Gender Violence at the U.S.–Mexico Border: Media Representation and Public Response

7.

Introduction to Chapter 7 James C. Harrington addresses one of the central concerns regarding femicides in Mexico: the difficulties of enforcement of human rights laws along the border, specifically those related to such violations as negligence, falsification of evidence, and false accusations. Harrington deals with the role of international institutions of justice and explains the factors that lead to their ineffectiveness. He develops a transnational legal framework that addresses existing loopholes in the Mexican and American legislation on border issues. The chapter presents the opportunity to reflect on the limits of national ideologies regarding the enforcement of human rights and the protection of human beings beyond the concept of territorial sovereignty. Harrington argues that the implementation of such a transnational legal framework based on international law can contribute to eliminating jurisdictional confusions and diminishing the scandalous levels of impunity and corruption on either side of the border. Because the globalization of the economy is fundamentally connected to the murder of (predominantly female) maquiladora workers, as Miguel López-Lozano has pointed out in chapter 6, a global perspective on the application of human rights law is an urgent task. The political web that activism is now weaving throughout transnational solidarity networks and the worldwide broadcasting of violence from the border region, as discussed in the chapters by Patricia Ravelo Blancas and Héctor Domínguez-Ruvalcaba, are political and cultural expressions that require a more solid international legal system. Harrington develops an analysis that points out the direction that reinforcement of universal law must take. The former Mexican president Vicente Fox repeatedly affirmed the need to bring Mexico “in line with international obligations” it had assumed but had yet to realize. The international system of human rights protection depends on the will of governments to adhere to customary international law and treaties.1 Mexico has ratified more than fifty human rights treaties and has accepted compulsory jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the United Nations Human Rights Committee.2 However, reports show that egregious abuses continue , and a large gap exists between the international human rights norms to which Mexico has committed itself and the current state of affairs (“Annual Report 2002” and “World Report 2005: Mexico”). Although first developed to govern relationships between states, international human rights treaties increasingly regulate states’ treatment of persons within their borders (Leary). Adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was the catalyst for the evolution of various international treaties aimed at internally protecting fundamental rights. Specially designed supranational legal mechanisms “enforce” most human rights treaties, although economic sanctions are sometimes used. For example, international regulatory and judicial bodies—such as the United Nations (UN), the International Labor Organization (ILO), the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights—seek to enforce treaty compliance. Although these bodies have made considerable efforts to monitor compliance, their enforcement mechanisms are inadequate and noncompliance is common (Hathaway, “Do Human Rights Treaties Make a Difference?”). As Mexico’s current sociopolitical climate shows—which is typical of many nations—ratifying chapter 7¡Alto a la Impunidad! Is There Legal Relief for the Murders of Women in Ciudad Juárez? james c. harrington 156 james c. harrington treaties in itself does not necessarily lead to better human rights practices, but it does open the avenue toward that goal. Beyond just strengthening international enforcement processes, treaty norms need to become part of the domestic legal system and culture. The ultimate goal is the legal internalization of human rights treaties, both legislatively (“binding domestic legislation or even constitutional law”) and judicially (Goldman et al., 90). Various nations have implemented legal means to enforce human rights and punish violations that occur in foreign countries. The United States has enacted the Alien Tort Claims Act, which allows recovery of damages in United States courts for personal injuries, pursuant to the Law of Nations and customary international law. This chapter looks at only two options: the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of the Organization of American States (OAS) and the United States courts. Lack of Protection for Women in Ciudad Juárez and the State of Chihuahua Ciudad Juárez has about 1.2 million residents. Its location along the U.S.–Mexico border has enabled it to undergo significant economic development, but it has also attracted organized crime, especially drug trafficking, which has generated high levels of violence. In the...