Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-9q27g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-20T07:35:54.057Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Fifty-Fifth Session of the UN Commission on Human Rights

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Michael J. Dennis
Michael J. Dennis*
Affiliation:
U.S. Department of State
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The fifty-fifth session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights took place in Geneva from March 22 to April 30, 1999, and was chaired by Ambassador Anne Anderson of Ireland. The Commission reviewed the state of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the world, adopting eighty-two resolutions, fifty-eight by consensus, and thirteen decisions.

More than thirty-two hundred participants represented fifty-three member and ninety-one observer states, over two hundred nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and some fiftyfive specialized agencies and other organizations. Secretary-General Kofi Annan underscored the priority he attaches to human rights by stating that “the promodon and defense of human rights is at the heart of every aspect of our work and every article of our Charter. ”

Type
Current Developments
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 94 , Issue 1 , January 2000 , pp. 189 - 197
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2000

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The Report of the Commission on Human Rights [CHR] on its fifty-fifth session, UN Doc. E/CN.4/1999/167 [hereinafter Report], contains the resolutions and decisions of the Commission.

2 See id. at 394–406; Statistics relating to fifty-fifth session of the Commission on Human Rights, UN Doc. E/CN.4/2000/8 (1999).

3 Statement by the Secretary-General 1 (Apr. 7, 1999) (on file with author).

4 This report, also like similar essays on the 1994–1998 sessions, is a personal reflection on the Commission's session and not a complete record. See John R. Crook, The Fiftieth Session of the UN Commission on Human Rights, 88 AJIL 806 (1994); John R. Crook, The Fifty-first Session of the UN Commission on Human Rights, 90 AJIL 126 (1996); Michael J. Dennis, The Fifty-second Session of the UN Commission on Human Rights, 91 AJIL 167 (1997); Michael J. Dennis, The Fifty-third Session of the UN Commission on Human Rights, 92 AJIL 112 (1998) [hereinafter Dennis, 53d Session]; Michael J. Dennis, The Fifty-fourth Session of the UN Commission on Human Rights, 93 AJIL 246 (1999) [hereinafter Dennis, 54th Session].

5 See CHR Press Releases HR/CN/99/20 (Apr. 1), HR/CN/99/29 (Apr. 9), HR/CN/99/43 (Apr. 16), HR/CN/99/53 (Apr. 22), HR/CN/99/65 (Apr. 30).

6 CHR Res. 1999/2 (Apr. 13), 1999/18 (Apr. 23).

7 Harold H. Koh, Introductory Remarks (Apr. 23,1999) (on file with author). President Clinton later made a similar defense of the NATO action when he addressed the General Assembly on September 21, 1999: “NATO acted in Kosovo, for example, to stop a vicious campaign of ethnic cleansing in a place where we had important interests at stake, and the ability to act collectively” (on file with author).

8 See CHR Press Releases HR/CN/99/34 (Apr. 13), HR/CN/99/56 (Apr. 23).

9 See Explanations of vote by Argentina, Guatemala, Mexico, Uruguay, Peru, Chile, Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, Mauritius, Sri Lanka, Nepal, and South Africa, CHR Press Releases HR/CN/99/34 (Apr. 13), HR/CN/99/56 (Apr. 23).

10 See Report, supra note 1, at 298–300; CHR Press Release HR/CN/99/54 (Apr. 23). U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Koh again stressed, in an explanation of vote, that NATO “military action is the response, not the cause of the suffering of the people of Kosovo”; and Germany (on behalf of the European Union) made a similar statement. Id.

11 Closing statement of Mary Robinson (Apr. 30, 1999); and Statement by Kofi Annan to the UN General Assembly (Sept. 20, 1999) (on file with author).

12 Subcommission Res. 1999/2 (Aug. 20), reported in UN Doc. E/CN.4/2000/2. The Subcommission was known until 1999 as the Subcommission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities.

13 CHR Res. 1999/57 (Apr. 27).

14 See Report, supra note 1, at 344-45; CHR Press Release HR/CN/99/61 (Apr. 27).

15 See explanation of vote by India, Chile, and the Russian Federation. Id.

16 CHR Res. 1999/61 (Apr. 28). This was the first time that the European Union as a whole had sponsored a resolution on the subject.

17 See Report, supra note 1, at 365–66; CHR Press Release HR/CN/99/62 (Apr. 28). While few industrial democracies other than the United States retain the death penalty, a majority of countries retain the death penalty for the most serious offenses. See Question of the Death Penalty: Report of the Secretary-General submitted pursuant to Commission resolution 1999/8, reported in UN Doc. E/CN.4/1999/52.

18 See Statement of Ambassador Nancy Rubin 1 (Apr. 28, 1999) (on file with author). In the United States, 40 out of the 50 states plus the federal government maintain capital punishment for the most egregious crimes. See Brennan v. State, 24 Fla. L. Weekly S365 (Fla. July 8), revised, 24 Fla. L. Weekly S495 (Fla. Oct. 21, 1999).

19 For the Convention, see GA Res. 44/25, annex, UN GAOR, 44th Sess., Supp. No. 49, at 167, UN Doc. A/44/49 (1989), reprinted in 28 ILM 1448, 1470 (1989).

20 Subcommission Res. 1999/4 (Aug. 24), adopted by a vote of 14-5-5, reported in UN Doc. E/CN.4/2000/2.

21 In Stanford v. Kentucky, 492 U.S. 361 (1989), the Supreme Court held that the Eighth Amendment does not prohibit imposition of the death penalty against a 16-year-old offender. Currently, 24 states permit the death penalty to be imposed on offenders who were 16 years old at the time of the crime. See Brennan v. State, 24 Fla. L. Weekly at S497.

22 138 Cong. Rec. 8070–71 (1992).

