A Quote by Jan Schakowsky

More than 180 countries around the world have ratified CEDAW, some with reservations. While the United States signed the treaty in 1981, it is one of the few countries that have not yet ratified it. As a global leader for human rights and equality, I believe our country should adopt this resolution and ratify the CEDAW treaty.
We have not ratified The Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Among Women. I think 194 countries have signed onto it, but the United States has not. And CEDAW to the United Nations is what the Equal Rights Amendment or the women's equality amendment is to the United States. I think we should pass the women's equality amendment and a lot of these other fights would go away.
It is a great problem for the true international agenda of human rights that the United States, uniquely among industrialised countries, has not ratified three main instruments, has not ratified the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, or the Convention on the Rights of the Child, or the Convention for the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, and we could have so much richer a debate and dialogue on international human rights standards if the superpower would sign up to the agenda.
As the treaty made with the United States was the first treaty entered into by your country with other countries, therefore the President regards Japan with peculiar friendliness.
Kyoto was a flawed process. There isn't one industrialized country around the world that has ratified that treaty, and so that is a non-starter.
First, we would not accept a treaty that would not have been ratified, nor a treaty that I thought made sense for the country.
There is an international treaty framework for this. It's the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Most countries in the world are members of the treaty.
Back in 1956, we signed a treaty and surprisingly it was ratified both by the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union and the Japanese Parliament. But then Japan refused to implement it and after that the Soviet Union also, so to say, nullified all the agreements reached within the framework of the treaty.
What is absolutely clear is that we have, with the U.S., an extradition treaty which is important, I believe it is an important treaty, for both sides, the United States and the United Kingdom. It is a treaty that I believe is balanced and we work on that basis.
It is the foremost responsibility of the United States, having been the predominant nuclear power, to take the lead in scaling this back and making good on its signed and sealed and ratified obligation in Article 6 of the non-proliferation treaty going back to '68 to eliminate this nuclear arsenal. That's a serious international obligation.
No treaty should be ratified without consulting the British people in a referendum.
The President is of opinion that if Japan makes a treaty with the United States, all other foreign countries will make the same kind of a treaty, and Japan will be safe thereafter.
If passed by the U.N. and ratified by the U.S. Senate, the U.N. Small Arms Treaty would almost certainly force the United States to... create an international gun registry, setting the stage for full-scale gun confiscation.
The countries in the Paris climate accord have broken almost every promise they've made, and the nation (the U.S.) that hasn't signed the treaty is doing more than any other nation to reduce global warming.
If the U.N. gun-ban treaty is ever signed and ratified into law, we may never get a second chance to save the Second Amendment.
Relations between the United States and other countries, and our role as a global leader, are advanced by our willingness to help other countries in need. Foreign aid is essential to protecting U.S. interests around the world, and it is also a moral responsibility of the wealthiest, most powerful nation.
It’s notable that the countries that most pride themselves on their commitment to equality, human rights, and democracy (like the United States and the western European countries) are precisely those that, in the late twentieth century, invented a new status (‘illegal’) in order to deprive some of their residents of access to equality, human rights, and democracy.I am honored to lend my name to PICUM’s campaign to end the use of the term ‘illegal’ and to challenge the whole concept of illegality as a status.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!