The U.S. and the World Program on Human Rights Education
During the most recent session, the UN Human Rights Council adopted the plan of action for the third phase (2015–2019) of the World Programme for Human Rights Education. The World Programme is an ongoing initiative, structured in consecutive phases, to advance the implementation of human rights education program in all sectors worldwide. Prior phases of the program focused on generating international support for expansion and institutionalization of human rights education, and more recently, education of civil servants and law enforcement officers.
The World Programme’s third phase (2015-2019) is focused on strengthening the implementation of the first two phases and promoting human rights training for media professionals and journalists.
The HR Council Resolution was adopted without a vote, reflecting its broad support. However, the U.S. delegation issued the following statement at the time of the resolution’s adoption, attempting to limit the national responsibility in this area:
Explanation of Position: World Program on Human Rights Education
Statement by the Delegation of the United States of America
As Delivered by Ambassador Keith Harper
U.S. Representative to the Human Rights Council
UN Human Rights Council – 27th Session
Geneva
September 25, 2014
The United States is pleased to join consensus on the resolution on the World Programme for Human Rights Education and thanks Costa Rica and the other sponsors of this resolution for their efforts to achieve consensus.
This resolution underscores the important role human rights education plays in promoting all human rights and fundamental freedoms. Without an understanding of their human rights, people may be unable to effectively exercise them.
Human rights education is thus an excellent tool for raising awareness about human rights. The media and journalists also play an important role in this effort, and in promoting freedom of expression.
Human rights education can also cultivate respect for the human rights of all individuals regardless of, for example, their race, ethnicity, gender, disability status, sexual orientation, or gender identity.
In joining consensus on this resolution, we stress that the United States strongly values human rights education and training. It can be an invaluable tool for the advancement of human rights.
However, we also underscore that the United States joins consensus on this resolution mindful of and consistent with our limited authority at the federal level with respect to education, which primarily is a responsibility of our state and local governments.
In addition, the United States joins consensus on the resolution with the express understanding that it does not imply that States must implement obligations under human rights instruments to which they are not a party.
————-
While it’s fair to say that principles of federalism make implementation more complicated, it’s also clear that the U.S. has not been vigorous in seeking out opportunities to expand human rights education. A case is point is human rights education for the judiciary, a sector where human rights education would not tread on states’ toes.
There is general international consensus that the judiciary should be knowledgeable about human rights law. Indeed, in the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct (2002) specifically provide that “[a] judge shall keep himself or herself informed about relevant developments of international law, including international conventions and other instruments establishing human rights norms.” The U.S. has ratified the ICCPR, CERD and CAT, and has signed several other human rights treaties. Yet in the U.S., judges are not routinely trained on these issues. Instead, human rights education is largely left to individual judges and nonprofits such as the American Society of International Law or the Aspen Institute, with limited funds and without the imprimatur of government that would expand their effectiveness in reaching judges.
As the U.S. delegation pointed out, federalism poses special challenges in implementing human rights education in K-12 grades, but there’s no excuse for not integrating such education into the training of the federal and state judiciary.