I'm Sorry Miss., Jackson: How Dobbs v. Jackson Defeats the Object and Purpose of CEDAW in Violation on International Law

In the wake of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, many reproductive rights advocates are starting to apply a human rights framework to argue for expanding access to abortion in the United States—a strategy that has been employed successfully in international contexts for decades. International human rights law scholars have focused primarily on the right to abortion found in treaties to which the United States is a party. Those conversations have largely omitted a discussion of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (“CEDAW”), the international women’s human rights treaty which the United States signed in 1980 but has failed to ratify. As a signatory to the treaty, what, if any, obligations does the United States have to protect access to abortion? This Article argues that, under Article 18(a) of the Vienna Convention, the United States has obligations with respect to CEDAW, a previously unexplored avenue in international human rights law. Article 18(a) of the Vienna Convention, reflecting customary international law, requires states that have signed a treaty but not ratified it to “refrain from acts which would defeat the object and purpose of a treaty[.]” Using authoritative interpretations of CEDAW in the form of general recommendations, jurisprudence, and concluding observations as a guide, the Article argues that the right to abortion is central to the object and purpose of CEDAW. The Article concludes that the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization constitutes a defeat of that object and purpose in violation of Article 18(a) of the Vienna Convention.