About MCLI and Project EINO Approach to Civil Social and Economic Rights

Activists, lawyers, media, students, legislators and administrators all need to know and use every law protecting civil liberties, due process, civil rights, economic rights and international protections. This law can be called civil rights law or constitutional law, international law or peace law. Today around the world, many are using this law successfully, calling it human rights law. The law enumerates rights of individuals and duties of governments.

Some of these laws are in the U.S. Code or in the Federal Register. Some are part of the "Law of Nations" that Congress was given power in the Constitution "to define .. and punish." Some are called charters, covenants, conventions, declarations, accords and programs of action. Few people know that these laws have helped win at least 68 cases in the US courts as of early 2003. No case has been lost because this law was cited. The language in some of these laws has been written into ordinances in some cities.

This is the time to uncover every relevant law and use it, as was done during the Civil Rights Movement. We need to build on the heritage of Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., a US Supreme Court decision using an 1870s fair housing law for the first time in 1965.

Justice William Brennan ruled that "association for litigation may be the most effective form of political association" in deciding NAACP v. Button. He explained that such litigation fulfills two basic functions: ".. while serving to vindicate the legal rights of members of the American Negro community, at the same time and perhaps more importantly, it makes possible the distinct contribution of a minority group to the ideas and beliefs of our society..". Consider current efforts in one state to enforce the right to health care in the courts.

Project EINO sees our work in assisting the empowerment of disproportionately disenfranchised and excluded ethnic communities, still into the 21st Century. We believe that their empowerment and their demands along with the voices of all American workers rising up against eroding social benefits and rights is the only thing that will save our country and make it a sought-after model for democracy once more in the eyes of the world.

List of Supporting Documents to Arguments

• Truman's 1945 letter to Delegates of UN Conference   CLICK
• Report to Truman from US Delegation to San Francisco Conference, June 26, 1945   CLICK
• Truman's letter to President of the American Association for the United Nations (citizen activist group) on July 30, 1945. Commitment to fundamental freedoms applied in every US state. CLICK
• Citizen spirit of mobilization and vigilance to promote these "human rights and new freedoms". CLICK
• The three reporting treaties of 1966 and international "shame mobilization". CLICK
• Common World Law and Significance of Ratification CLICK
• Signing of ICCPR by President Carter (1978) and Ratification of ICCPR in 1992 CLICK
• Signing of CERD by President Johnson (1966) and Consent of US Senate to Ratify (1994) CLICK
• President Clinton signs Implementation Order for all 3 Reporting Treaties (December 10, 1998) CLICK
• How Are Any Such Laws Enforced? CLICK
• How can Citizens Get These Treaties Implemented and Enforced Regularly in the U.S.? CLICK

Truman's 1945 letter to Delegates

It is important to remember that the worldwide and popular U.S. sentiment and demand for a "new order" which is the foundation of the UN its charter, covenants and conventions was quite explicit in its breadth of purpose. There is no justification for the position that it was intended as a tightly limited approach to just a few rights that could be fully articulated in the year 1945 never to expand or be elaborated upon, never to be extended and embraced by civilized and democratic nations. President Truman’s 1945 letter to the Delegates to the UN Conference on International Organization (prior to Congress’ ratification of the UN Charter). Excerpt:

We represent the overwhelming majority of all mankind. We Speak for people who have endured the most savage and devastating war ever inflicted upon innocent men, women and children. We hold a powerful mandate from our people. . . . . We must build a new world " a far better world " one in which the eternal dignity of man is respected.

Report to Truman from US Delegation, June 26, 1945

The UN Charter was viewed as a binding treaty for signatory nations to adhere to specified standards of international morality. The delegates (and the mood of our nation) was not in the least embarrassed to demonstrate its moral and idealistic aspect - in fact the delegates explicitly, publicly justify this aspect. On June 26, 1945 a report was sent to President Truman of the results of the San Francisco Conference, by Chairman E.R. Stettinius, of the US Delegation for the Secretary of State (delegates to same conference). It explained:

The charter drafted by the Conference at San Francisco has a dual nature. Its outstanding characteristic and the key to its construction is its dual quality as a declaration and as constitution. As a declaration it constitutes a binding agreement by the signatory nations to work together for peaceful ends and to adhere to certain standards of international morality. As a constitution it creates four overall instruments by which those ends may be achieved in practice and the standards actually maintained. The first function of the Charter is moral and idealistic; the second realistic and practical. Men and women who have lived through war are not ashamed, as other generations sometimes are, to declare the depth and the idealism of their attachment to the cause of peace.

