Introduction

Thank you, Attorney General Hood, for the kind introduction. It has been a privilege to have you join our delegations to Geneva.

It is an honor to address this distinguished group, and I’m delighted to have the opportunity to discuss the role of state and local officials in implementing U.S. human rights treaty obligations, as well as in presenting our human rights record on the international stage.

You are at the frontline in defending human rights in the United States and I applaud you for that.

The United States is and has always been a leader in respecting, promoting, and defending human rights, both at home and around the world. To be sure, we are constantly seeking to more fully realize the high standards we set for ourselves, but we can and should be proud of our record of implementing our international human rights obligations.

To be a leader in human rights means, first and foremost, leading by example. Our nation’s founding documents reflect the depth of our commitment to equality and freedom, and the United States was at the forefront of the movement to enshrine these values, first in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and then in a series of international treaties.

When the United States ratifies a treaty, it becomes the supreme law of the land, like the Constitution and federal statutes. It is only throughout robust efforts at all levels of government – federal, state, territorial, and local – that we can live up to the obligations we have undertaken for ourselves.

At the federal level, a wide variety of departments and agencies have a role in implementing our human rights obligations.

For example, in addition to helping negotiate international treaties and conventions, one of my office’s many responsibilities is to interpret U.S. obligations under international law, including our human rights treaty obligations.

The Justice Department investigates and prosecutes civil rights violations, the Department of Housing and Urban Development combats housing discrimination, and other departments and agencies at the federal level play a similarly important role in promoting and defending human rights.

But our efforts at the federal level are only one small component of our efforts as a nation. Because ours is a Federal system, it is largely through the work of officials like you – acting at the state, territorial, and local level – that the United States ensures compliance with its human rights treaty obligations. And Attorneys General, as the chief legal officers for our states and territories, play a particularly critical role in this regard.

So today I’ll provide a brief overview of our obligations and of the reporting we and all other countries must do. I’ll then focus in particular on the role of state, territorial, and local actors in implementing our human rights obligations and presenting our record on the global stage.

Overview of Five Human Rights Treaties

The United States is a party to five core human rights treaties: the International Covenant on Civil & Political Rights (or ICCPR); the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (or CERD); the Convention Against Torture (or CAT); and two optional protocols to the Convention on the Rights of the Child (or CRC).

The ICCPR, which the United States ratified in 1992, is one of the fundamental human rights treaties negotiated after World War II, and it covers a wide range of civil and political rights, many of which find analogues in our Bill of Rights. For example, it protects freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the right of peaceful assembly; it guarantees equal protection and fair trial rights; and it prohibits cruel treatment and slavery.

The CERD, which we ratified in 1994, requires countries to take various actions to work towards the elimination of racial discrimination, including with respect to housing segregation, voting rights, and access to education and health care.

The CAT, also ratified in 1994, augments the core prohibition on torture and cruel treatment under international law by, for example, creating universal jurisdiction to prosecute acts of torture, and prohibiting the deportation or extradition of individuals to countries where they would likely face torture.

And while the United States has not ratified the CRC itself, we ratified two optional protocols to that treaty in 2002. One requires States Parties to prohibit child trafficking, child pornography, and child prostitution, while the other addresses recruitment and use of children in armed conflict.

U.S. Approach to Implementation

Although these treaties do not give rise directly to judicially enforceable rights in U.S. courts, the United States is bound under international law to implement these obligations, which we do through federal and state law.

Prior to becoming a party to each of these treaties, the State Department, coordinating with other federal agencies, carefully determined whether existing laws in the United States were sufficient to implement the treaty, which has generally been the case.

Moreover, with each treaty the United States has issued a set of what are known as Reservations, Understandings, and Declarations, which clarify or in some cases limit our obligations under the treaty in order to ensure that we can comply.

We have issued one such “understanding” regarding our Federal system when ratifying many human rights treaties. This understanding confirms that we are bound by the treaty and will implement it at the appropriate governmental level – federal, state, territorial, or local.

Reporting Process

One important mechanism for promoting compliance with human rights treaties is the reporting process.

Under each of the five treaties we have ratified, the United States – like other Parties to these treaties – is obliged to prepare a report every few years regarding our implementation of the treaty, which is submitted to a committee of experts created under that treaty.

