Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

to violate the rights which the Covenant guarantees would seem to carry with it the duty to remedy a situation that the Committee characterizes as a violation. The Committee does not, however, have any enforcement powers and the only method at its disposal to get states to live up to their obligations is Article 6 of the Protocol, which declares that "the Committee shall include in its annual report under Article 45 of the Covenant [on Civil and Political Rights] a summary of its activities under the present Protocol." This report is submitted to the UN General Assembly, where it can be debated and where pressure may be brought to bear on the government in question.

III. OTHER INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS INSTRUMENTS In addition to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Covenants, there exist numerous international and regional instruments of human rights. They have been adopted by the UN and its specialized agencies, particularly by UNESCO and the International Labor Organization, and by such regional intergovernmental organizations as the Council of Europe and the Organization of American States. Most of them trace their origin to the human rights provisions of the UN Charter. Together they comprise a vast body of international human rights law, principles and policies which, in turn, gives substantive content and a degree of normative precision to the "human rights and fundamental freedoms" that the UN and its Member States are under an obligation to promote.

Space limitations permit us to discuss only some of the more important international instruments of human rights, namely the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide; International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination; UNESCO Convention against Discrimination in Education; UN Declaration on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women; and UN Declaration of the Rights of the Child.

A. The Genocide Convention

The Genocide Convention was adopted by the UN General Assembly on December 9, 1948. It entered into force on January 12, 1951 and has been ratified by approximately eighty countries. The policies of Hitler Germany, which led to the extermination of millions of Jews and members of other national, ethnic and religious groups, provided the rationale for the Genocide Convention; it was adopted in the hope and for the purpose of preventing similar crimes in the future.

12

The Genocide Convention provides that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or time of war, is a crime under international law. A "crime under international law," unlike a violation of international law, is a grave offense against the entire international community for which the individual perpetrator himself is punishable. It thus differs from a mere violation of international law, which makes a government liable for the resulting damages but does not create criminal liabilities for individuals. Article IV of the

Genocide Convention accordingly provides that "persons committing genocide... shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals."'

The Convention defines "genocide" as the commission of certain enumerated acts with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such." (Art. II) The acts constituting genocide are: (a) killing members of the group; (b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. To be guilty of the crime of genocide, an individual must have committed one of the foregoing acts with the specific intent of destroying, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group. The killing of some members of a group could consequently amount to genocide if it was carried out pursuant to a design to destroy the group or a substantial element of the group. By the same token, the killing of many members of a group by a person who lacked any intent to destroy the group "in whole or in part" does not constitute genocide under the Convention.

An important point that is often overlooked in discussing the Genocide Convention is that, by outlawing the destruction of national, ethnic, racial and religious groups, it formally recognizes the right of these groups to exist as groups. Viewed from this perspective, the Genocide Convention clearly is the most basic instrument for the international protection of group rights. It is worth noting, in this connection, that the United States and some of its allies attempted, without success, to include "political groups" among those that the Genocide Convention protects.

The Genocide Convention takes account of the possibility that those charged with genocide might be tried by an international criminal court; but it does not establish such a tribunal, nor does one exist today. The Convention does provide, however, that a dispute between two or more States Parties can be appealed to the International Court of Justice. For example, if State X fails to take appropriate steps to punish genocide, State Y can refer the case to the International Court of Justice. Its decisions are legally binding on the parties to the dispute, and the UN Security Council is authorized under the UN Charter to enforce the Court's judgments. 13 But this Court does not have jurisdiction to try individuals for genocide. Until an international criminal court is established for that purpose, the punishment of the offenders is left to national courts. This need not be a meaningless threat, considering that provisions are made for extradition and that the criminal can be tried in the courts of the state where the crime was committed, the courts of the state whose nationality he has, and most likely also the courts of any state that apprehends him. Although it is clear that a government practicing genocide will neither try nor extradite one of its nationals who is accused of genocide, a successor government might

well take such action. The trial of Nazi war criminals by German courts illustrates the application of this principle.

B. International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination

as

The Racial Convention was adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1965 and entered into force in 1969. It has in the meantime been ratified by almost ninety countries. "The substantive provisions of the 1965 Convention,' one leading human rights scholar rightly points out, "represent the most comprehensive and unambiguous codification in treaty form of the idea of the equality of races.

14

The Convention prohibits "racial discrimination," which it defines as "any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin" having the purpose or effect of "nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life." (Art. 1.) A state which ratifies the Convention has the legal obligation to eliminate racial discrimination in its territory and to enact whatever laws are necessary to ensure non-discrimination in the exercise and enjoyment of various fundamental human rights. To leave no doubt what these rights are, the Convention contains a long list of basic civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights. The list includes all the rights that the Universal Declaration and the two Covenants proclaim.

The Convention does not only outlaw racial discrimination by governmental authorities, but also requires "each State Party [to] prohibit and bring to an end, by all appropriate means, including legislation as required by circumstances, racial discrimination by any person, group or organization.” (Art. 2(1)(d).) This provision seems to impose a stricter standard with regard to discriminatory practices of private individuals and groups than does current U.S. civil rights legislation. Moreover, the Convention permits states to take

Special measures. . . for the sole purpose of securing adequate advancement of certain racial or ethnic groups or individuals requiring such protection as may be necessary in order to ensure such groups or individuals equal enjoyment or exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms shall not be deemed racial discrimination, provided, however, that such measures do not, as a consequence, lead to the maintenance of separate rights for different racial groups and that they shall not be continued after the objectives for which they were taken have been achieved. (Art. 1(4).) Under this provision temporary affirmative action programs and preferential quota systems for various minority groups would be lawful, provided they are designed to remedy the consequences of past racial discrimination and did not in fact foster other forms of racial discrimination.

The enforcement machinery of the Convention consists of a Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination whose powers are more extensive

than those that the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights confers on the Human Rights Committee. 15 The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination consists of 18 individuals who are elected by the States Parties but serve in their individual capacities. It has jurisdiction to hear complaints by one state that another state is not complying with its obligations under the Convention. The Committee may also deal with individual petitions whenever the state involved has recognized the right of private petitions. In addition, all States Parties must submit extensive reports to the Committee "on the legislative, judicial, administrative or other measures which they have adopted and which give effect to the provisions" of the Convention. (Art. 9.) The Committee, in turn, reports its findings and suggestions to the States Parties and to the UN General Assembly. Unlike the Covenants, the Convention also provides for adjudication by the International Court of Justice of disputes between the States Parties. The relevant provision is Article 22, which reads as follows:

Any dispute between two or more States Parties with respect to the interpretation or application of this Convention, which is not settled by negotiation or by the procedures expressly provided for in this Convention, shall, at the request of any of the parties to the dispute, be referred to the International Court of Justice for decision, unless the disputants agree to another mode of settlement.

By ratifying the Convention, a state is deemed to have accepted the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice to decide disputes relating to that treaty. It should be noted, however, that many countries, notably those belonging to the Soviet bloc and various Afro-Asian nations, have ratified the Convention with a reservation to Article 22. This action nullifies the effect of Article 22 and prevents other states from suing the reserving states without their express consent; for all practical purposes, it also gives them a permanent immunity from suit.

C. UNESCO Convention and Recommendation against Discrimination in Education

The Convention against Discrimination in Education was adopted by the UNESCO General Conference in 1960 and entered into force in 1962. To date it has been ratified by about 70 countries. The Convention had its origin in a UN Study of Discrimination in Education. Published in 1957 by the UN SubCommission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, this report emphasized the need for international action to combat discrimination in education.

16

The UNESCO Convention is much broader in scope than the UN Racial Convention, which deals only with racial discrimination. The UNESCO instrument, in contrast, seeks to eradicate discrimination in education whether it be based on race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, economic condition or birth." (Art. 1(1).) States ratifying the UNESCO Convention have an obligation not only to do away with

discriminatory legal rules and administrative practices but must also take whatever measures are necessary to promote equality of opportunity and treatment in education.

A provision of particular importance is Article 5(1)(a). It reads as follows: Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms; it shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.

The reader will recognize that this provision corresponds, word for word, to the text of Article 26(2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and to the "Guiding Principles" of the 1974 UNESCO Recommendation concerning Education for International Understanding, Co-operation and Peace and Education relating to Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. This statement consequently reflects the most widely accepted formulation of what the international community regards as the principal goal of education.

UNESCO Member States who are not parties to the Convention nevertheless have an obligation to make a bona fide effort to give effect to its provisions. This obligation was imposed upon them in the UNESCO Recommendation against Discrimination in Education, 17 which was promulgated by the UNESCO General Conference at the same time it adopted the Convention. The substantive provisions of both instruments are identical except that, whereas the Convention requires the States Parties to conform thereto, the Recommendation merely suggests that they do so. Why UNESCO decided to have both a Convention and Recommendation on the subject of discrimination in education was explained as follows by the UNESCO Director-General:

There was no original intention of formulating a Recommendation, but at the tenth session of the General Conference of UNESCO a number of countries remarked that their federal structure would render difficult, and considerably delay, their ratification of a Convention concerned with a matter education which in their countries was reserved for the provincial [local] authorities.

[ocr errors]

18

The same countries, on the other hand, stated that the application of a Recommendation would not raise the same problems, and in these circumstances the General Conference decided to formulate two separate instruments of different legal bearing [sic] against discrimination in education. Unlike the Convention, however, the Recommendation is not a treaty and consequently does not impose on a state a legal obligation to comply with its provisions.

The UNESCO Convention against Discrimination in Education requires the States Parties to submit periodic reports to the UNESCO General Conference. These reports must contain "information on the legislative and administrative provisions which they have adopted and other action which they have taken for

« ÎnapoiContinuă »