the application" of the Convention. (Art. 7.) To implement this provision, UNESCO has from time to time requested the Member States to prepare reports responding to detailed questionnaires concerning the application of the Convention. 19 UNESCO Member States that have not ratified the Convention have an obligation to prepare similar reports relating to their efforts to act on the Recommendation against Discrimination in Education. 20 Both sets of reports are reviewed and summarized by the UNESCO Committee on Conventions and Recommendations in Education. Its findings are submitted to the UNESCO Executive Board and through it to the General Conference, which adopts a general resolution addressing the issues that the reports raise. 21

To supplement this very weak reporting system, the UNESCO General Conference in 1962 adopted the "Protocol Instituting a Conciliation and Good Offices Commission to be responsible for seeking a settlement of any dispute which may arise between States Parties to the Convention against Discrimination in Education." The Protocol entered into force in 1968 and to date has been ratified by some twenty-five countries. The Commission established by it consists of eleven experts serving in their individual capacities. They are elected by the UNESCO General Conference from a list of candidates nominated by the States Parties to the Protocol.

The Protocol enables a Contracting Party to file a complaint with the Commission, charging that another Contracting State is not living up to its obligations under the UNESCO Convention against Discrimination in Education. If the matter is not satisfactorily resolved by the parties, the Commission must draw up "a report on the facts and indicate the recommendations which it made [to the parties] with a view to conciliation." (Protocol, Art. 17(3).) The Commission may also recommend to UNESCO that it seek an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice on any disputed question of law bearing on the controversy. But neither the findings of the Commission nor the advisory opinion of the Court is binding on the States Parties.

D. Declaration on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women

This instrument was adopted unanimously by the UN General Assembly in 1967. It was motivated by the concern, expressed in the preamble to the Declaration, that "despite the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenants on Human Rights and other instruments of the United Nations and the specialized agencies and despite the progress made in the matter of equality of rights, there continues to exist considerable discrimination against women." (Emphasis added) The preamble accordingly emphasizes the need to ensure the universal recognition in law and in fact of the principle of equality of men and women."

The Declaration proclaims the right of women to the enjoyment of various fundamental human rights on equal terms with men and to equality of treatment before the law. 22 Special emphasis is placed on political rights, nationality, civil rights, the abolition of discriminatory penal legislation, traffic in women

for immoral purposes, and equality in educational opportunities, as well as economic and social rights. The Declaration also expressly provides that "the principle of equality of rights shall be embodied in the constitution or otherwise guaranteed by law." (Art. 2(a).) The relevance of this provision to the current U.S. debate about the need for an Equal Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is obvious.

The Declaration is not a treaty and it was adopted in the form of a non-binding UN General Assembly resolution. It must be remembered, however, that Member States of the UN have in the UN Charter assumed the legal obligation to promote "universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to . . . sex (UN Charter, Arts. 55(c) and 56.) The Declaration may therefore be viewed as an authoritive Charter interpretation or clarification by the UN Member States of their obligations to ensure equality of rights of men and women. Moreover, as an official UN publication emphasizes, "the Declaration restates and consolidates a series of principles, many of which [are] embodied in earlier international instruments emanating from the United Nations and the specialized agencies. 23 It should also be noted that the "World Plan of Action," which was adopted at the UN-sponsored 1975 World Conference of the International Women's Year in Mexico City, is an attempt to begin implementing the principles that the Declaration proclaims.

E. Declaration of the Rights of the Child

24

The Declaration of the Rights of the Child was proclaimed by the UN General Assembly in 1959. Unlike the human rights instruments discussed thus far, the Declaration is addressed not only to governments but also to individuals, voluntary organizations and local authorities, all of whom, of course, affect the lives and rights of children.

The Declaration proclaims ten principles that are to serve as guides in promoting the well being of the child "to the end that he may have a happy childhood and enjoy for his own good and for the good of society" certain fundamental rights. These principles proscribe discriminatory treatment in all its forms, including distinctions based on race, color, religion, sex, national or social origin, property or birth. Other principles establish the rights of children to a name and nationality; to education, social security and health care; to protection from neglect, cruelty and exploitation. Principle 5 declares that children who are "physically, mentally or socially handicapped" shall be given the special treatment, education and care" that their particular condition demands. And Principle 6, after asserting that "the child, for the full and harmonious development of his personality, needs love and understanding," imposes on "society and the public authorities. . . the duty to extend particular care to children without a family and to those without adequate means of support."

The provisions of Principle 10 deserve special attention. They declare that

children "shall be protected from practices" which foster racial, religious and other forms of discrimination, and call on society to bring up children "in a spirit of understanding, tolerance, friendship among peoples, peace and universal brotherhood. . . ." These principles were developed in much greater detail in the "Declaration on the Promotion among Youth of the Ideas of Peace, Mutual Respect and Understanding between Peoples," which was adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1965. They are also reflected in the 1974 UNESCO Recommendation concerning Education for International Understanding, Co-Operation and Peace and Education relating to Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

IV. CONCLUSION

Space limitations have allowed us to discuss only a small number of existing international human rights instruments. But this chapter would be incomplete if the reader were not at least made aware of the fact that the International Labor Organization has over the years adopted numerous conventions and recommendations relating to trade union and worker rights. The following are among the principal ILO conventions dealing with important human rights matters: Convention (No. 111) concerning Discrimination in Respect of Employment and Occupation (1958); Convention (No. 100) concerning Equal Remuneration for Men and Women Workers for Work of Equal Value (1951); Convention (No.87) concerning Freedom of Association and Protection of the Rights to Organize (1948); and Convention (No. 98) concerning the Application of the Principle of the Right to Organize and to Bargain Collectively (1949).

