No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Domestic Implementation of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 May 2009
Extract
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provides for a modicum of international supervision of its States parties through the scrutiny of their periodic reports by the Human Rights Committee. This measure, which may be described as one of ‘international implementation’, operates in concert with the ‘domestic implementation’ requirement included in Article 2 of the Covenant. The ‘international implementation’ aspect entails some abridgement of the sovereignty of States parties and thus represents a noteworthy development in international politics. The companion aspect of ‘domestic implementation’ is, however, it is submitted, of far greater and more enduring significance for the promotion and protection of human rights. For, the availability and the exercise of the rights of the Covenant depend, as a matter of practical fact, upon their incorporation into the domestic system and the constraints — legal and social — that that system may place upon their exercise. The Covenant's rights are intended to be legal rights implemented by States parties and exercised by individuals within domestic legal systems. In addition:
‘Not only are the domestic remedies likely to be speedier and perhaps less expensive; in many cases they may be more effective, because a national court of appeal or Supreme Court can usually reverse the decision of a lower court, whereas the decision of an international organ does not have that effect, even though it will engage the international responsibility of the State concerned.’
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Press 1985
References
1. See generally, Robertson, A.H., ‘The Implementation System: International Measures’, in Henkin, L., ed., The International Bill of Rights (New York 1981) pp. 332–369Google Scholar; and Jhabvala, F., ‘The Practice of the Covenant's Human Rights Committee, 1976–82: Review of State Party Reports’, 6 Human Rights Quarterly (1984) pp. 81–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
2. Robertson, , loc.cit., p. 361Google Scholar.
3. Human Rights: A Compilation of International Instruments, UN Doc. ST/HR/l/Rev.2 (1983) p. 8.
4. Interestingly, but perhaps for different reasons, President Carter forwarded the Covenant to the Senate for its advice and consent with the stipulation that it would be non-self-executing. See Nash, M.L., ‘Contemporary Practice of the United States Relating to International Law’, 72 AJIL (1978) p. 620CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
5. UN Doc. E/CN.4/AC.1/SR.33 (1948) p. 4.
6. UN Doc. E/CN.4/AC.1/SR.43 (1948) p. 2.
7. UN Doc. E/CN.4/224 (1949) and UN Doc. E/CN.4/SR.125 (1949) pp. 2–3.
8. Article VI of the US Constitution; and E/CN.4/SR.125 (1949) pp. 5–6.
9. UN Doc. E/CN.4/SR.138 (1950) p. 12.
10. UN Doc. E/CN.4/SR.125 (1949) p. 17.
11. See Schachter, O., ‘The Obligation to Implement the Covenant in Domestic Law’, in Henkin, ed., op.cit., n. 1, p. 312Google Scholar.
12. Report of the Human Rights Committee, 37 UN GAOR, Supp. 40 p. 17 para. 80, UN Doc. A/37/40 (1982).
13. 1982 Report, op.cit., n. 12, p. 11 para. 54 and p. 17 para. 80.
14. UN Doc. CCPR/C/l/Add.18; and Report of the Human Rights Committee, 33 UN GAOR, Supp. 40 p. 55, para. 333, UN Doc. A/33/40 (1978).
15. Report of the Human Rights Committee, 34 UN GAOR, Supp. 40 p. 89 para. 375, UN Doc. A/34/40 (1979).
16. Report of the Human Rights Committee, 35 UN GAOR, Supp. 40 p. 55, para. 245 and p. 58 para. 261, UN Doc. A/35/40 (1980).
17. Report of the Human Rights Committee, 38 UN GAOR, Supp. 40 p. 54 para. 242, UN Doc. A/38/40 (1983).
18. Report of the Human Rights Committee, 36 UN GAOR, Supp. 40 p. 51 para. 243, UN Doc. A/36/40 (1981).
19. 1982 Report, op.cit., n. 12, p. 38 para. 171 and p. 41 para. 185.
20. Report of the Human Rights Committee, 32 UN GAOR, Supp. 44 p. 23 para. 120, UN Doc. A/32/44 (1977).
21. 1982 Report, op.cit., n. 12, pp. 46–47 para. 211.
22. 1981 Report, op.cit., n. 18, pp. 108–109; see General Comments 2/13 and 3/13 there.
