This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (August 2009)

The first two pages of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, in (left to right) German, Hungarian, Bulgarian, Ottoman Turkish and Russian

A treaty is an express agreement under international law entered into by actors in international law, namely sovereign states and international organizations. A treaty may also be known as an (international) agreement, protocol, covenant, convention or exchange of letters, among other terms. Regardless of terminology, all of these forms of agreements are, under international law, equally considered treaties and the rules are the same.^[1]

Treaties can be loosely compared to contracts: both are means of willing parties assuming obligations among themselves, and a party to either that fails to live up to their obligations can be held liable under international law.

Modern usage[link]

A treaty is an official, express written agreement that states use to legally bind themselves.^[2] A treaty is that official document which expresses that agreement in words; and it is also the objective outcome of a ceremonial occasion which acknowledges the parties and their defined relationships.

Bilateral and multilateral treaties[link]

Bilateral treaties are concluded between two states^[3] or entities. It is possible however for a bilateral treaty to have more than two parties; consider for instance the bilateral treaties between Switzerland and the European Union (EU) following the Swiss rejection of the European Economic Area agreement. Each of these treaties has seventeen parties. These however are still bilateral, not multilateral, treaties. The parties are divided into two groups, the Swiss ("on the one part") and the EU and its member states ("on the other part"). The treaty establishes rights and obligations between the Swiss and the EU and the member states severally; it does not establish any rights and obligations amongst the EU and its member states.^{[citation needed]}

A multilateral treaty is concluded among several countries.^[3] The agreement establishes rights and obligations between each party and every other party. Multilateral treaties are often regional.^{[citation needed]} Treaties of "mutual guarantee" are international compacts, e.g., the Treaty of Locarno which guarantees each signatory against attack from another.^[3]

Adding and amending treaty obligations[link]

Reservations[link]

Reservations are essentially caveats to a state's acceptance of a treaty. Reservations are unilateral statements purporting to exclude or to modify the legal obligation and its effects on the reserving state.^[4] These must be included at the time of signing or ratification—a party cannot add a reservation after it has already joined a treaty.

Originally, international law was unaccepting of treaty reservations, rejecting them unless all parties to the treaty accepted the same reservations. However, in the interest of encouraging the largest number of states to join treaties, a more permissive rule regarding reservations has emerged. While some treaties still expressly forbid any reservations, they are now generally permitted to the extent that they are not inconsistent with the goals and purposes of the treaty.

When a state limits its treaty obligations through reservations, other states party to that treaty have the option to accept those reservations, object to them, or object and oppose them. If the state accepts them (or fails to act at all), both the reserving state and the accepting state are relieved of the reserved legal obligation as concerns their legal obligations to each other (accepting the reservation does not change the accepting state's legal obligations as concerns other parties to the treaty). If the state opposes, the parts of the treaty affected by the reservation drop out completely and no longer create any legal obligations on the reserving and accepting state, again only as concerns each other. Finally, if the state objects and opposes, there are no legal obligations under that treaty between those two state parties whatsoever. The objecting and opposing state essentially refuses to acknowledge the reserving state is a party to the treaty at all.^[5]

Amendments[link]

There are three ways an existing treaty can be amended. First, formal amendment requires States parties to the treaty to go through the ratification process all over again. The re-negotiation of treaty provisions can be long and protracted, and often some parties to the original treaty will not become parties to the amended treaty. When determining the legal obligations of states, one party to the original treaty and one a party to the amended treaty, the states will only be bound by the terms they both agreed upon. Treaties can also be amended informally by the treaty executive council when the changes are only procedural, technical change in customary international law can also amend a treaty, where state behavior evinces a new interpretation of the legal obligations under the treaty. Minor corrections to a treaty may be adopted by a procès-verbal; but a procès-verbal is generally reserved for changes to rectify obvious errors in the text adopted, i.e. where the text adopted does not correctly reflect the intention of the parties adopting it.

Protocols[link]

In international law and international relations, a protocol is generally a treaty or international agreement that supplements a previous treaty or international agreement. A protocol can amend the previous treaty, or add additional provisions. Parties to the earlier agreement are not required to adopt the protocol; sometimes this is made clearer by calling it an "optional protocol", especially where many parties to the first agreement do not support the protocol.

Some examples: the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) established a framework for the development of binding greenhouse gas emission limits, while the Kyoto Protocol contained the specific provisions and regulations later agreed upon.

Execution and implementation[link]

Treaties may be seen as 'self-executing', in that merely becoming a party puts the treaty and all of its obligations in action. Other treaties may be non-self-executing and require 'implementing legislation'—a change in the domestic law of a state party that will direct or enable it to fulfill treaty obligations. An example of a treaty requiring such legislation would be one mandating local prosecution by a party for particular crimes.

The division between the two is often not clear and is often politicized in disagreements within a government over a treaty, since a non-self-executing treaty cannot be acted on without the proper change in domestic law. If a treaty requires implementing legislation, a state may be in default of its obligations by the failure of its legislature to pass the necessary domestic laws.

Interpretation[link]

The language of treaties, like that of any law or contract, must be interpreted when the wording does not seem clear or it is not immediately apparent how it should be applied in a perhaps unforeseen circumstance. The Vienna Convention states that treaties are to be interpreted “in good faith” according to the “ordinary meaning given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose.” International legal experts also often invoke the 'principle of maximum effectiveness,' which interprets treaty language as having the fullest force and effect possible to establish obligations between the parties.

No one party to a treaty can impose its particular interpretation of the treaty upon the other parties. Consent may be implied, however, if the other parties fail to explicitly disavow that initially unilateral interpretation, particularly if that state has acted upon its view of the treaty without complaint. Consent by all parties to the treaty to a particular interpretation has the legal effect of adding an additional clause to the treaty – this is commonly called an 'authentic interpretation'.

International tribunals and arbiters are often called upon to resolve substantial disputes over treaty interpretations. To establish the meaning in context, these judicial bodies may review the preparatory work from the negotiation and drafting of the treaty as well as the final, signed treaty itself.

Consequences of terminology[link]

One significant part of treaty making is that signing a treaty implies recognition that the other side is a sovereign state and that the agreement being considered is enforceable under international law. Hence, nations can be very careful about terming an agreement to be a treaty. For example, within the United States agreements between states are compacts and agreements between states and the federal government or between agencies of the government are memoranda of understanding.

Another situation can occur when one party wishes to create an obligation under international law, but the other party does not. This factor has been at work with respect to discussions between North Korea and the United States over security guarantees and nuclear proliferation.

The terminology can also be confusing because a treaty may and usually is named something other than a treaty, such as a convention, protocol, or simply agreement. Conversely some legal documents such as the Treaty of Waitangi are internationally considered to be documents under domestic law.

Ending treaty obligations[link]

Withdrawal[link]

Treaties are not necessarily permanently binding upon the signatory parties. As obligations in international law are traditionally viewed as arising only from the consent of states, many treaties expressly allow a state to withdraw as long as it follows certain procedures of notification. Many treaties expressly forbid withdrawal. Other treaties are silent on the issue, and so if a state attempts withdrawal through its own unilateral denunciation of the treaty, a determination must be made regarding whether permitting withdrawal is contrary to the original intent of the parties or to the nature of the treaty. Human rights treaties, for example, are generally interpreted to exclude the possibility of withdrawal, because of the importance and permanence of the obligations.^{[citation needed]}

If a state party's withdrawal is successful, its obligations under that treaty are considered terminated, and withdrawal by one party from a bilateral treaty of course terminates the treaty. When a state withdraws from a multi-lateral treaty, that treaty will still otherwise remain in force between the other parties, unless, of course, otherwise should or could be interpreted as agreed upon between the remaining states parties to the treaty.^{[citation needed]}

Suspension and termination[link]

If a party has materially violated or breached its treaty obligations, the other parties may invoke this breach as grounds for temporarily suspending their obligations to that party under the treaty. A material breach may also be invoked as grounds for permanently terminating the treaty itself.^{[citation needed]}

A treaty breach does not automatically suspend or terminate treaty relations, however. The issue must be presented to an international tribunal or arbiter (usually specified in the treaty itself) to legally establish that a sufficiently serious breach has in fact occurred. Otherwise, a party that prematurely and perhaps wrongfully suspends or terminates its own obligations due to an alleged breach itself runs the risk of being held liable for breach. Additionally, parties may choose to overlook treaty breaches while still maintaining their own obligations towards the party in breach.^{[citation needed]}

Treaties sometimes include provisions for self-termination, meaning that the treaty is automatically terminated if certain defined conditions are met. Some treaties are intended by the parties to be only temporarily binding and are set to expire on a given date. Other treaties may self-terminate if the treaty is meant to exist only under certain conditions.^{[citation needed]}

A party may claim that a treaty should be terminated, even absent an express provision, if there has been a fundamental change in circumstances. Such a change is sufficient if unforeseen, if it undermined the “essential basis” of consent by a party, if it radically transforms the extent of obligations between the parties, and if the obligations are still to be performed. A party cannot base this claim on change brought about by its own breach of the treaty. This claim also cannot be used to invalidate treaties that established or redrew political boundaries.^{[citation needed]}

Invalid treaties[link]

There are several reasons an otherwise valid and agreed upon treaty may be rejected as a binding international agreement, most of which involve problems created at the formation of the treaty.^{[citation needed]} For example, the serial Japan-Korea treaties of 1905 1907 and 1910 were protested;^[6] and they were confirmed as "already null and void" in the 1965 Treaty on Basic Relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea.^[7]

[edit] Ultra vires treaties

A party's consent to a treaty is invalid if it had been given by an agent or body without power to do so under that state's domestic law. States are reluctant to inquire into the internal affairs and processes of other states, and so a “manifest” violation is required such that it would be “objectively evident to any State dealing with the matter". A strong presumption exists internationally that a head of state has acted within his proper authority. It seems that no treaty has ever actually been invalidated on this provision.^{[citation needed]}

Consent is also invalid if it is given by a representative who ignored restrictions he is subject to by his sovereign during the negotiations, if the other parties to the treaty were notified of those restrictions prior to his signing.^{[citation needed]}

According to the preamble in The Law of treaties, treaties are a source of international law. If an act or lack thereof is condemned under international law, the act will not assume international legality even if approved by internal law.^[8] This means that in case of a conflict with domestic law, international law will always prevail.^[9]

Misunderstanding, fraud, corruption, coercion[link]

Articles 46–53 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties set out the only ways that treaties can be invalidated—considered unenforceable and void under international law. A treaty will be invalidated due to either the circumstances by which a state party joined the treaty, or due to the content of the treaty itself. Invalidation is separate from withdrawal, suspension, or termination (addressed above), which all involve an alteration in the consent of the parties of a previously valid treaty rather than the invalidation of that consent in the first place.

A state's consent may be invalidated if there was an erroneous understanding of a fact or situation at the time of conclusion, which formed the "essential basis" of the state's consent. Consent will not be invalidated if the misunderstanding was due to the state's own conduct, or if the truth should have been evident.

Consent will also be invalidated if it was induced by the fraudulent conduct of another party, or by the direct or indirect "corruption" of its representative by another party to the treaty. Coercion of either a representative, or the state itself through the threat or use of force, if used to obtain the consent of that state to a treaty, will invalidate that consent.

Peremptory norms[link]

A treaty is null and void if it is in violation of a peremptory norm. These norms, unlike other principles of customary law, are recognized as permitting no violations and so cannot be altered through treaty obligations. These are limited to such universally accepted prohibitions as those against genocide, slavery, torture, and piracy, meaning that no state can legally assume an obligation to commit or permit such acts.^{[citation needed]}

Role of the United Nations[link]

The United Nations Charter states that treaties must be registered with the UN to be invoked before it or enforced in its judiciary organ, the International Court of Justice. This was done to prevent the proliferation of secret treaties that occurred in the 19th and 20th century. Section 103 of the Charter also states that its members' obligations under it outweigh any competing obligations under other treaties.

After their adoption, treaties as well as their amendments have to follow the official legal procedures of the United Nations, as applied by the Office of Legal Affairs, including signature, ratification and entry into force.

In function and effectiveness, the UN has been compared to the pre-Constitutional United States Federal government by some^{[citation needed]}, giving a comparison between modern treaty law and the historical Articles of Confederation.

Relation between national law and treaties by country[link]

Brazilian law[link]

The Brazilian federal constitution states that the power to enter into treaties is vested in the president and that such treaties must be approved by Congress (articles 84, clause VIII, and 49, clause I). In practice, this has been interpreted as meaning that the executive branch is free to negotiate and sign a treaty, but its ratification by the president is contingent upon the prior approval of Congress. Additionally, the Federal Supreme Court has ruled that, following ratification and entry into force, a treaty must be incorporated into domestic law by means of a presidential decree published in the federal register in order to be valid in Brazil and applicable by the Brazilian authorities.