25

Another area bearing significantly on international human rights that should not be overlooked is usually subsumed under the heading of humanitarian law. This is the branch of international law that has been developed to provide rules designed for the protection of combatants and civilians during military conflicts. The best known treaties dealing with this subject are the Geneva Conventions of 1949. They consist of the following four instruments: Convention for the Protection of War Victims; Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field; Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of the Armed Forces at Sea; and Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. 26 It is seldom realized, but certainly worth emphasizing, that these treaties, having been ratified by almost every nation in the world, are the most widely accepted international human rights instruments in existence today.

27

Not to be forgotten, in this context, are regional human rights instruments. The major ones are the European Convention of Human Rights and the American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man; they will be analyzed in the next chapter.

What, if anything, do all of these international and regional human rights instruments add up to? The answer, it is submitted, is that their adoption by the

UN, its specialized agencies, and the regional governmental organizations reflects the surprisingly broad consensus that exists in the world regarding the meaning or definition of basic human rights. This does not mean, of course, that most of these rights are respected by all or even a majority of governments, or that the massive denials of human rights being committed in various parts of the world will come to an end in the near future. It does mean, however, that despite existing ideological, national and cultural barriers, the nations of the world have been able to agree, at least in principle, on the way that human beings everywhere should and should not be treated. This is an important and indispensable first step towards the actual realization of these rights. The next step to transform principle into practice is of course much more difficult. But the existence of a broadly-based international consensus on the meaning of human rights greatly facilitates the task. It helps arouse international public opinion against violations of human rights. And when all is said and done, this may well be the only remedy in today's world against governmental violations of human rights.

Chapter Three: FOOTNOTES

1. See, e.g., UNESCO, Human Rights: Comments and Interpretations (Columbia U. Press, 1949); M. Cranston, What Are Human Rights? (New York: Tapplinger Press, 1973); D.D. Raphael (ed), Political Theory and the Rights of Man (Indiana U. Press, 1967); F. Vallat (ed), An Introduction to the Study of Human Rights (London: Europa Publications, 1970).

2.

3.

UNESCO Recommendation, para. 3.

See generally, E. Schwelb, Human Rights and the International Community: The Roots and Growth of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948-1963 (Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1964); L.B. Sohn, "A Short History of United Nations Documents on Human Rights," in United Nations and Human Rights, p. 39, at pp. 71-73 (18th Report of the Commission to Study the Organization of Peace, New York, 1968); A.H. Robertson, Human Rights in the World, pp. 25-28 (Manchester Univ. Press, 1972); L.B. Sohn & T. Buergenthal, International Protection of Human Rights, pp. 518-22 (Bobbs-Merrill Co., 1973).

4.

The Proclamation of Teheran is reproduced in the official publication Human Rights: A Compilation of International Instruments of the United Nations, pp. 18-19 (U.N. Publ. Sales No. E.73.XIV.2, 1973). The text can also be found in L.B. Sohn and T. Buergenthal, Basic Documents on International Protection of Human Rights, pp. 65-69 (Bobbs-Merrill Co., 1973). 5. See UN Secretariat, United Nations Action in the Field of Human Rights, pp. 9-15 (U.N. Publ. Sales No. E.74.XIV.2, 1974).

6.

Quoted in J. Carey, UN Protection of Civil and Political Rights, p. 13, n. 18 (Syracuse Univ. Press, 1970).

7.

UN Economic and Social Council, Official Records, 13th Sess., pp. 406-7 (1951), quoted in Sohn, supra note 3, at p. 106.

8.

See Article 2 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

9.

Article 2(1) of the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

10.

Part VI (Arts. 16-25) of the Covenant deals with the so-called “measures of implementation," that is, the procedures or machinery for the international supervision of the rights that it guarantees.

11. The relevant provisions are set out in Part IV (Arts. 28-45) of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

11a. See, e.g., the testimony of Martin Ennals, Secretary General of Amnesty International, before hearings of the House Subcommittee on International Organizations and Movements, International Protection of Human Rights: The Work of International Organizations and the Role of U.S. Foreign Policy, pp. 252-58 (U.S. Gov't Printing Office, 1974). See also the testimony on the same subject by Niall MacDermot, Secretary General of the International Commission of Jurists, id. at pp. 2-29.

1lb. The Optional Protocol provides in Article 9(2) that it shall enter into force only after ten States ratified it and if the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is also in force. When that Covenant entered into force on March 23, 1976, twelve States had already ratified the Optional Protocol, thus bringing it into effect.

12. The modern concept of genocide can be traced to a book by R. Lemkin, Axis Rule in Occupied Europe, pp. 79-95 (Washington, D.C., 1944). Professor Lemkin, more than any other individual, deserves most of the credit for promoting the idea of a treaty outlawing genocide and for bringing about the adoption of the Genocide Convention. See generally, R. Lemkin, "Genocide as a Crime under International Law,” American Journal of International Law, vol. 41, p. 145 (1947); N. Robinson, The Genocide Convention: Its Origin and Interpretation (New York, 1949). UN Charter, Art. 94.

13.

14.

E. Schwelb, "The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial