Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-lrf7s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-30T05:32:16.471Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Fifty-First Session Of The Un Commission On Human Rights

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

John R. Crook
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The fifty-first session of the UN Human Rights Commission took place in Geneva from January 30 to March 10, 1995, under the genial chairmanship of Musa bin Hitam of Malaysia.’ The Commission showed that great powers are not exempt from critical consideration by the UN human rights machinery, addressing human rights situations involving three permanent members of the Security Council: China, Russia and die United States.

The Commission closed the book on its years of activity concerning South Africa. Indigenous issues assumed a higher profile. The Commission took a cautious look at whether it had a role in the important “gray area” of internal armed conflict. In a controversial move, it created a new Special Rapporteur on human rights and toxic wastes.

Type
Current Developments
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 90 , Issue 1 , January 1996 , pp. 126 - 138
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1996 

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.)

Footnotes

*

The views and opinions expressed are solely the author’s and do not necessarily represent those of the U.S. Department of State.

References

1 The Commission’s resolutions and decisions are in Commission on Human Rights, Report on the fifty-first session, UN Doc. E/CN.4/1995/176 [hereinafter Report]. For a summary of actions taken, see UN Press Release, Commission on Human Rights Concludes Fifty-first Session, UN Doc. HR/CN/95/55/Rev.1 (Mar. 16, 1995). A good nongovernmental organization (NGO) perspective is Quaker United Nations Office—Geneva, Report on the 1995 Commission on Human Rights (1995) [hereinafter Quaker Report]. On the Commission generally, see Philip Alston, The Commission on Human Rights, in The United Nations and Human Rights 126 (Philip Alston ed., 1992).

2 Also as usual, the hundreds of speeches by governments and NGOs forced midnight sessions. The 53 member delegations and 81 observer states were joined by about 930 representatives of over 150 NGOs. Tons of paper were consumed. (In opening remarks, Assistant Secretary-General Fall said that the 1994 Commission had consumed 496 documents totaling 6,902 pages. Each page cost about 1,700 Swiss francs, a large sum in relation to the Human Rights Centre’s modest budget. Remarks of Fall, at 15 (on file with author).)

3 John R. Crook, The Fiftieth Session of the UN Commission on Human Rights, 88 AJIL 806 (1994).

4 See, e.g., Alston, supra note 1, at 161–63; Quaker Report, supra note 1, at 16–17.

5 In 1990 the no-action motion carried by 17-15-11; in 1992, by 27-15-10; in 1993, by 22-17-12; and in 1994, by 20-16-17. (No China resolution was submitted in 1991.)

6 Report, supra note 1, at 422–23.

7 UN Doc. E/CN.4/1995/78/Add.1.

8 Letter from Ambassador Geraldine Ferraro to Maurice Glélé-Ahanhanzo (on file with author).

9 Report, supra note 1, at 380–86.

10 UN Comm’n on Human Rights [CHR] Res. 1995/8 (Feb. 17).

11 CHR Res. 1995/9 (Feb. 17).

12 CHR Res. 1995/10 (Feb. 17).

13 CHR Res. 1995/6 (Feb. 17), adopted by 50-0-0.

14 The annual two-part resolution on human rights in the occupied territories was simplified and softened somewhat; it passed by 26-2 (United States, Russia) -21 (CHR Res. 1995/1 (Feb. 17)). Others adopted over U.S. opposing votes concerned human rights in the occupied Syrian Golan (CHR Res. 1995/2 (Feb. 17)), adopted by 25-1-23; the annual EU resolution on setdements (CHR Res. 1995/3 (Feb. 17)), adopted by 46-1-3; the annual resolution on “occupied Palestine” (CHR Res. 1995/4 (Feb. 17)), adopted by 27-1-22; and human rights and southern Lebanon (CHR Res. 1995/67) (Mar. 7)), adopted by 48-1 (United States) -4.

15 UN Doc. E/CN.4/1995/19.

16 See Alston, supra note 1, at 173–81; Reed Brody, Improving UN Human Rights Structures, in Human Rights: An Agenda for the Next Century 297 (Louis Henkin & John Lawrence Hargrove eds., 1994) [hereinafter Human Rights].

