Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-n9wrp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-22T10:36:23.162Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Derogation of Human Rights in Emergency Situations*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2016

L. C. Green
L. C. Green*
Affiliation:
University of Alberta
Get access

Extract

Since Mr. Carter became President of the United States, there bas been a revival in the use of human rights as a weapon in international politics. More and more western countries have stated that they are contemplating measuring the aid they give to members of the developing world in proportion to the extent to which the latter conform to basic humanitarian standards or improve their own record in relation to observance of human rights. In addition, there have been calls for the cancellation of visits by politicians, academics, and artistic performers; for non-participation in international athletic contests — a western adaptation of the African ban of the Montreal Olympic Games because of New Zealand’s participation while the latter’s athletes were not barred from competing in South Africa; for non-participation in technical and scientific conferences; and for the breaking of town-twinning arrangements. This attitude has been fed somewhat by reason of the activities of “Helsinki watchers,” who contend that this or that country, and particularly the Soviet Union, is not living up to its human rights obligations as embodied in the Helsinki Agreement.

Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Yearbook of International Law/Annuaire canadien de droit international , Volume 16 , 1979 , pp. 92 - 115
Copyright
Copyright © The Canadian Council on International Law / Conseil Canadien de Droit International, representing the Board of Editors, Canadian Yearbook of International Law / Comité de Rédaction, Annuaire Canadien de Droit International 1979

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 14 Int’l Leg. Mat. 1292 (1975).

2 Beckett, , “Human Rights,” 34 Grotius Transactions 69 (1949).Google Scholar

3 Supra note 1, at 1325; see also Schwarzenberger, , letter to The Times (London), July 22, 1979.Google Scholar

4 SirCoke, Edward in Bonham’s case (1610), 8 Co. Rep. 114, 118 (77 E.R. 647, 652).Google Scholar

5 Blackstone, I, Commentaries 41 (10th ed. 1787).Google Scholar

6 Ibid., 186.

7 2 Institutes, Proem.

8 Anarchical Fallacies (1824), 2 Collected Works 523, 501 (Bowering Ed., 1843).

9 Statutes of Alberta, 1966, c. 39.

10 Ibid., 1972, c. 1.

11 See, for example, Green, “Southern Rhodesian Independence,” 14 Archiv des Völkerrechts 151 et seq. (1969).

12 See, for example, Madzimbamuto v. Lardner-Burke, [1969] 1 A.C. 645; cf. Bilang v. Rigg, [1972] N.Z.L.R. 954.

13 Eng. tr. in Ezejiofor, Protection of Human Rights under the Law (1964) App. II.

14 Machiavelli, Il Principe, (1532) XVIII (Adams tr. 1977, 50–51).

15 Le Droit des Gens ou principes de la Loi Naturelle appliqués à la conduite et aux affaires des Nations et des Souverains, Bk. I, Ch. XIX, ss. 229–31 (1758) (Carnegie tr. 1916, 92).

16 (1608) 7 Co. Rep. la; 1 St. Tr. 559.

17 U.N.G.A. Res. 217A (III) (1948), Arts. 13, 14.

18 U.N.G.A. Res. 2312 (XXII), 1967.

19 I.L.A., Report of the Fifty-Third Conference held at Buenos Aires, August 25–31, 1968, at xii, 268–77 (1969).

20 See Franck, and Rodley, , “After Bangladesh: The Law of Humanitarian Intervention by Military Force,” 67 Am. J. Int’l 275 (1973).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

21 See, for example, the decision of the European Community Court in Van Duyn v. Home Office, [1975] 1 C.M.L.R. 1; [1975] 2 W.L.R. 760.

22 Vattel, op. cit. supra note 15.

23 Op. cit. supra note 14, at 50.

24 1950, Art. 8; 213 U.N.T.S. 222.

25 See Robertson, , “Wrong Not to Look After Our Own Rights,” The Times (London) October 3, 1979.Google Scholar

26 17 Int’l Leg. Mat. 680, at 707 (para. 207), 708 (214), 709 (220) (1978).