Usually about a year after filing such a report, we send a delegation to Switzerland to present the report to that committee and answer their questions. We made three such presentations in 2014: the ICCPR in March, the CERD in August, and the CAT in November. Our next set of reports relating to the Children’s Protocols is due next January.

Each of these committees is made up of between 10 and 18 independent experts in that substantive area from around the world. These committees review individual country reports, issue general comments on particular provisions, and in some cases address individual complaints. The views and recommendations of the committees are not legally binding but are often given great weight by the international community.

The preparation of these reports requires input from a wide range of federal agencies, such as the Departments of Justice, Homeland Security, and Education.

Over the last few years, we have also consistently reached out to state and territorial governors and tribal leaders to solicit input for our reports.

To fail to represent the trailblazing work you are doing every day would sell the United States short. We need your help.

The presentation of our reports occurs over a 1 or 2 day session with the treaty committee in Geneva. Although the atmosphere is not quite like an oral argument, there is certainly a buzz in the air, especially when we face difficult questioning.

These presentations are usually attended by a large contingent of U.S. civil society activists, and the “shadow reports” filed by civil society groups often inform the questions we receive from members of the committee. For this reason, the State Department organizes several consultations with civil society groups throughout the reporting and presentation process, which themselves serve as vital opportunities to receive input on our human rights record.

No matter what, our delegations are always prepared to tell the world about the myriad ways in which our nation’s commitment to human rights is manifested in our policies and practices.

A few days after each presentation, the committee issues a set of “Concluding Observations & Recommendations,” which presents the committee’s views and recommendations on how the United States can further our implementation of the relevant treaty.

Our delegations generally feature high-level participation by multiple federal agencies. For example, our recent CERD delegation included officials from nine different agencies.

Moreover, to reflect our Federal system of government, we have included one or more state or local representatives on each of our delegations since 2008. As you know, your very own NAAG President Jim Hood participated in our delegations for both the ICCPR and CAT presentations last year. Our 2014 delegations also included the former Attorney General of Arkansas Dustin McDaniel, and the Mayors of Salt Lake City, Utah and Birmingham, Alabama. And we hope you will consider participating in the future.

Universal Periodic Review

Having completed the three presentations last year, we are currently busy preparing for the Universal Periodic Review process (or UPR), which is another important opportunity to present our human rights record internationally.

The UPR process, which started in 2006 and is conducted through the UN Human Rights Council, involves a review of the human rights records of all 192 UN Member States once every five years.

Each country submits a report addressing the full range of its human rights obligations and commitments. The UPR is a peer review process, so other countries have the opportunity to make recommendations for future action. The country indicates which of these recommendations it supports, and it is then expected to address progress on those recommendations in its next UPR report.

We just submitted our second UPR report in February and will present this report in Geneva in May. We will finish the process in September by announcing which recommendations we accept.

Role of State Attorneys General in Implementation

So what does all this mean for the work of the Attorneys General?

The federal government has limited or overlapping jurisdiction with the States on many of the issues covered by these treaties, which is why it is all-the-more important for federal officials to engage with state, territorial, and local government officials.

You are, truly, at the frontlines. When you formulate policies, open civil rights investigations, and take other steps to protect individuals against discrimination, reduce racial disparities in education or housing, or prosecute those exploiting children, you are helping to fulfill our country’s human rights obligations.

While the treaty committee recommendations and the recommendations that come out of the UPR process are not legally binding, it is incumbent on all of us – at all levels of government – to be familiar with them because they reflect what domestic issues are of concern to the international human rights community.

We also strongly encourage you and your colleagues to engage in the reporting processes I mentioned, and there are a number of ways to get involved. Perhaps the easiest is by providing information we can use in our reports to highlight the important work happening within the states and territories to promote and protect human rights.

Our strong and effective engagement in the reporting process helps the United States in our efforts to make sure that other countries, like China, Russia or Venezuela, live up to their own human rights obligations and commitments.

Our next report, which is due in January 2016, relates to the children’s protocols I mentioned earlier. We would greatly appreciate hearing about the work you are doing to combat child prostitution, child pornography, and child trafficking.

We have provided a letter today, which will soon go to many state and local officials, that includes more information, as well as an email address where you can send us input for our upcoming report.

Conclusion

My hope is that this very brief overview provides a foundation for sustained collaboration between my office and yours on human rights issues. My colleagues and I look forward to the opportunity to work with many of you in the months and years to come.