23. 1983 Report, op.cit., n. 17, p. 34 para. 161. But, see Triggs, G., ‘Australia's Ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Endorsement or Repudiation?’, 31 ICLQ (1982) pp. 278–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
24. See Schachter, , loc.cit., n. 11, p. 312Google Scholar.
25. E.g., New Zealand, Report of the Human Rights Committee, 39 UN GAOR, Supp. 40 p. 33 para. 162 and pp. 36–37 paras. 180–181, UN Doc. A/39/40 (1984); the United Kingdom, 1978 Report, op.cit., n. 14, p. 31 para. 186, and 1979 Report, op.cit., n. 15, pp. 54–55 paras. 233–234; Canada, 1980 Report, op.cit., n. 16, p. 35 para. 160 and pp. 39–40 paras. 178–182; and Barbados, 1981 Report, op.cit., n. 18, p. 33 para. 152. In addition, Federal States, such as Australia and Canada have argued their federal structure in explanation of non-incorporation. Austria also happens to fall in the category of States that have not incorporated the Covenant into their domestic systems; see 1983 Report, op.cit., n. 17, p. 40 para. 182 and p. 44 para. 202. Schachter has mistakenly counted Austria among States that have ‘automatically’ incorporated the Covenant into their domestic systems; Schachter, , loc.cit., n. 11, p. 312Google Scholar. Other States that have indicated that the Covenant would be applied domestically only to the extent that it was reflected in state law include, Guyana, 1982 Report, op.cit., n. 12, p. 55 para. 252; Tanzania, 1981 Report, op.cit., n.18, p. 43 para. 208 and p. 46 para. 220; and Gambia, 1984 Report, ibid. pp. 64–65 para. 346.
26. See e.g., the USSR, 1978 Report, op.cit., n. 14, p. 69 para. 411; Czechoslovakia, ibid. p. 19 para. 113; the GDR, ibid. p. 26 para. 149; Bulgaria, 1979 Report, op.cit., n. 15, p. 28 para. 112; Romania, ibid. p. 40 para. 166; and Poland, 1980 Report, op.cit., n. 16, p. 13 para. 62. Hungary has reported that ‘the Covenant formed part of the domestic law of Hungary and had a legal status equivalent to that of the Constitution’; 1980 Report, p. 69 para. 308. In the case of Romania, the State representative explained that while the Covenant was not incorporated into domestic law, ‘upon ratification (its) provisions had been given the force of law and could therefore be invoked by individual citizens’; 1979 Report, op.cit., n. 15, p. 40 para. 166.
27. 1979 Report, op.cit., n. 15, p. 32 para. 134.
28. 1980 Report, op.cit., n. 16, p. 13 para. 62.
29. 1981 Report, op.cit., n. 18, pp. 16–17 para. 81: see also a discussion of the reports of Norway and Iceland, respectively at p. 75 para. 352 and 1983 Report, op.cit., n. 17, p. 25 para. 120.
30. 1978 Report, op.cit., n. 14, p. 20 para. 117.
31. 1981 Report, op.cit., n. 18, p. 109, General Comment 3/13.
32. 1982 Report, op.cit., n. 12, p. 66 para. 300, p. 67 para. 304 and p. 72 para. 324. Schachter has mistakenly categorized Iran as a State in which the Covenant has ‘automatically’ become part of domestic law; see Schachter, loc.cit., n. 11 at note 1.
33. Human Rights Compilation, op.cit., n. 3, p. 4Google Scholar.
34. See, for instance, the statement by Mrs. Roosevelt as US representative to the Commission on Human Rights, in UN Doc. E/CN.4/SR. 234 (1951) p. 5.
35. See, inter alia, Cranston, M., ‘Human Rights, Real and Supposed’, in Raphael, D.D., ed., Political Theory and the Rights of Man (Bloomington 1967) pp. 43–53Google Scholar.