The Federal Supreme Court has established that treaties are subject to constitutional review and enjoy the same hierarchical position as ordinary legislation (leis ordinárias, or "ordinary laws", in Portuguese). A more recent ruling by the Supreme Court in 2008 has altered that scheme somewhat, by stating that treaties containing human rights provisions enjoy a status above that of ordinary legislation, though they remain beneath the constitution itself. Additionally, as per the 45th amendment to the constitution, human rights treaties which are approved by Congress by means of a special procedure enjoy the same hierarchical position as a constitutional amendment. The hierarchical position of treaties in relation to domestic legislation is of relevance to the discussion on whether (and how) the latter can abrogate the former and vice versa.

The Brazilian federal constitution does not have a supremacy clause with the same effects as the one on the U.S. constitution, a fact that is of interest to the discussion on the relation between treaties and state legislation.

United States law[link]

This article appears to contradict the article Foreign policy of the United States. Please see discussion on the linked talk page. Please do not remove this message until the contradictions are resolved. (February 2012)

In the United States, the term "treaty" has a different, more restricted legal sense than exists in international law. U.S. law distinguishes what it calls treaties from executive agreements, congressional-executive agreements, and sole executive agreements. All four classes are equally treaties under international law; they are distinct only from the perspective of internal American law. The distinctions are primarily concerning their method of approval. Whereas treaties require advice and consent by two-thirds of the Senate, sole executive agreements may be executed by the President acting alone. Some treaties grant the President the authority to fill in the gaps with executive agreements, rather than additional treaties or protocols. And finally, congressional-executive agreements require majority approval by both the House and the Senate, either before or after the treaty is signed by the President.

Currently, international agreements are executed by executive agreement rather than treaties at a rate of 10:1. Despite the relative ease of executive agreements, the President still often chooses to pursue the formal treaty process over an executive agreement in order to gain congressional support on matters that require the Congress to pass implementing legislation or appropriate funds, and those agreements that impose long-term, complex legal obligations on the U.S.

See the article on the Bricker Amendment for history of the relationship between treaty powers and Constitutional provisions.

Treaties and indigenous peoples[link]

Treaties formed an important part of European colonization and, in many parts of the world, Europeans attempted to legitimize their sovereignty by signing treaties with indigenous peoples. In most cases these treaties were in extremely disadvantageous terms to the native people, who often did not appreciate the implications of what they were signing.

In some rare cases, such as with Ethiopia and Qing Dynasty China, the local governments were able to use the treaties to at least mitigate the impact of European colonization. This involved learning the intricacies of European diplomatic customs and then using the treaties to prevent a power from overstepping their agreement or by playing different powers against each other.

In other cases, such as New Zealand and Canada, treaties allowed native peoples to maintain a minimum amount of autonomy. In the case of indigenous Australians, unlike with the Māori of New Zealand, no treaty was ever entered into with the indigenous peoples entitling the Europeans to land ownership, under the doctrine of terra nullius (later overturned by Mabo v Queensland, establishing the concept of native title well after colonization was already a fait accompli). Such treaties between colonizers and indigenous peoples are an important part of political discourse in the late 20th and early 21st century, the treaties being discussed have international standing as has been stated in a treaty study by the UN.

United States[link]

Prior to 1871 the government of the United States regularly entered into treaties with Native Americans of the United States but the Indian Appropriations Act of March 3, 1871 (ch. 120, 16 Stat. 566) had a rider (25 U.S.C. § 71) attached that effectively ended the President’s treaty making by providing that no Indian nation or tribe shall be acknowledged as an independent nation, tribe, or power with whom the United States may contract by treaty. The federal government continued to provide similar contractual relations with the Indian tribes after 1871 by agreements, statutes, and executive orders.^[10]

See also[link]

• Jus tractatuum
• List of intergovernmental organizations
• List of special entities recognized by international treaty or agreement
• List of treaties
• Manrent (feudal Scottish Clan treaty)
• Treaty ratification
• Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties

Notes[link]

This article includes a list of references, but its sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations. Please help to improve this article by introducing more precise citations. (August 2009)

References[link]

• Korean Mission to the Conference on the Limitation of Armament, Washington, D.C., 1921–1922. (1922). Korea's Appeal to the Conference on Limitation of Armament. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office. OCLC 12923609
• Nicolson, Harold. (1936). Diplomacy, 1st ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. OCLC 502863836
• Shaw, Malcolm Nathan. (1977). International Law, 1st ed. Sevenoaks, Kent: Hodder and Stoughton. OCLC 637940121

External links[link]

Look up treaty in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

Wikisource has original text related to this article: Treaties

• Treaties and Selected other International Instruments – Resources
• United Nations Treaty Collection
  • UN Treaty Collection – Treaty Guide
• TreatyLaw.org is a dedicated web site featuring academic papers and resources
• UN Cyberschoolbus – UN Core Treaties
• The International Law of Treaties
• ISEA International Energy Treaties
• Treaties from UCB Libraries GovPubs
• Resource Guide on Treaties from the American Society of International Law
• Treaty Affairs at the United States Department of State
• Treaties Office at the European Union
• Treaties Section of the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office
• Ecuadorian Treaties
• Peace Palace Library - Research Guide

Cathie L. Adams (born 1950) is a homemaker from Dallas, Texas,^[1] who is the former chairman of the Republican Party of Texas. She won the post in a special meeting of the Republican State Executive Committee held on October 24, 2009, at party headquarters in Austin. She was unseated in the state convention held in Dallas on June 12, 2010, by Stephen Peter "Steve" Munisteri (born 1958), a retired attorney and businessman from Houston.^[2]

Adams has been married since 1970 to Homer Charles Adams (born ca. 1948), a Dallas chiropractor. They have one son and five grandchildren. The couple attends Stonebriar Community Church in Frisco in the Dallas–Fort Worth Metroplex.^[3]

Election as interim chairman[link]

By a vote of 36-25, Adams defeated Melinda Fredricks of Conroe to succeed former chairman Tina Benkiser, a Houston attorney who stepped down on September 26 to join the reelection campaign of Governor Rick Perry.^[4] Adams' election as interim party chairman extended until the next Republican state convention on June 11–12, 2010. She indicated from the start that she would seek a full term at the state convention.^[5]

Under party rules, the chairman must be neutral during primary campaigns. Perry defeated sitting U.S. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison and two other contenders in the March 2, 2010, Republican primary. Adams had earlier endorsed Perry prior to her election as chairman. She indicated that she could not in conscience withdraw the endorsement but would be impartial in her role as chairman during the campaign. She also urged Senator Hutchison to clarify when she will resign her Senate seat to campaign full-time for governor. The uncertainty of an exit time has made it difficult for Senate candidates to plan strategy and to conduct fund raising, Adams said.^[6] Hutchison subsequently changed her mind about resignation and will remain in the seat through the current term.

Conservative politics[link]

Adams has long been active in her party’s conservative wing. She started as a GOP election judge and has been a member of district, state, and national resolutions or platform committees. Since 1988, Adams has been a delegate to each state senatorial convention and each state party convention held the first weekend of June in even years. She was a delegate to the Republican National Conventions held in 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004 and 2008. At the 2008 state convention, she was named Republican national committeewoman from Texas. As state party chairman, she automatically remains a member of the RNC.^[4]Robin Armstrong, an African American physician from Galveston County, continued as vice chairman of the RPT under Adams' leadership. He was succeeded as vice chairman on June 12, 2010, by Melinda Fredricks.

Adams, strongly opposed to abortion, was the director of a crisis pregnancy center in Plano in Collin County, Texas,^[3] before she joined the board of the Dallas Eagle Forum in the middle 1980s. Adams was the president of DEF for five years until 1993, when she was named Texas state president by Phyllis Schlafly, the founder of the national organization based in St. Louis, Missouri.^[3] In 2005, as the Eagle Forum president, Adams questioned what she determined to be a lack of conservative state legislators even within the Republican Party. "Of the 181 elected Texas legislators [House and Senate] serving during the [79th] legislative session and special-called sessions in Austin, only eleven legislators were commended for their conservative voting record."^[7]

In connection with her Eagle Forum and Republican activities, Adams has traveled throughout the world, including Rome, Istanbul, Beijing, The Hague, Paris, Kyoto, and Buenos Aires. She serves on the advisory board of the Young Conservatives of Texas, a nonpartisan youth organization committed to the preservation of individual liberties and freedom.^[3]

Adams has contributed financially to various Republican U.S. representatives in her area, including Joe Barton and Sam Johnson. In 1995, she supported then U.S. Senator Phil Gramm of Texas for the Republican presidential nomination. Gramm withdrew from the race early in 1996, and the nomination went to Senator Bob Dole of Kansas, who was then defeated by Bill Clinton.^[8]

Shortly before she became state chairman, Adams said in an interview that she opposes divisive Republican primary fights: "I try and forget them as soon as I can, because they are so wrong. I don't like [personal attacks] at all and I don't think there’s a need in doing that...."^[9]

Activities as chairman[link]

On November 2, 2009, Adams announced that she will spearhead opposition in Texas to the health care proposals advanced by U.S. President Barack Obama and the congressional Democrats led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California and U.S. Senator Harry Reid of Nevada. Adams urged demonstrations at the offices of presumed undecided Democratic U.S. Representatives Ciro Rodriguez in San Antonio, Chet Edwards in Bryan, and Solomon Ortiz in Corpus Christi, both of whom were defeated for reelection in 2010. Adams stated that "extremists in their party . . . are trying to take over one-sixth of the American economy." She maintained that the Democratic package will "cost $1.3 trillion, or $500 million per page [2,000 total pages in the legislation], financed through massive debt and tax hikes; raise taxes 13 different ways, including forcing Americans to buy . . . health insurance; increase insurance premiums and decrease access to health care; cost Texas at least 15,000 jobs by forcing doctor-owned hospitals to close, and provide for taxpayer-funded abortions."^[10]

Adams spoke strongly in her own defense at the convention about her 30-year fight against abortion, same-sex marriage, the United Nations, and for maintaining a Christian nation. Adams had angered some Republican voters by refusing to release financial information about the party. More recently, she said, "I'm saying 'no' to Barrack Hussein Obama," but she fell far short of victory for a full term.^[11]

Munisteri received support from 59 percent of the seven thousand convention delegates. His grass roots work in the party began in 1972, when he was a young organizer for gubernatorial nominee, the late State Senator Henry C. Grover of Houston.^[11] Munisteri's partisan counterpart remains the Democratic state chairman Boyd Richie of Graham in Young County, west of Fort Worth. The Democrat convention was held on June 26, 2010.

Melinda Fredericks, Adams's 2009 rival, meanwhile, was named state Republican vice chairman.

References[link]

Rachel Maddow
Maddow hosting KPTK's "Changing the Media, Changing America" event in Seattle
Born	Rachel Anne Maddow (1973-04-01) April 1, 1973 (age 39) Castro Valley, California, U.S.
Education	B.A., Stanford University D.Phil, University of Oxford
Occupation	News anchor Political commentator Television host
Notable credit(s)	The Rachel Maddow Show (MSNBC) The Rachel Maddow Show (Air America Radio)
Website
www.rachelmaddow.com

Rachel Anne Maddow (pronounced /ˈmædoʊ/; born April 1, 1973) is an American television host, political commentator, and author.^[1][2] Maddow hosts a nightly television show, The Rachel Maddow Show, on MSNBC.^[3] Her syndicated talk radio program of the same name aired on Air America Radio. Maddow is the first openly gay anchor of a prime-time news program in the United States.^[4][5][6][7]

Asked about her political views by the Valley Advocate, Maddow replied, "I'm undoubtedly a liberal, which means that I'm in almost total agreement with the Eisenhower-era Republican party platform."^[8]

Early life and education[link]

Maddow was born in Castro Valley, California. Her father, Robert B. "Bob" Maddow, is a former United States Air Force captain who resigned his commission the year before her birth and found civilian work as a lawyer for the East Bay Municipal Utility District. Her mother, Elaine Maddow (née Gosse), is a school program administrator from Newfoundland, Canada.^[9][10][11] She has one older brother, David. Her father is of Russian and Dutch descent and her mother is of English and Irish ancestry.^[11] Maddow's mother was raised a strict Roman Catholic, and Maddow herself grew up in a community that her mother has described as "very conservative."^[12][13] Maddow was a competitive athlete and played three sports in high school.^[14] Referencing John Hughes films, she describes herself in high school as "a cross between the jock and the antisocial girl."^[13]

A graduate of Castro Valley High School in Castro Valley, California, she attended Stanford University. While a freshman, she was outed by the college newspaper when an interview with her was published by the student newspaper before she could tell her parents.^[15] Maddow earned a degree in public policy from Stanford in 1994.^[16] At graduation she was awarded the John Gardner Fellowship.^[17] She was also the recipient of a Rhodes Scholarship and began her postgraduate study in 1995 at Lincoln College, Oxford. In 2001, she earned a Doctor of Philosophy (DPhil) in politics from Oxford University.^[18] Her thesis is titled HIV/AIDS and Health Care Reform in British and American Prisons (supervisor: Dr Lucia Zedner). She was the first openly gay American to win a Rhodes scholarship.^[19][20]

Radio career[link]

