No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The United Nations Commission on Human Rights and Violations of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 May 2009
Extract
International concern for human rights was in the minds of many who were involved in the drafting of the charter for a new world organization in the closing days of the Second World War. This concern for human rights found its expression in a number of provisions of the United Nations Charter. However, proposals to incorporate in or annex to the Charter a definition or an enumeration of fundamental human rights did not commend themselves to the San Francisco Conference. Similarly, attempts to make provision in the Charter for the implementation of human rights also met with opposition. The Great Powers in particular were afraid that the world organization would actively impose human rights on the individual countries. Consequently, a certain degree of disappointment prevailed among the advocates of effective international protection of human rights. A last-minute move by American non-governmental organizations, whose representatives were attached in an advisory capacity to the United States delegation at the San Francisco Conference, resulted in enlisting the United States' support for an express reference in the Charter to the creation of a commission for the promotion of human rights. The United States, on its part, succeeded in obtaining the backing of the other three Sponsoring Powers (China, UK and USSR) for this idea. As a result, Article 68 of the Charter provides that “The Economic and Social Council shall set up commissions in economic and social fields and for the promotion of human rights, and such other commissions as may be required for the performance of its functions”. Among the functional commissions subsequently created by the Economic and Social Council, the Commission on Human Rights is the only one specifically referred to in the United Nations Charter.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Press 1968
References
1 Preamble and Articles 1, 13, 55 and 56, 62, 68, 76.
2 UNCIO, vol. 6, p. 456.Google Scholar
3 UNCIO, vol. 6, pp. 324–325.Google Scholar
4 Brunet, René, La garantie internationale des droits de l'homme d'après la charte de San Francisco, Genève 1947, p. 121.Google Scholar See also Frederick Nolde, O., Free and Equal, Geneva 1968, pp. 21–25.Google Scholar
5 SirHoare, Samuel, The UN Commission on Human Rights, in: The International Protection of Human Rights, Edited by Luard, Evan, London 1967, pp. 59–98.Google Scholar
6 Elias, T. O., International Institutions and Machinery of Implementation in the Field of Human Rights, Study prepared for the International Conference on Human Rights, Teheran 1968 (document A/CONF–32/L.3), paras. 27 ff.Google Scholar
7 ECOSOC resolution 5(I).
8 Report of the Preparatory Commission of the United Nations PC/20 (12 1945)Google Scholar, para. 16.
9 ECOSOC resolution 9(II), para. 1.
10 ECOSOC resolution 9(II), para. 3.
11 ECOSOC resolution 9(II), para. 7.
12 E/38/Rev. 1, p. 7.
13 E/38/Rev. 1, p. 9 and ECOSOC resolution 9(II), para. 2.
14 See in particular René Cassin, La Déclaration Universelle et la mise en œuvre des droits de l'homme, Recueil des Cours, 1951–II, p. 260.
15 E/CN.4/AC.21/L.1, para. 159.
16 Vasak recently made illuminating remarks on the distinction between “promotion” and “protection” of human rights. See his article: Les institutions nationales, régionales et universelles pour la promotion et la protection des droits de l'homme, in les Droits de l'Homme/Human Rights, Revue de Droit International et Comparé/Journal of International and Comparative Law (1968), pp. 164–179.Google ScholarVasak, wrote, inter aliaGoogle Scholar, “…elle (la protection) fera surtout appel à la technique juridictionnelle, alors que la fonction de promotion emploiera toutes les techniques législatives: études, recherches, rapports, rédaction des textes.” (p. 166).Google Scholar
17 From the numerous publications of both authors, the following may be mentioned: H. Lauterpacht, Human Rights, the Charter of the United Nations, and the International Bill of the Rights of Man, Preliminary Report to the 1948 Brussels Conference of the International Law Association (UN document E/CN.4/89), paras. 17 ff., and Cassin, René, op. cit., p. 264.Google Scholar
18 See also the comments by SirHoare, Samuel on the Commission as a political body, op. cit., p. 62.Google Scholar
19 Moskowitz, Moses, The Politics and Dynamics of Human Rights, New York 1968, p. 99.Google Scholar
20 See on the question of communications concerning human rights: Cassin, René, op. cit., pp. 263–266.Google ScholarSirHoare, Samuel, op. cit., pp. 88–90Google Scholar and various studies prepared by the Secretary-General, e.g. E/CN.4/AC.21/L.1, paras. 160–166 and A/CONF.32/6, paras. 464–481.