17 UN Doc. E/CN.4/1995/34/Add.1.

18 UN Doc. E/CN.4/1995/31/Add.4. The working group also visited Bhutan. UN Doc. E/CN.4/1995/31/Add.1.

19 UN Doc. E/CN.4/1995/111.

20 UN Doc. E/CN.4/1995/61/Add.1.

21 UN Doc. A/49/677 (1994).

22 CHR Res. 1995/23 (Feb. 24).

23 CHR Res. 1995/37 (Mar. 3).

24 CHR Res. 1995/73 (Mar. 8).

25 CHR Res. 1995/79 (Mar. 8).

26 CHR Res. 1995/38 (Mar. 3).

27 CHR Res. 1995/57 (Mar. 3).

28 CHR Res. 1995/5 (Feb. 17).

29 CHR Res. 1995/81 (Mar. 8).

30 CHR Res. 1995/24 (Mar. 3).

31 Her report is UN Doc. E/CN.4/1995/42.

32 CHR Res. 1995/85 (Mar. 8).

33 CHR Res. 1995/86 (Mar. 8).

34 CHR Res. 1995/25 (Mar. 3); and Res. 1995/20 (Feb. 24).

35 See, e.g., resolutions on the Special Rapporteurs on torture, CHR Res. 1995/37 (Mar. 3); on freedom of opinion and expression, CHR Res. 1995/40 (Mar. 3); on internally displaced persons, CHR Res. 1995/57 (Mar. 3); on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, CHR Res. 1995/73 (Mar. 8); on thematic rapporteurs, CHR Res. 1995/87 (Mar. 8); and on treaty bodies, CHR Res. 1995/92 (Mar. 8).

36 See, e.g., resolutions on Iran, CHR Res. 1995/68 (Mar. 8); Equatorial Guinea, CHR Res. 1995/71 (Mar. 8); Myanmar, CHR Res. 1995/72 (Mar. 8); Afghanistan, CHR Res. 1995/74 (Mar. 8); the Sudan, CHR Res. 1995/77 (Mar. 8); and the former Yugoslavia, CHR Res. 1995/89 (Mar. 8).

37 See, e.g., CHR Res. 1995/44 (Mar. 3) on HIV/AIDS.

38 CHR Res. 1995/79 (Mar. 8).

39 CHR Res. 1995/78 (Mar. 8).

40 CHR Res. 1995/32 (Mar. 3). See Russel Lawrence Barsh, Indigenous Peoples: An Emerging Object of International Law, 80 AJIL 369 (1986). There is keen debate on the role of the concept of self-determination in this declaration. Cf. Hurst Hannum, Minorities, Indigenous Peoples and Self-Determination, in Human Rights, supra note 16, at 1.

41 Other related resolutions addressed the international decade of indigenous people, CHR Res. 1995/28 (Mar. 3); the idea of a permanent forum for indigenous people, CHR Res. 1995/30 (Mar. 3); and the Working Group on indigenous populations, CHR Res. 1995/31 (Mar. 3).

42 CHR Res. 1995/21 (Feb. 24).

43 CHR Res. 1995/44, supra note 37; CHR Res. 1995/58 (Mar. 3) (disability).

44 CHR Res. 1995/60 (Mar. 7).

45 CHR Res. 1995/83 (Mar. 8).

46 E.g., the Philippines resolutions on violence against women migrant workers, CHR Res. 1995/20 (Feb. 24), and on traffic in women and girls, CHR Res. 1995/25 (Mar. 3).

47 Crook, supra note 3, at 813. Cf. Lassa Oppenheim, International Law: A Treatise 737 (Hersch Lauterpacht ed., 8th ed. 1955) (rights “are possible only on the assumption of a limitation on the absolute sovereignty of the State”).

48 CHR Res. 1995/43 (Mar. 3).

49 Thus, the Afghanistan resolution called for abolition of prisons run by political parties and armed groups, and called on all Afghan parties “to respect human rights.” CHR Res. 1995/74 (Mar. 8). See also Res. 1995/20 (Feb. 24) (violence against women migrant workers).

50 Crook, supra note 3, at 814–15.

51 Thus, die Guatemala text urged “bodi parties to respect the applicable rules of international humanitarian law in the internal armed conflict,” CHR Res. 1995/51 (Mar. 3). Resolution 1995/56 (Mar. 3) urged all parties in Somalia “to prevent violations of international humanitarian law and human rights.” Others citing humanitarian law standards include texts on south Lebanon (CHR Res. 1995/67) (Mar. 7)), Burma/Myanmar (CHR Res. 1995/72), Afghanistan (CHR Res. 1995/74 (Mar. 8)), the Sudan (CHR Res. 1995/77 (Mar. 8)), summary and arbitrary executions (CHR Res. 1995/83 (Mar. 8)), and violence against women (CHR Res. 1995/85 (Mar. 8)).