27 (1923) Ser. A, No. 1, 32; 1 Hudson, World Court Reports 163, 180 (1934).

28 U.N.G.A., Res. 217A (III) (1948).

29 See, for example, Judge Lauterpacht’s Separate Opinion on South West Africa: Voting Procedure, [1955] I.C.J. Rep. 114–21; see also South West Africa cases, [1966] I.C.J. Rep. 4, 50–51; Green, Law and Society 150–52 (1975); Schwarzenberger, , International Law , Vol. 3, International Constitutional Law 282–85 (1976).Google Scholar

30 See, for example, Sep. Op. of Ammoun, V.-P., in Namibia Opinion, [1971] I.C.J. Rep. 71, though even he concedes that “the affirmations of the Declaration are not binding qua international conventions,” but he contends they amount to customs (ibid., 76).

31 See, for example, Nuclear Tests cases, [1974] I.C.J. Rep. 253, 457; see also Schwarzenberger, op. cit. supra note 29, vol. 1, ch. 30 (1957).

32 Art. 29 (emphasis added).

33 See supra notes 21, 26, 25 respectively.

34 Annex to U.N.G.A. Res. 2200 (XXI), in force January 3, 1976, acceded to by Canada, May 19, 1976.

35 S.S. Lotus (1927), Ser. A 10, 18 (2 Hudson, World Court Reports 23, 35 (1934)).

36 8 Int’l Leg. Mat. 728, Art. 19 (1969). It requires 35 ratifications or accessions to come into force. By Nov. 1978, there were only 33, but there is a tendency to regard the Convention as declaratory of customary law, particularly in view of the World Court Opinion on Reservations to the Genocide Convention, [1951], I.C.J. Rep. 15, 21, on which this article appears to be based. Canada acceded October 14, 1970.

37 Multilateral Treaties in Respect of Which the Sec. Gen. Performs Depositary Functions: List of Signatures, Ratifications, Accessions, etc., as at 31 Dec. 1977, U.N. Doc. ST/LEG/SER.D/11, at 102–4 (1978).

38 See supra note 26, at 709–10 (paras. 225–32).

39 Op. cit. supra note 37, at 106.

40 Annex to U.N.G.A. Res. 3766 (XXVIII), 13 Int’l Leg. Mat. 43 (1974), entered into force February 20, 1977. Canada ratified May 4, 1976 and gave effect to the Convention by the Criminal Law Amendment Act, S.C. 1974–75–76, c. 93.

41 U.N.G.A. Res. 2625 (XXV), Annex.

42 13 Int’l Leg. Mat., 42 (1974).

43 I (Wounded and Sick, Land Warfare), II (Wounded and Sick, Sea Warfare), III (Prisoners of War), IV (Civilians), 75 U.N.T.S. 31, 85, 135, 287 (Schindler and Toman, The Laws of Armed Conflicts 298, 326, 352, 423 (1973)).

44 16 Int’l Leg. Mat., Pr. I (int’l armed conflict), 1381; Pr. II (non-int’l armed conflict), 1442 (1977).

45 See Green, “The New Law of Armed Conflict,” 15 Canadian Yearbook of International Law 3, 9–13 (1977).

46 See text referred to in supra note 26.

47 Art. 25.

48 Persian Letters (1721), tr. Healy (1964), 174.

49 The Times (London), September 20, 1978.

50 Green, supra note 45, at 39.

51 Letter by Prof. Col. Draper, , The Times (London), September 22, 1979.Google Scholar

52 Green, supra note 45, at 9.

53 [1966] I.C.J. Rep. 4, 37 et seq.

54 Schwarzenberger, op. cit. supra note 29, at 121, 168–77.

55 1867, 30 & 31 Vict. c. 3.

56 1960, R.S.C. 1970, App. III.

57 Section 5.

58 See, for example, Fischer, , “The Human Rights Covenants and Canadian Law,” 15 Canadian Yearbook of International Law 42, 81 (1977).Google Scholar

59 R.S.C. 1970, c. W-2.

60 The Zamora, [1916] 2 A.C. 77.

61 See supra note 26.

62 S.C. 1970–71–72, c. 2.