21 ECOSOC resolution 75(V).
22 Lauterpacht, , op. cit., para. 19.Google Scholar
23 E/CN.4/AC.21/L.1, para. 161.
24 ECOSOC resolution 728 F(XXVIII). In the following pages where recent developments will be discussed, it will turn out that the rule of total inaction in the matter of communications is no more absolute (see para. 13(c) below).
25 GA resolution 1654(XVI).
26 Methods used by the United Nations in the field of human rights, Study prepared by the Secretary-General for the International Conference on Human Rights, Teheran 1968, A/CONF.32/6, para. 525.
27 GA resolution 1761 (XVII).
28 A/CONF.32/6, paras. 653–654.
29 In fact, the very first complaint officially raised before the Commission was a request by the International Labour Organization to include the question of violation of human rights in Burundi in the agenda of the twenty-second session (1966) of the Commission. During the debate on the inscription of this item, the observer from Burundi stated the willingness of his Government to send a mission to the ILO to establish the facts and hold thorough discussions on the matter. As a consequence, the ILO representative did not press for the inclusion of the proposed item in the agenda, provided that the matter be fully reported to the Economic and Social Council. See Report on the Twenty-Second Session of the Commission on Human Rights, E/4184, paras. 8–15. The Director-General of the ILO informed the Economic and Social Council through the Secretary-General of the UN on the action taken following the discussion which took place in the Commission on Human Rights. See for the communication of the Director-General of the ILO, E/4237.
30 ECOSOC resolution 1102(XL).
31 Resolution 2B(XXII) of the Commission on Human Rights.
32 E/AC.7/SR.567.
33 Resolution 7(XXIII) of the Commission on Human Rights.
34 See on this Working Group: Ermacora, Felix, International Enquiry Commissions in the field of human rights, in Les Droits de l'Homme/Human Rights, Revue de Droit International et Comparé/Journal of International and Comparative Law (1968), pp. 187–196.Google Scholar
35 Resolution 2(XXIII) of the Commission on Human Rights.
36 ECOSOC resolution 1236(XLII).
37 ECOSOC resolution 1216(XLII).
38 The Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities was established by the Commission on Human Rights in 1947. The members of the Sub-Commission serve normally for three years in their capacity of individuals and not as representatives of States. The Sub-Commission has rendered extremely valuable services. Information of a general nature on the Sub-Commission can be found in A/CONF.32/6, paras. 113–131.
39 See note 24 above.
40 Resolution 8(XXIII) of the Commission on Human Rights.
41 Resolution 9(XXIII) of the Commission on Human Rights.
42 ECOSOC resolution 1235(XLII).
43 United Kingdom (E/AC-7/SR.567) and Philippines and Tanzania (E/AC. 7/SR.569).
44 India, Czechoslovakia, Soviet Union (E/AC.7/SR.567) and Tanzania (E/AC. 7/SR.569 and E/AC.7/SR.570).
45 ECOSOC resolution 9(11), para. 1.
46 See on this problem para. 17 below.
47 Reference was made to the fact that two regional intergovernmental commissions on human rights, namely the European Commission on Human Rights and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, have been functioning for many years.
48 Resolution 6(XXIII) of the Commission on Human Rights.
49 Resolution 9 (XXIII) of the Commission on Human Rights.
50 E/CN-4/949 and Addenda 1–5.
51 Resolution 3(XXIV) of the Commission on Human Rights.
52 Resolution 4(XXIV) of the Commission on Human Rights; see further ECOSOC resolution 1332(XLIV).
53 E/CN-4/95O; cf. also the comments by the Government of the Republic of South Africa on this report (E/4510).
54 Resolution 2(XXIV) of the Commission on Human Rights.
55 Resolution 5(XXIV) of the Commission on Human Rights; see further ECOSOC resolution 1333(XLIV).
56 See report of the ad hoc Working Group of Experts (E/4459) and ECOSOC resolution 1302(XLIV).
57 Report of the twentieth session of the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, E/CN.4/947, para. 95, resolution 3 (XX).
58 Report of the twenty-fourth session of the Commission on Human Rights, E/4475, para. 146.
59 See in particular New Zealand (E/CN.4/SR.966).
60 See in this sense Iran (E/CN.4/SR.967), France (E/CN.4/SR.968) and Venezuela (E/CN.4/SR.970).
61 USSR (E/CN.4/SR.965).
62 USSR (E/CN.4/SR.970).
63 The issues discussed and the arguments used are summed up in the report of the twenty-fourth session of the Commission on Human Rights, E/4475, paras. 157 ff. The Commission adopted, however, under the present heading a resolution on the question of human rights in the territories occupied as a result of hostilities in the Middle East (resolution 6(XXIV)).
64 See report of the ad hoc Study Group established under resolution 6(XXIII) of the Commission, E/CN.4/966, paras. 32, 34, 41, 43 and 45.
65 Resolution 7 (XXIV) of the Commission on Human Rights.
66 Resolution 8(XXIV) of the Commission on Human Rights.
67 E/4475, para. 243.
68 McDougal, Myres S. and Reisman, W. Michael, Rhodesia and the United Nations: The Lawfulness of International Concern, 62 American Journal of International Law (1968), note 63 on pp. 16–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
69 The proposal to create the post of a United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, submitted by the Economic and Social Council to the General Assembly for approval (ECOSOC resolution 1237(XLII)), also provides for establishing an institution by resolution of the General Assembly on the basis of powers inherent in the Charter.
69a In the meantime the Convention on Elimination of Racial Discrimination entered into force on 4 January 1969.
70 See the paper on the acceptance of human rights treaties, prepared by the United Nations Institute for Training and Research for the International Conference on Human Rights (A/CONF.32/15) and a draft resolution submitted by the Netherlands to the same conference on measures for facilitating wider acceptance of human rights treaties (A/CONF.32/C.2/L.14). Based on the practice developed by the International Labour Organization, this draft resolution aimed at the establishment of a committee of experts on ratification and acceptance, which would be entrusted with the task of systematic and regular review, on the strength of information supplied by States, of the state of unratified treaties. This draft resolution as well as a number of other proposals designed to strengthen the United Nations' capacity for the implementation of human rights—among them a very comprehensive and forward-looking draft resolution of Nigeria (A/CONF.32/C.2/L.28)—were unfortunately not considered by the Conference due to lack of time.
71 A/6699/Add.5.
72 Vasak, , op. cit., p. 179Google Scholar. It is relevant to mention also a draft resolution submitted by Czechoslovakia, Denmark and Italy to the International Conference on Human Rights (A/CONF.32/C.2/L.34). The draft resolution considered “that the simultaneous existence of several international treaties, either universal or regional, and of resolutions of international organizations in the field of human rights implies, inter alia, the need to co-ordinate the various implementing machineries established by those treaties and resolutions, with a view to avoiding duplication and possible contradictions between the evaluations of the various implementing organs.” The draft resolution aimed at further study of this problem, but again was not considered due to lack of time.
73 Cassin elaborated on the role the Commission could play as a co-ordinating body (E/CN-4/SR.918).
74 The Assembly for Human Rights, which convened in Montreal, March 22–27, 1968, was a project supported by the private sector during the International Year for Human Rights. The Montreal Statement, constituting a general consensus reached among prominent experts in the field of human rights, contains a great number of interesting considerations and progressive proposals. The Montreal Statement was circulated to the International Conference on Human Rights (A/CONF.32/28).