36. Jhabvala, F., ‘On Human Rights and the Socio-Economic Context’, 31 NILR (1984) p. 149, especially pp. 153–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
37. See Jhabvala, , loc.cit., n. 1, pp. 97–98Google Scholar; and loc.cit., n. 36.
38. UN Doc. E/CN.4/SR.138 (1950) p. 5.
39. UN Doc. E/CN.4/SR.125 (1949) pp. 2–3.
40. Ibid. pp. 3–4.
41. Annotations on the Text of the Draft International Covenants on Human Rights, 10 UN GAOR, Annexes, Agenda Item No. 28 (Pt. II) p. 17 para. 8, UN Doc. A/2929 (1955).
42. UN Doc. E/CN.4/AC.1/SR.33 (1948) p. 4.
43. Annotations on the Draft Covenants, op.cit., n. 41, p. 17Google Scholar para. 8. See also Schachter, , loc.cit., n. 11, pp. 322–325Google Scholar.
44. Annotations on the Draft Covenants, op.cit., n. 41, p. 17 para. 9Google Scholar.
45. UN Doc. E/CN.4/116 (1950); and Schachter, , loc.cit., n. 11, p. 323Google Scholar.
46. General Comment 3/13, para. (1), 1981 Report, op.cit., n. 18, p. 109.
47. General Comment 4/13, para. (2), 1981 Report, op.cit, n. 18. See also General Comments 6(16) and 7(16), 1982 Report, op.cit., n. 12, pp. 93–95.
48. Human Rights Compilation, op.cit., n. 3, p. 13, emphasis addedGoogle Scholar.
49. See Commission on Human Rights, Report of the Tenth Session, 18 UN ESCOR, Supp. 7 p. 17 paras. 173–175, UN Doc. E/2573 (1954); and, Third Committee, Summary Record of Meetings, 21 UN GAOR, pp. 219–254, UN Doc. A/C.3/SR.1375–1464 (1967). Also see generally, Jhabvala, , loc.cit., n. 1, p. 95 et seq.Google Scholar
50. Article 49(2) of the Commission's draft, Tenth Report, op.cit., pp. 17–20 paras. 172–205 and p. 71.
51. Annotations on the Draft Covenants, op.cit., n. 41, p. 101 para. 172Google Scholar.
53. See, generally, Jhabvala, , loc.cit., n. 1, pp. 84–88Google Scholar.
54. The revisions were in accordance with the nine-power proposal sponsored by India, Iran, Libya, Nigeria, Pakistan, Senegal, Sudan, the UAR and Upper Volta; see Report of the Third Committee, 21 UN GAOR, Annexes, Agenda Item 62, p. 37 para. 372, UN Doc. A/6546 (1966).
55. Human Rights Compilation, op.cit., n. 3, p. 13Google Scholar. The Rapporteur of the Third Committee expressly stated in her report to the General Assembly that the Committee hoped that ‘as States consolidate their progress, they will assume increasingly great [sic!] obligations as they attain the levels necessary to permit full implementation of the provisions of the Covenant’. See, 21 UN GAOR, Plenary Meetings, v. III, p. 8 para. 78, UN Doc. A/PV.1468–1501 (1966).
56. Ibid. sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) of Paragraph 40(1).
57. 1981 Report, op.cit., n. 18, p. 104 (see also pp. 81–83).
58. See ibid. n. 46 and 47 and associated texts. See also, Ramcharan, B.G., ‘Equality and Nondiscrimination’, in Henkin, ed., op.cit., n. 1, pp. 259–261Google Scholar.
59. See Schwelb, E., ‘The Nature of the Obligations of the States Parties to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights’, in Henkin, L., ed., Rene Cassin, Amicorum Discipulorumque Liber (1981) pp. 311–331Google Scholar, particularly at 323–325; and a letter by Humphrey, John in 6 Human Rights Quarterly (1984) pp. 539–540CrossRefGoogle Scholar. But also see text at para. 2.2.
60. Advisory Opinion No. OC-2/82 of 24 September 1982, p. 12 para. 29.
61. Schachter, , loc.cit., n. 11, p. 311Google Scholar.
62. See, e.g., discussions of the Human Rights Committee over the reports of the Netherlands, 1982 Report, op.cit., n. 12, pp. 20–30; France, 1983 Report, op.cit., n. 17, pp. 68–78; and Italy, 1981 Report, op.cit., n. 18, pp. 23–32. See also, Schachter, , loc.cit., n. 11, p. 320Google Scholar. Another indication of the less than complete implementation of the Covenant in western States may be obtained from the petitions filed by individuals under the Optional Protocol and the views of the Human Rights Committee expressed in those cases. Clearly the implementation of the Covenant is at a further stage in the Western parties and, indeed, it would be far from the truth to suggest that the situation of the advanced western States was in any way comparable to that of the other groups of States parties. Nonetheless, it is clear that even in the case of the advanced western States the implementation of the Covenant is a matter of progressively attaining its standards.
