travel and commerce.

Congressional decisions related to improving border controls and transport security, in particular, may affect how future U.S.-EU cooperation evolves. In addition, given the European Parliament’s growing influence in many of these policy areas, Members of Congress may be able to help shape Parliament’s views and responses through ongoing contacts and the existing Transatlantic Legislators’ Dialogue (TLD). This report examines the evolution of U.S.-EU counterterrorism cooperation and the ongoing challenges that may be of interest in the 113th Congress.


Date of Report: April 22, 2013
Number of Pages: 27
Order Number: RS22030
Price: $29.95

To Order:

RS22030.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Turkey: Background and U.S. Relations

Jim Zanotti
Specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs

Several Turkish domestic and foreign policy issues have significant relevance for U.S. interests, and Congress plays an active role in shaping and overseeing U.S. relations with Turkey. This report provides background information on Turkey and discusses possible policy options for Members of Congress and the Obama Administration. U.S. relations with Turkey—a longtime North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) ally—have evolved over time. Turkey’s economic dynamism and geopolitical importance—it straddles Europe, the Middle East, and Central Asia and now has the world’s 17th-largest economy—have increased its influence regionally and globally. Although Turkey still depends on the United States and other NATO allies for political and strategic support, its growing economic diversification and military self-reliance allows Turkey to exercise greater leverage with the West. These trends have helped fuel continuing Turkish political transformation led in the past decade by Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and the Justice and Development Party (AKP), which has Islamist roots.

Future domestic political developments may determine the extent to which Turkey reconciles popular views favoring Turkish nationalism and Sunni Muslim values with protection of individual freedoms, minority rights, rule of law, and the principle of secular governance. Debate on issues such as the status of Turkey’s ethnic Kurdish population (including the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), a U.S.-designated terrorist organization), the civil-military balance, the role of religion in public life, and press freedom could coalesce in 2013 around a popular referendum on a new constitution. This, in turn, could have significant ramifications for scheduled presidential elections in 2014 and parliamentary elections in 2015.

Congressional interest in Turkey is high with respect to the following issues:

• Working with Turkey in the Middle East to influence political outcomes in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere; counter Iranian influence; and preserve stability; 
• Past deterioration and possible improvement in Turkey-Israel relations and how that might affect U.S.-Turkey relations; and 
• A potential congressional resolution or presidential statement on the possible genocide of Armenians by the Ottoman Empire (Turkey’s predecessor state) during World War I. 

Many U.S. policymakers also are interested in the rights of minority Christian communities within Turkey; the currently stalemated prospects of Turkish accession to the European Union (EU); promoting increased trade with Turkey; and Turkey’s role in the Cyprus dispute. Congress appropriates approximately $5 million annually in military and security assistance for Turkey. The EU currently provides over $1 billion to Turkey annually in pre-accession financial and technical assistance.

Since 2011, U.S.-Turkey cooperation on issues affecting the Middle East has become closer, as Turkey agreed to host a U.S. radar as part of a NATO missile defense system and the two countries have coordinated efforts in responding to the ongoing conflict in Syria. Nevertheless, developments during the Obama Administration on Syria, Israel, and other issues have led to questions about the extent to which U.S. and Turkish strategic priorities and values converge on both a short- and long-term basis.


Date of Report: April 23, 2013
Number of Pages: 45
Order Number: R41368
Price: $29.95

To Order:

R41368.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.