Maddow's first radio hosting job was at WRNX (100.9 FM) in Holyoke, Massachusetts, after she entered and won a contest the station held to find a new on-air personality.^[21] She was hired to co-host WRNX's morning show, The Dave in the Morning Show. She went on to host Big Breakfast on WRSI, in Northampton, Massachusetts, for two years. She left the show in March 2004 to join the new Air America.^[18] There she hosted Unfiltered along with Chuck D (of the hip hop group Public Enemy) and Lizz Winstead (co-creator of The Daily Show), until its cancellation in March 2005.^[22] Two weeks after the cancellation of Unfiltered in April 2005, Maddow's weekday two-hour radio program, The Rachel Maddow Show, began airing; in March 2008 it gained an hour, broadcasting from 6 to 9 p.m. EST with David Bender filling in the third hour for the call-in section, when Maddow was on TV assignment. In September 2008, the show's length returned to two hours when Maddow began a nightly MSNBC television program. In February 2009, after renewing her contract with Air America, Maddow returned to the 5 am hour-long slot.^[23] Her last Air America show was on January 21, 2010, two weeks before its owners filed for bankruptcy.^[24]

Television career[link]

In June 2005, Maddow became a regular panelist on MSNBC's Tucker.^[25] During and after the November 2006 election, she was a frequent guest on CNN's Paula Zahn Now. In January 2008, Maddow became a MSNBC political analyst and was a regular panelist on MSNBC's Race for the White House with David Gregory and MSNBC's election coverage,^[26] as well as a frequent contributor on Countdown with Keith Olbermann.^[18]

In April 2008, Maddow was the substitute host for Countdown with Keith Olbermann, her first time hosting a program on MSNBC. Maddow described herself on air as "nervous." Keith Olbermann complimented her work, and she was brought back to host Countdown the next month. The show she hosted was the highest rated news program among people ages 25 to 54, a key demographic in ratings.^[27] For her success, the next Monday, Olbermann ranked Maddow third in his show's segment "World's Best Persons".^[28] In July 2008, while Olbermann was on vacation, Maddow filled in again for several broadcasts and, on July 21, for half the show.^[29] Maddow also filled in for David Gregory as host of Race for the White House.^[18]

[edit] The Rachel Maddow Show

In August 2008, MSNBC announced The Rachel Maddow Show would replace Verdict with Dan Abrams in the network's 9 p.m. slot the following month.^[30][31] Following its debut, the show topped Countdown as the highest rated show on MSNBC on several occasions.^[32][33] After being on air for more than a month, Maddow's program doubled the audience that hour.^[34]

Early reviews for her show were mostly positive. The Los Angeles Times writer Matea Gold stated Maddow "finds the right formula on MSNBC,"^[35] and The Guardian writes Maddow has become the "star of America's cable news."^[20] Associated Press columnist David Bauder said she's "[Keith] Olbermann's political soul mate" and the Olbermann-Maddow shows are a "liberal two-hour block."^[36]

Public image and publicity[link]

Maddow has been profiled in People,^[37] the Guardian,^[38] and the New York Observer,^[39] has appeared on “The View” and “Charlie Rose”^[40]

Keith Olbermann played a pivotal role in Maddow's hiring at MSNBC. Olbermann was able to pressure Phil Griffin to give Maddow Dan Abram's slot. A fan of Maddow's, Olbermann was able to use his influence, which had become greater as his ratings rose.^[41]

A 2011 Hollywood Reporter profile of Maddow said that she was able to deliver news "with agenda, but not hysteria.”^[42] A Newsweek profile noted that “At her best, Maddow debates ideological opponents with civility and persistence...But for all her eloquence, she can get so wound up ripping Republicans that she sounds like another smug cable partisan.". Baltimore Sun critic David Zurawik has accused Maddow of acting like 'a lockstep party member.'”^[43]

A Time profile called her a “whip-smart, button-cute leftie.” It said that she radiates an essential decency and suggested that her career rise might signify that “nice is the new nasty.”^[44]

Political views[link]

Distinguishing herself from others on the left, Maddow said she's a "national security liberal" and in a different interview that she's not "a partisan."^[45][46] The New York Times called her a "defense policy wonk" who is writing a book on the role of the military in postwar American politics.^[35][45] (The book, titled Drift: The Unmooring of American Military Power, was published in 2012.) During the 2008 presidential election, Maddow did not formally support any candidate. Concerning Barack Obama's candidacy, Maddow said during the primaries, "I have never and still don't think of myself as an Obama supporter, either professionally or actually."^[47]