63. Human Rights Compilation, op.cit., n. 3, pp. 8 and 11Google Scholar. See generally, Ramcharan, loc.cit., n. 58; and Partsch, K.J., ‘Freedom of Conscience and Expression, and Political Freedoms’, in Henkin, ed., op.cit., n. 1, especially at pp. 238–245Google Scholar.
64. 1979 Report, op.cit., n. 15, p. 36 para. 151. See generally, Jhabvala, F., ‘The Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as a Vehicle for the Global Promotion and Protection of Human Rights’, in the Forthcoming 15 Israel Yearbook on Human Rights (1985)Google Scholar.
65. 1980 Report, op.cit., n. 16, p. 70 paras. 310–311.
66. Ibid. p. 25 para. 117.
67. Ibid. p. 70 para. 311.
68. See generally, Jhabvala, loc.cit., n. 36.
69. Schachter, , loc.cit., n. 11, pp. 324–325Google Scholar. It perhaps ought to be mentioned that the British representative on the Human Rights Committee, Sir Vincent Evans, stated that in practice it had become ‘abundantly clear from reports submitted by States parties, as also from oral presentations’, that the full implementation of the Covenant ‘most certainly depend(s) on the material resources available’: UN Doc. CCPR/C/SR.378/Add. 1 p. 2 para. 1 (1982).
70. See, inter alia, reports of Amnesty International, Freedom House, and the International Commission of Jurists. See, in particular, Amnesty's report, Torture in the Eighties (1984).
71. For a description of the development of the UN Secretary-General's role in this area, see Ramcharan, B.G., Humanitarian Good Offices in International Law (The Hague 1983)Google Scholar.
72. Myrdal, G., The Challenge of World Poverty, (London 1971) p. 226Google Scholar.
73. Study on Human Rights and Mass Exoduses, (Special Rapporteur: Sadruddin Aga Khan), p. 21 paras. 41–42, UN Doc. E/CN.4/1503 (1981).
74. Baxi, U., The Crisis of the Indian Legal System (Delhi 1982) p. 129 (emphasis in the original)Google Scholar.
75. 1978 Report, op.cit., n. 14, p. 43 para. 260.
76. UN Doc. CCPR/C/SR.363 (1982) p 9 para. 55.
77. United Nations Action in the Field of Human Rights, pp. 232–233, UN Doc. ST/HR/2/Rev.2 (1983). Of these three States only the Central African Republic was a party to the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as of July 1984; 1984 Report, op.cit., n. 25, pp. 129–131.
78. Morris, M.D., Measuring the Condition of the World's Poor: The Physical Quality of Life Index (New York 1979)Google Scholar.
79. A cursory listing would include the following: Afghanistan, Bolivia, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Congo, Egypt, Gabon, Gambia, Guinea, India, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kenya, Libya, Madagascar, Mali, Morocco, Rwanda, Senegal, Togo, Zaïre and Zambia.
80. See, for example, Myrdal, , op.cit., n. 72, pp. 229–242Google Scholar for a discussion of corruption in the developing countries of south Asia.
81. Ibid. p. 211.
82. Ibid. p. 3.
83. Pollock, S., Legal Aid — The First 25 Years (London 1975) p. 6Google Scholar. For a historical review of the development of legal aid in the west, see Cappelletti, M. and Gordley, J., ‘Legal Aid: Modern Themes and Variations’, 24 Stanford LR (1972) p. 347CrossRefGoogle Scholar at pp. 347–386. See also, Johnson, E. Jr, Justice and Reform: The Formative Years of the O.E.O. Legal Services Program (New York 1974)Google Scholar.