Also explicitly the Charter of the UN and purpose of future international progress includes work for human rights and fundamental freedoms, conditions of economic and social progress and development - as well as the application of such rights and freedoms without distinction for race and ethnicity. These ARE NOT ideas that health care advocates have introduced anew in the 21st century and have had to stretch the existing US laws to justify. Instruments for implementing this intention are carefully spelled out in the charter - signatories were indeed quite serious about seeing these agreements implemented and enforced. The chairman’s letter continues:

As a declaration this Charter commits the United Nations to . . . the promotion and encouragement of respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all. More precisely, the United Nations agree to promote "higher standards of living, full employment, and conditions of economic and social progress and development; solutions of international economic, social, health and related observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.

The letter goes on to explain that the four instruments of the UN are the security council, the general assembly, the economic and social council and the international court of justice. Also, that the third of these, the Economic and Social Council, is empowered to make and initiate studies in its field, to frame reports and make recommendations on its own initiative not only to the General Assembly, but to the Members of the UN. It is also authorized to obtain reports from the member states on the steps taken to give effect to its recommendations. "The power to call conferences, prepare draft conventions and require reports of progress " is a power which can be counted on to go a long way toward translating humanitarian aspirations into human gains."

Truman's letter to President of the American Association for the United Nations

On Oct. 24, 1945, the United States government became committed to take affirmative steps to promote human rights and fundamental freedoms in each of the 48 states and US territories when the UN charter went into effect. The US Senate had debated the provisions of the Carter and ratified this treaty by 2/3 vote. It is "new law" in the 21st century because the commitments in the charter have been a virtual secret, unknown to the peoples of the United States, including activists and their lawyers. The provisions are not taught in law school classes on Constitutional Law, although the are part of U.S. domestic law. Most people in the US have yet to understand that the UN Charter is a statement of the laws all governments must obey and enforce, including the United States.

It is not surprising, perhaps, that conservative administrations and corporate interests have shown so little interest in applying the "new law". It is though surprising that liberal administrations have failed so miserably at educating the public about these laws and their agreed upon implementation internationally and domestically. It remains for the public at large to demand enforcement and respect of the existing legal structure. This is not a private viewpoint of Project EINO and MCLI - this was the intention of President Truman and understand broadly throughout our country at the time the UN Charter was enthusiastically adopted, as demonstrated in the next letter (predating the US commitment in October).

Citizen spirit of mobilization and vigilance

On July 30, 1945 President Truman wrote to Clark Eichelberger, President of the American Association for the United Nations and explained in some detail how it would remain incumbent on the people of the United States through their awareness and mobilization to ensure the full implementation of the UN charter over the course of years:

The ratification of the Charter of the UN by the US Senate is not so much an end as it is a beginning. The Senate has done its work . . . it remains for the people of the United States to see to it that the Charter works in so far as it lies within their power to make it work. Only if they understand what the Charter is and what it can mean to the peace of the world will the document become a living human reality. We must all hope that the people of this country and of the rest of the UN will inform themselves of the possibilities which the Charter opens to them and will make the UN their common instrument to achieve their common purpose. Organizations and individuals working toward the fullest possible understanding of the Charter of the UN deserve the gratitude and support of all the rest of us.

The three reporting treaties of 1966

The spirit of citizen mobilization around the "new laws" was apparent at the time, although unfortunately shorter lived than would be necessary to see the new laws vigorously enforced among and within nations. As described by Ann Fagan Ginger:

On December 10th 1948 the US became a party to the Universal Declaration Human Rights. This law is in the form of a Declaration rather than a treaty, so it could not be enforced, chapter and verse, like a statute or a treaty or agreement. But the poetic language in the Declaration and its broad and universal statements of human rights, caught the fancy of millions of people worldwide, who soon started carrying it in their pockets and began expecting that their governments would uphold all of these rights. It has, in fact been cited as a source of law in at least 150 US court cases. Thus it has become part of the common law of the US, as well as that of the world.

Common World Law

In 1966 the UN General Assembly following up through on this expansion of common world law wrote two new treaties: the International Covenant on Civil & Political Rights (ICCPR), the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and the ICESCR has not been ratified by the US Senate. The third reporting treaty the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD). In the preamble of each new covenant the point is made that it is not possible to have political and civil rights unless one also has economic, social and cultural rights. This concept has never been stated so clearly in US law, including the Bill of Rights. The two covenants are the basic UN human rights treaties and established a method of enforcement through the mobilization of shame that would follow dialogue in UN committees on reports by each nation concerning its violations and enforcement of provisions. Note that one of these three treaties only one has been ratified by the US Senate (ICESCR, as of early 2003), also that there has been no decision taken on any of these not to ratify.