52 CHR Res. 1995/34 (Mar. 3).

53 CHR Res. 1995/29 (Mar. 3). See Asbjørn Eide, Allan Rosas & Theodor Meron, Combating Lawlessness in Gray Zone Conflicts through Minimum Humanitarian Standards, 89 AJIL 215 (1995).

54 For the European Convention, opened for signature Nov. 26, 1987, see 27 ILM 1152 (1988). For protocol supporters’ concerns, see the working group’s report, UN Doc. E/CN.4/1995/38, at 12.

55 See Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, Shackling the Defenders: Legal Restrictions on Independent Human Rights Advocacy Worldwide (1994); and Michael Posner, The Establishment of the Right of Nongovernmental Human Rights Groups to Operate, in Human Rights, supra note 16, at 405.

56 CHR Res. 1995/84 (Mar. 8).

57 See the working group’s report, UN Doc. E/CN.4/1995/96.

58 The working group’s report is UN Doc. E/CN.4/1995/95. CHR Resolution 1995/78 (Mar. 8) authorized work on the protocol.

59 Alston notes that for its first 20 years, the Commission did not consider specific violations at all; subse-quendy, it addressed publicly only six or eight countries. Alston, supra note 1, at 139–42, 151. Amnesty International’s speech to the Commission criticized governments’ unwillingness to consider some situations, urging action regarding Algeria, Colombia, Indonesia, India (Jammu and Kashmir) and Turkey (speech on file with author).

60 Report, supra note 1, at 415–17.

61 CHR Res. 1995/74 (Mar. 8).

62 CHR Res. 1995/65 (Mar. 7).

63 CHR Res. 1995/72 (Mar. 8).

64 CHR Res. 1995/90 (Mar. 8).

65 CHR Res. 1995/66 (Mar. 7).

66 Report, supra note 1, at 420–22.

67 CHR Res. 1995/71 (Mar. 8).

68 CHR Res. 1995/70 (Mar. 8).

69 CHR Res. 1995/76 (Mar. 8).

70 CHR Res. 1995/68 (Mar. 8).

71 CHR Res. 1995/91 (Mar. 8).

72 Report, supra note 1, at 298.

73 CHR Res. 1995/77 (Mar. 8).

74 CHR Res. 1995/89 (Mar. 8). The Commission also adopted a new Croatian text on missing persons. CHR Res. 1995/35 (Mar. 3).

75 CHR/Res. 1995/69 (Mar. 8).

76 See, e.g., Quaker Report, supra note 1, at 14.

77 CHR Res. 1995/63 (Mar. 7).

78 CHR Res. 1995/51 (Mar. 3).

79 CHR Res. 1995/56 (Somalia), CHR Res. 1995/52 (Togo) (Mar. 3), CHR Res. 1995/55 (Cambodia) (Mar. 3).

80 Report, supra note 1, at 423.

81 On the 1503 procedure, see Alston, supra note 1, at 144–55. Through this process (named after ECOSOC Resolution 1503/XLVHI creating it) communications received by the United Nations are “examined” in confidential (closed) Commission meetings to determine if they disclose a consistent pattern of gross violations of human rights.

82 Report, supra note 1, at 424–25.

83 CHR Res. 1995/17 (Feb. 24). The vote in 1994 was 42-3 (United States) -8. The General Assembly’s consensus text was GA Res. 48/183, UN GAOR, 49th Sess., Supp. No. 49, Vol. 1, at 200, UN Doc. A/49/49 (1994).

84 CHR Res. 1995/14 (Feb. 24).

85 CHR Res. 1995/13 (Feb. 24).

86 CHR Res. 1995/15 (Feb. 24) and CHR Res. 1995/16 (Feb. 24).

87 CHR Res. 1995/19 (Feb. 24). For a view of housing and human rights, see Scott Leckie, Towards an International Convention on Housing Rights: Options at Habitat II (ASIL Issue Papers on World Conferences No. 4, 1994). The U.S. Government has opposed recognition of a human right to housing.

88 CHR Dec. 1995/107 (Mar. 3). The proposed study is described in UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1994/39.

89 CHR Res. 1995/27 (Mar. 3).

90 CHR Dec. 1995/111 (Mar. 3).

91 CHR Dec. 1995/110 (Mar. 3).

92 The working group was to address reclustering of the agenda, organizational matters, and other reforms “on the basis of consensus.”

93 CHR Res. 1995/45 (Mar. 3).

94 CHR Res. 1995/62 (Mar. 7).

95 CHR Res. 1995/61 (Mar. 7).

96 CHR Res. 1995/93 (Mar. 10).