In March 2010, Republican Scott Brown, the junior United States Senator from Massachusetts, speculated that Maddow was going to run against him for his seat in 2012. He used this premise for a fundraising email that read "...The Massachusetts political machine is looking for someone to run against me. And you're not going to believe who they are supposedly trying to recruit — liberal MSNBC anchor Rachel Maddow." Maddow said Brown's speculation was false. On her March 23, 2010, TV program, Maddow said, "I have the best job in the world. I am not running for office. Scott Brown didn't ask me if I was running or planning to run for office, before he wrote a fundraising letter with my name. No, it's completely made up by him." Despite her comments, the next day Brown continued along the same line, telling a Boston radio station, "Bring her on." To help put an end to the matter, Maddow ran a full-page advertisement in the Boston Globe confirming she was not running, and separately demanded Brown's apology. She added that despite repeated invitations over the months, Brown had refused to appear on her TV program.^{[48][49][50][51]}

Personal life[link]

Maddow lives in Manhattan and western Massachusetts with her partner, artist Susan Mikula.^[52][53] The couple met in 1999, when Mikula hired Maddow to do yard work at her home. Maddow was working on her doctoral dissertation at the time.^[52] Their first date was at a National Rifle Association "Ladies' Day on the Range" event.^[54] Although Massachusetts and New York recognize same-sex marriage, as of 2009 Maddow and Mikula had no plans to marry.^[13]

Honors and awards[link]

• Emmy Award in the Outstanding News Discussion and Analysis category for "The Rachel Maddow Show" episode "Good Morning Landlocked Central Asia!"
• Maddow was named in Out magazine's "Out 100" list of the "gay men and women who moved culture" in 2008.^[55]
• Maddow was voted "Lesbian/Bi Woman of the Year (American)" in AfterEllen's 2008 Visibility Awards.^[56]
• Maddow won a Gracie Award in 2009, presented by the American Women in Radio and Television.^[57]
• In 2009, Maddow was nominated for GLAAD's 20th Annual Media Awards for a segment of her MSNBC show, "Rick Warren, Change To Believe In?", in the Outstanding TV Journalism Segment category.^[58]
• On March 28, 2009, Maddow received a Proclamation of Honor from the California State Senate, presented in San Francisco by California State Senator Mark Leno.^[59]
• In April 2009, she was listed at number four in Out magazine's Annual Power 50 List.^[60]
• Maddow placed sixth in the "2009 AfterEllen.com Hot 100" list (May 11, 2009)^[61] and third in its "2009 Hot 100: Out Women" version.^[62]
• Maddow was included on a list of openly gay media professionals in The Advocate's "Forty under 40" issue of June/July 2009.^[63]
• In 1994, Maddow was an Honorable Mention in the Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity Prize in Ethics.^[64]
• In June 2009, Maddow's MSNBC show was the only cable news show nominated for a Television Critics Association award in the Outstanding Achievement in News and Information category.^[65]
• In March 2010, Maddow won at the 21st Annual GLAAD Media Awards in the category, Outstanding TV Journalism- Newsmagazine for her segment, "Uganda Be Kidding Me".^[66]
• Maddow was the 2010 commencement speaker and was given an honorary Doctor of Laws (LLD) degree at Smith College in Northampton, MA in May 2010.^[67]
• In July 2010, Maddow was presented with a Maggie Award for her ongoing reporting of healthcare reform, the murder of Dr. George Tiller, and the anti-abortion movement.^[68]
• In August 2010, Maddow won the Walter Cronkite Faith & Freedom Award, which was presented by The Interfaith Alliance.^[69] Past honorees included Larry King, Tom Brokaw, and the late Peter Jennings.^[69]
• In November 2011, she was included on the list of "Over-Rated Thinkers" by the editors of The New Republic.^[70]
• In February 2012, Maddow was presented the John Steinbeck Award by the Martha Heasley Cox Center for Steinbeck Studies at San Jose State University.^[71]

Bibliography[link]

• Maddow, Rachel (2012). Drift: The Unmooring of American Military Power. Crown. ISBN 978-0-307-46098-1. 

References[link]

External links[link]

Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Rachel Maddow

• Rachel Maddow on Twitter
• Official website
• Profile and show at MSNBC
• Appearances on C-SPAN
• Rachel Maddow on Charlie Rose
• Rachel Maddow at the Internet Movie Database
• Works by or about Rachel Maddow in libraries (WorldCat catalog)