The United States gained even more negative attention in 2004 when the International Court of Justice’s Avena decision declared the United States had, according to the 27th session of the UN Human Rights Council “failed to provide consular notification and access” to 51 Mexican nationals awaiting execution. Later, in October of 2003, the forty-five nation Council of Europe, which contains many of the United States’ allies, stated that the United States’ “intractable position” towards the death penalty was “intolerable.” In 2001, the UN had taken notice of the United States’ static position on capital punishment and temporarily removed the United States from the UN Human Rights Council as a result. Meanwhile, the United States was making no such changes, and consequently starting some very rocky diplomatic relationships. By the mid-90s, for example, a “commitment to abolition” of the death penalty became a requirement for membership in the Council of Europe and in the European Union. Many of the UN member states began adapting their legislature to reflect this new opinion. In 1971, the United Nations (UN) General Assembly reached the opinion that capital punishment no longer served as an acceptable exception to the right to life guaranteed in Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Death Penalty as an Obstacle to Foreign Relations,” Mark Warren details foreign perceptions of the United States concerning its continued use of the death penalty. In “ Death, Dissent, and Diplomacy: The U.S. Gaining a fuller understanding of why many nations have abolished the death penalty, makes it easier to understand how the United States’ commitment to the death penalty has such strong implications on the international stage. To put it simply, the United States’ use of the death penalty hurts its diplomatic relations and reflects poorly on the nation’s values.Ĭapital punishment’s role in United States foreign affairs is severely affecting its image on the world stage, given that much of the world is opposed to the death penalty. Nations that have abolished the death penalty see this as a sign of ignoring basic human rights and group the United States’ human rights index with that of nations like Sudan and Iraq. It is one of the only nations to still do so. Despite the constant backlash throughout recent history, the United States continually uses the death penalty and defends it on the international stage. International non-governmental organizations (NGOs) like the United Nations have called upon their member States to abolish the use of the death penalty, stating it violates the “ right to life, liberty, and security of person” guaranteed by Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It’s surprising how a country like this can become associated with authoritarian regimes with horrible human rights records such as China or Iran, yet its continued use of the death penalty demonstrates how its so-called commitment to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness might not even include the right to life after all. It prides itself on being a paradigm of human rights and individual freedom, founded on the principles of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. “Land of the free and home of the brave.” That’s how the United States describes itself.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |