1992bepress Legal RepositoryOpen access

Economic Rights in the United States and International Human Rights Law: Toward an "Entirely New Strategy"

Barbara Stark

Open full text 6 citations

Abstract

By ratifying the International Covenant on Economic, Cultural and Social Rights, a government "commits itself to its best efforts to secure for its citizens the basic standards of material existence." The United States is the only major industrialized democracy that has not yet ratified the Covenant. Two reasons have been advanced to explain our nonadherence. First, economic rights are foreign to domestic conceptions of rights. Second, the concerns addressed in the Covenant are primarily within the jurisdiction of the states.\nIn 1990, Professor Philip Alston urged those seeking ratification to develop "an entirely new strategy." Professor Stark believes that there has never been a better time to do so. Domestically, economic rights are a growing concern of the increasing numbers of poor Americans. Internationally, the United States is also becoming more involved in international organizations and more concerned about its credibility in the global community.\nThis Article outlines a "new strategy" which responds to these developments. It proposes that the United States ratify the Covenant and delegate implementation to the states. Professor Stark argues that conceptions of economic rights under the Covenant are fundamentally compatible with conceptions of such rights under state constitutions. Drawing on this relationship, she outlines a plan for the functional implementation of the Covenant. The Article concludes by considering the likely consequences of adoption and implementation, for both the United States and the international community.

Open-access reader

About this research paper

What this paper is about

By ratifying the International Covenant on Economic, Cultural and Social Rights, a government "commits itself to its best efforts to secure for its citizens the basic standards of material existence." The United States is the only major industrialized democracy that has not yet ratified the Covenant. Two reasons have been advanced to explain our nonadherence. First, economic rights are foreign to domestic conceptions of rights. Second, the concerns addressed in the Covenant are primarily within the jurisdiction of the states.\nIn 1990, Professor Philip Alston urged those seeking ratification to develop "an entirely new strategy." Professor Stark believes that there has never been a better time to do so. Domestically, economic rights are a growing concern of the increasing numbers of poor Americans. Internationally, the United States is also becoming more involved in international organizations and more concerned about its credibility in the global community.\nThis Article outlines a "new strategy" which responds to these developments. It proposes that the United States ratify the Covenant and delegate implementation to the states. Professor Stark argues that conceptions of economic rights under the Covenant are fundamentally compatible with conceptions of such rights under state constitutions. Drawing on this relationship, she outlines a plan for the functional implementation of the Covenant. The Article concludes by considering the likely consequences of adoption and implementation, for both the United States and the international community.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 6 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

By ratifying the International Covenant on Economic, Cultural and Social Rights, a government "commits itself to its best efforts to secure for its citizens the basic standards of material existence." The United States is the only major industrialized democracy that has not yet ratified the Covenant. Two reasons have been advanced to explain our nonadherence. First, economic rights are foreign to domestic conceptions of rights. Second, the concerns addressed in the Covenant are primarily within the jurisdiction of the states.\nIn 1990, Professor Philip Alston urged those seeking ratification to develop "an entirely new strategy." Professor Stark believes that there has never been a better time to do so. Domestically, economic rights are a growing concern of the increasing numbers of poor Americans. Internationally, the United States is also becoming more involved in international organizations and more concerned about its credibility in the global community.\nThis Article outlines a "new strategy" which responds to these developments. It proposes that the United States ratify the Covenant and delegate implementation to the states. Professor Stark argues that conceptions of economic rights under the Covenant are fundamentally compatible with conceptions of such rights under state constitutions. Drawing on this relationship, she outlines a plan for the functional implementation of the Covenant. The Article concludes by considering the likely consequences of adoption and implementation, for both the United States and the international community.

Key concepts: Human rights, International human rights law, Law, Political science, Fundamental rights, Reservation of rights, Law and economics, Right to property

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Economic Rights in the United States and International Human Rights Law: Toward an "Entirely New Strategy" — Research Paper | ScholarLens