84. Cappelletti, and Gordley, , loc.cit., n. 83, p. 387Google Scholar.
85. General Comment 3/13, 1981 Report, op.cit., n. 18, p. 109.
86. See, for example, Report of the Expert Committee on Legal Aid, Processual Justice to the People (1973) pp. 46–49, published by the Department of Legal Affairs, Ministry of Law, Justice & Company Affairs, Government of IndiaGoogle Scholar.
87. Report on National Juridicare: Equal Justice — Social Justice (1977) p. 24, published by the Department of Legal Affairs, Ministry of Law, Justice & Company Affairs, Government of IndiaGoogle Scholar. Of the three members of this committee, two were judges of the Indian Supreme Court.
88. Ibid.
89. Ibid.
90. Ibid. p. 25.
91. Ibid.
92. International Commission of Jurists, Conclusions and Recommendations of the Seminary on Rural Development and Human Rights in South Asia (1983) paras. 61–92Google Scholar. See also Jhabvala, , loc.cit., n. 36, pp. 169–175Google Scholar. See also United Nations Report on Slavery (Special Rapporteur: Benjamin Whitaker), especially pp. 14–16 paras. 55–63, UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1982/20/Rev.l (1984)Google Scholar.
93. Gandhi Peace Foundation and the National Labour Institute, National Survey on the Incidence of Bonded Labour, Preliminary Report (New Delhi 1978) pp. ix, 4, 21 and 28Google Scholar.
94. Ibid. pp. 11, 22, 27 and 28.
95. Seminar on Rural Development, op.cit., n. 92, Preface.
96. Article 23(1) of the Indian Constitution forbids bonded labour; see, Shukla, V.N., The Constitution of India, 6th edn. (Lucknow 1950) pp. 117–119Google Scholar. In addition, the 1955 Untouchability (Offences) Act and the 1976 Untouchability (Offences) Amendment and Miscellaneous Provisions Act declare certain forced labour practices to be practices of untouchability and impose penalties for engaging in such practices. More than 90% of the individuals surveyed by the report came from the bottom drawer of the caste hierarchy; see National Survey on Bonded Labour, op.cit., n. 93, p. 3Google Scholar. See also Slavery, , op.cit., n. 92, p. 38Google Scholar para. 13, for reference to the ‘relative ineffectiveness’ of many of the remedial measures adopted to date.
97. National Survey on Bonded Labour, op.cit., n. 93, pp. 3, 32–33 and 37Google Scholar.
98. Seminar on Rural Development, op.cit., n. 92, para. 65. Myrdal would include such behaviour within that exhibited by a ‘soft State’. See supra note 81 and associated text. The report on Slavery, , op.cit., n. 92, states on p. 37Google Scholar para. 188 that prima facie ‘the prevalence of several forms of slavery-like practices continues unabated’, although chattel slavery in the ‘former traditional sense’ no longer persists in any significant degree. It adds that ‘instances of new forms of servitude and gross exploitation have come to light only in recent years’. The report adds further that the ‘effective abolition’ of this practice is likely to require economic development which assists the poorest people, suitable measures of land reform along with supporting facilities such as adequate credit and marketing facilities, educational programmes about rights, legal aid, and the proper enforcement of relevant legislation: ibid, p. 16 para. 63.
99. See generally Jhabvala, , loc.cit., n. 1, pp. 88–95Google Scholar.
100. Eric Suy, Director-General of the UN Office at Geneva, recently expressed the view that at the time the Charter of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights were adopted ‘the outlook … was predominantly … western’. He added that the basic elements of the Universal Declaration were given binding form in the 1966 Covenants, thereby also acknowledging the western basis of these instruments: Suy, E., ‘Developments in International Human Rights Law’, The Review (International Commission of Jurists) No. 32 (06 1984) p. 44Google Scholar. Referring to the differences in the western and non-western approaches to the issue of human rights, former Secretary-General Waldheim found these to be due to ‘sharply conflicting approaches to the fundamental problems of freedom and welfare. [These differences] spring from very different philosophical and political premises’: Waldheim, K., ‘The United Nations: The Tarnished Image’, 63 Foreign Affairs (Autumn 1984) pp. 100–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
101. Watson, J.S., ‘The Limited Utility of International Law in the Protection of Human Rights’, Proceedings of the American Society for International Law (1980) p. 4Google Scholar.