THE EU AND THE USA EU AIMS AND

THE EU AND THE USA: EU AIMS AND US REACTIONS Tamas Dezso Ziegler

EU documents • http: //www. humanrights. gov/: US: very detailed country reports • EU: guidelines on human rights dialogues with third countries (death penalty, torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, freedom of religion or belief, LGBTI rights, children and armed conflict, human rights defenders, promotion and Protection of the Rights of the Child, violence against and discrimination of women, freedom of expression online and offline) • EU Strategic Framework (2012): third states should implement major HR treaties: our report: detailed explanation • Action Plan on Human Rights and Democracy • EU Annual reports (since 2009): a series of reports on human rights in the world: contains US related actions

EU-US cooperation • Transatlantic Declaration (TD) of 1990 • New Transatlantic Agenda (NTA): system of biannual consultations • EU-US summits: less frequent in recent times • Dialogues: different fields (ike consumer law) • People-to-people dialogues and exchanges of personnel • Transatlantic Legislators Dialogue (TLD) since 1999: U. S. Congressional Legislators and officials from the E. U. • Occassional dialogues: non-proliferation, counter-terrorism, counter-narcotics, UN matters, human rights, regional issues, and legal affairs

EU aims I (human dignity) • Abolishment of death penalty • Closure of the Guantanamo Bay camp • Abolishment of torture + extraordinary rendition in criminal proceedings • No indefinite detention without charge or trial • Proper detention conditions • Abolish the inhuman conditions of solitary confinement • Mental disability or mental illness in criminal procedures should be taken into consideration • Equal rights should be granted to women

EU aims II (general legal questions) • Making US to accept most of the important international agreements • Abolish extraterritorial application of certain US laws • Stop different treatment of US and non-US citizens with regard to privacy and data protection • Consular rights: stop breach of relevant Vienna convention: implementation of the „Avena decision” of the ICJ on the procedural rights of detainees should be enforced

EU aims III • Stop NSA surveillance • US to respect data protection rights in and outside the US

EU-US: human rights – differences (Cassel) • US prefers usage of military force • disrespect of international law (and the disrespect of the decisions of international courts) • handling international human rights crimes • role of religion • free market ideology: effect on cultural and social rights • freedom of expression is interpreted more broadly • attitudes toward state-sanctioned violence (death penalty, the right to bear arms) • (Israel-Palestine conflict: I believe the shift changed)

US and International Treaties: an ambivalent relationship • Engine of cooperation: United Nations, Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 No implementation: • President Jimmy Carter signed the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, but no ratification followed • Convention on the Rights of the Child: not ratified: USA, Somalia • Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women • International Criminal Court: Bush administration unsigned it • Landmine Treaty • Race and politics: 1948 Genocide Convention ratification: forty years delay + 2 tools: reservations + simply not applying certain parts of agreements

Reasons of difference (Moravcsik, Bradley, Ignatieff) • • • Unique historical traditions Statical constitutional system Private autonomy in the center of constitutional law Human rights as results of social struggle Political culture: neo-isolationism, neoconservative paleoconservative vs. liberal elite The superpower and its “realpolitik” Role of Senate and Congress Role of the President Federalism and state powers Independentjudiciary and

Unique Historical Traditions "[W]e, [. . . ], the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do (emphasis added). ” Declaration of independence Effects: - freedom and control is for states, not foreign governments or organisations (see eg. the recent Oregon protests) - freedom at domestic level: defending citizens: foreign courts?

Senate, Congress, President and international treaties • Checks and balances • Negotiation and ratification: President • Senate: 2/3 consent needed: minority can block the adoption of agreements • President: little space: signs the agreements, but without the consent of the senate, they cannot be implemented • President: in domestic issues: executive order, executive action, presidential memoranda: not really useful regarding EU actions • Case of Quantanamo Bay Camp: Senate/Congress vs the President: Presidential executive order (2009): useless – Senate does not give money for removal (Defense policy bill)

Federalism • Article 36(1) of Vienna Convention on Consular Rights (“Vienna Convention”) (US ratification: 1969) • Optional Protocol: (also 1969) US signed and later withdrew from it (Condoleeza Rice - 2005): ICJ has jurisdiction in disputes • A simple problem: a party country that arrests a national from another party country is required to advise the national that he can communicate with and seek assistance from his consulate • Several cases: La. Grande, Avena, Medellin case • US arguments: federalist structure: criminal law: state power + no direct effect of judgments