Along with the "Convention on the Rights of the Child", the "Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women the ICESCR has not been ratified by the US Senate and has, in fact, never been debated in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee "even though it has been ratified by 144 other nations. What is vital for activists and their lawyers to keep in mind is that international law forbids a nation to violate a treaty it has signed, even before it has been ratified. Both the US and the USSR obeyed the SALT II nuclear arms limitation treaty, even though that treaty was never ratified by either country. Treaties in the human rights arena apply exactly in the same way to all signatories. Furthermore, see below that in December 1998 an executive order was made which not only recognized all three reporting treaties, but made specific mechanisms for their implementation and enforcement domestically. This order integrated all three completely into US domestic law (except possibly for adequate public vigilance and legal challenges to official nonenforcement). THUS LACK OF RATIFICATION BY THE SENATE HAS NO REQUISITE CONSEQUENCE FOR BLOCKING IMPLEMENTATION OR ENFORCEMENT OF THE CONVENTIONS.

Signing of ICCPR by President Carter (1978)

In 1978 President Carter signed the ICCPR and the Senate ratified it in 1992. The covenant requires the US to submit a report every five years on enforcement of each of the rights and duties enumerated and to dialogue with the UN HRC in front of the media and the world. While a nation’s first report can be limited to enforcement at the federal level, all future reports must report on enforcement at state and local levels. The US made its first report two years late and the second report due in 1998 had not yet been filed as of early 2003. This demonstrates clearly that UN conventions are recognized as enforceable domestically within the US, that we recognize that intent and purpose.

Signing of CERD by President Johnson (1966)

In 1966 President Johnson signed the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD). CERD requires the US to submit a report and have a dialogue with the UN CERD Committee every two years. In 1994 the Senate consented to the ratification of this treaty. Under this treaty racial discrimination is defined as "any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, color, descent or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of . . . limiting the exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in . . . all fields of public life".

It is clear from our discussion at this website of "functional democracies" that regular health care access is a prerequisite to a fully functioning democracy (one in which all citizens are fully encouraged to dialogue assemble and participate).

President Clinton signs Implementation Order (December 10, 1998)

IOn December 10, 1998 President Clinton signed Executive Order 13107 to implement the three UN human rights reporting treaties and made part of US law (ICCPR, ICESCR and CERD). A federal agency was established to make certain that all federal agencies learn about the rights in these treaties and start reporting on violations and dealing with complaints. The federal government was also ordered to notify the states about the rights in these treaties and the need to enforce them in each state, since a treaty is part of the supreme law of the land. Pres. GW Bush assigned Elliot Abrams to head the newly named federal agency "Policy Coordination Committee on Democracy, Human Rights, and International Operations" to carry out those functions. The Bush Administration has not (as of early 2003) fulfilled its obligation to file the required reports of these treaties.

How Are Any Such Laws Enforced?

These three "reporting treaties" are enforced the same way a new ruling by the US Supreme Court is actually enforced, through media attentions leading to public pressure. The famous decision of the US Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education was NOT enforced by the Court itself. It was slowly enforced in district after district when the people demanded that their school boards act, and sued them when they didn’t, which the local and national media reported. Thirty two of thirty eight countries have changed their policies after two meetings with the UN Committee concerning their country reports, and coverage by the international media to the concerned public.

How can Citizens Get These Treaties Implemented and Enforced Regularly in the U.S.?

These treaties can be implemented by having them included in pleadings, court arguments and friend of the court briefs until there is a strong movement for passing enforcement acts. There is no reported case in which the reference to a ratified UN human rights treaty has caused a party to lose its court case. There are numerous cases in which such references helped win the case (see Fagan book for enumeration).

The US government has maintained that these treaties are not self-executing, which means that ratification by the Senate does not alone mean the executive Branch must enforce them. Congress must pass Implementation Acts as has been done with the "Genocide Convention" (implementation act passed in same year as ratification, 1988). States and cities can do likewise, passing statutes requiring enforcement and implementation. Such acts would put the three human rights reporting treaties on the same footing as the enforcement mechanisms in the trade agreements like NAFTA.