23 See United Nations, Multilateral Treaties Deposited with the Secretary-General: Status as at 31 December 1994, UN Doc. ST/LEG/SER.E/13, UN Sales No. F.95.V.5 (1995); Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, opened for signature May 23, 1969, Art. 20(4) (b), 1155 UNTS 332, 333 (objection by a contracting state to a reservation does not prevent the treaty from entering into force unless such an intention “is definitely expressed by the objecting state”). The United States is not party to the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

24 CHR Decision [Dec] 1999/111 (Apr. 28).

25 See, e.g., Amnesty International, Muddying the Waters, The Draft “Universal Declaration on Human Responsibilities”: No Complement to Human Rights (AI Index No. IOR 40/02/98, 1998).

26 CHR Res. 1999/27 (Apr. 26). The text at the 1998 session, CHR Res. 1998/47 (Apr. 17), was adopted by a vote of 33-0, with 20 abstentions. See UN Doc. E/CN.4/1998/177.

27 See explanations of vote by the governments of Germany (on behalf of the European Union), Norway, Canada, Mexico, Argentina, Guatemala, Chile, and the United States. CHR Press Release HR/CN/99/59 (Apr. 26).

28 CHR Res. 1999/65 (Apr. 28).

29 See Fundamental Standards of Humanity: Report of the Secretary-General submitted pursuant to Commission resolution 1998/29, UN Doc. E/CN.4/1999/92, at 5–6.

30 CHR Res. 1999/59 (Apr. 28).

31 See CHR Press Release HR/CN/99/62 (Apr. 28).

32 See Working Group Report on its fifth session, UN Doc. E/CN.4/1999/73; and CHR Res. 1999/80 (Apr. 28) (extending the working group).

33 See Working Group Report on its fifth session, UN Doc. E/CN.4/1999/74; and CHR Res. 1999/80 (Apr. 28).

34 See Working Group Report on its seventh session, UN Doc. E/CN.4/1999/59; and CHR Res. 1999/30 (Apr. 26). The Commission also authorized a fifth session of the working group charged with drafting a declaration on indigenous rights. CHR Res. 1999/50 (Apr. 27). See Dennis, 53d Session, supra note 4, at 117–18.

35 CHR Res. 1999/36 (Apr. 26).

36 See CHR Res. 1999/31, 1999/32, 1999/35, 1999/39, 1999/37, 1999/38 (Apr. 26), respectively (acknowledging the reports).

37 See CHR Res. 1999/33, 1999/34 (Apr. 26).

38 See CHR Press Release HR/CN/99/64 (Apr. 29) (statements of India, Germany on behalf of the European Union, and Japan).

39 CHR Res. 1999/82 (Apr. 30).

40 CHR Dec. 1999/104 (Apr. 26); and CHR Res. 1999/22 (Apr. 23), 1999/58 (Apr. 28), 1999/21 (Apr. 23), 1999/23 (Apr. 26), respectively. The United States voted no on each of the texts.

41 CHR Res. 1999/79 (Apr. 28).

42 The study is reported in UN Doc. E/CN.4/1999/WG.18/2.

43 CHR Res. 1999/13, 1999/14, 1999/18 (Apr. 23), respectively.

44 CHR Res. 1999/9 (Apr. 23), 1999/10 (Apr. 23), 1999/15 (Apr. 23), 1999/17 (Apr. 23), 1999/19 (Apr. 23), 1999/20 (Apr. 23), 1999/56 (Apr. 27), respectively. The mandate of the special rapporteur for Nigeria was terminated. CHR Res. 1999/11 (Apr. 23).

45 CHR Res. 1999/75, 1999/76, 1999/77 (Apr. 28), respectively.

46 See CHR Press Release HR/CN/99/21 (Apr. 6).

47 CHR Res. 1999/1 (Apr. 6).

48 CHR Dec. 1999/102 (Apr. 22); see CHR Press Release HR/CN/99/52 (Apr. 22).

49 CHR Res. 1999/S–4/1 (Sept. 27), reported in UN Doc. E/CN.4/1999/167/Add.1.

50 See CHR Press Release HR/CN/99/55 (Apr. 23).

51 The no-action motion carried by a vote of 27-17-9 in 1997. See Dennis, 53d Session, supra note 4, at 122.

52 CHR Res. 1999/8 (Apr. 23).

53 The text was rejected by a vote of 16-19-18 in 1998. See Dennis, 54th Session, supra note 4, at 252.

54 CHR Press Release HR/CN/99/55 (Apr. 23).

55 UN Doc. E/1999/L.33.

56 See Lesley Clark, Cuba Seeks to Shed Rights Abuse Stigma, Miami Herald, July 27, 1999, at A1.

57 See Dominique Nicolas, Cuba Decides against Move to Block Criticism of Rights Record, CNN Custom News (July 27, 1999) http://customnews.com>.

58 See Dennis, 54th Session, supra note 4, at 252. The annual Middle East resolutions critical of Israel were as follows: (1) a Syrian resolution on human rights in the occupied Syrian Golan Heights (CHR Res. 1999/6 (Apr. 23)), adopted by 32-1-20; (2) a Tunisian resolution on human rights in the occupied territories, including Palestine (CHR Res. 1999/5 (Apr.23)), adopted by 31-l-21; (3) a Qatar text on the situation in occupied Palestine (CHR Res. 1999/55 (Apr. 27)), adopted by 44-1-8; (4) a Tunisian text, sponsored on behalf of the Group of African States, on the situation of human rights in southern Lebanon and in the western Bekaa (CHR Res. 1999/12 (Apr. 23)), adopted by 49-1-3; and (5) an EU text on Israeli setdements in the occupied territories (CHR Res. 1999/7 (Apr. 23)), adopted by 50-1-2.

59 See Report, supra note 1, at 292.