While the treaties are not subject to legally binding sanctions, they do increase the political costs attached to violations of human rights. The committees established to review compliance with the treaties provide a mechanism through which human rights practices throughout the world can be evaluated, compared and publicized. These committees will develop a sort of human rights caselaw-a body of precedent that can give shape and substance to the basic standards enunciated in the treaties.

It is towards this goal-the operation of the rule of law in the international human rights field-that we should strive. Ratification of these four treaties would be an important step to that end.

Mr. Chairman, United States adherence to these treaties would unquestionably promote the international recognition of fundamental human rights. But it would also unquestionably advance the national interests of the United States. As President Carter suggested on the 13th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the two are inextricably linked. As he said on that occasion:

"(H)uman rights are not peripheral to the foreign policy of the United States ** *. Our pursuit of human rights is part of a broad effort to use our great power an our tremendous influence in the service of creating a better world-a world in which human beings can live in peace, in freedom, and with their basic needs adequately met."

For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I respectfully urge that advice and consent given to the ratification of these human rights treaties.

Mr. CHRISTOPHER. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Vance has gone to New York this morning on short notice. Although I normally would like to stay for the presentations of my colleagues, I think with the current situation as it is in Iran, I ought to get back to the Department.

I would ask you if you might address any questions you have for me at this time, before hearing from my colleagues, so that I could return. I hope that would not be inconvenient for the committee. Senator PELL. Certainly. I understand.

VIOLATION OF TREATIES BY IRAN

Speaking of Iran makes me wonder. Iran signed and ratified the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.

As we see its actions in the last few weeks, particularly the last few days vis-a-vis our own diplomatic people who are there, do you believe there is a violation of these treaties on their part? If so, are there any sanctions in these treaties?

Mr. CHRISTOPHER. I do not believe there are sanctions within the treaties. But naturally, in preparing to come here today, I reflected on the events in Iran as they relate to the treaties. I think we must recognize that even universally respected international legal principles sometimes can be violated. But the extraordinarily broad international support which we have received for our demand that the hostages be released, demonstrates again the power of these important principles. I think it also shows the rarity of violations of international law.

It is our hope that these treaties and the rights they protect will enjoy the same sort of international respect that the sanctity of diplomats has all over the world. The international outpouring of support for the United States position in Iran I think is one of the reassuring aspects of this episode. The entire world is standing with us in the demand that the hostages be released.

So, rather than seeing these events as demonstrating the futility of treaties of this sort, I see these events as underscoring and confirming the importance of our establishing international norms so that

when they are violated, the entire civilized community comes to the support of those who are subject to the violations.

Senator PELL. I appreciate that.

Incidentally-and this is way off the subject and only for my own edification-am I correct in assuming that all of the Americans in that compound being held hostage are there on diplomatic passports or have a diplomatic function?

Mr. CHRISTOPHER. Yes, all of the Americans who are there. There are some Foreign Service nationals who also are there, Iranians who are serving in one way or another. They, of course, are not there under diplomatic passport.

Senator PELL. But how many of the 62 or 65 persons would be bearers of diplomatic passports?

Mr. CHRISTOPHER. I believe they all have diplomatic status.

Senator PELL. But Foreign Service nationals would not have diplomatic status.

Mr. CHRISTOPHER. They would not. Mr. Chairman, they are in addition to the 62 or 65 Americans.

Senator PELL. I see. That 62 or 65 number are all Americans, and there are some additional persons?

Mr. CHRISTOPHER. That is correct.

Senator PELL. Thank you.

Incidentally, I will ask that the record of this hearing be kept open in order to insert a precise statement of the status of the Genocide Treaty. I may have spoken too quickly, but my understanding is it would have to come out of this committee unless it is taken from the desk.

Mr. CHRISTOPHER. I am glad that came up because I think we both would like to know the exact status of the matter.

Senator PELL. Good.

[The information referred to follows:]

STATUS OF THE GENOCIDE TREATY IN THE SENATE

The U.N. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide was transmitted to the Senate by the President on June 16, 1949. Since that time the Foreign Relations Committee has held public hearings on four different occasions-1950, 1970, 1971, and 1977. Similarly, it has favorably reported the treaty to the Senate in 1970, 1971, 1973, and 1976.

The treaty has twice been debated inconclusively on the floor of the Senateduring the 92nd Congress, on October 5, 1972; and during the 93rd Congress, on December 19, 1973 and January 28, 29, 30, February 1, 4, 5, and 6, 1974. At the adjournment of each Congress, it was automatically rereferred to the Committee under paragraph 2 of Rule XXXVII of the Standing Rules of the Senate. According to this Rule,

2. Treaties transmitted by the President to the Senate for ratification shall be resumed at the second or any subsequent session of the same Congress at the stage in which they were left at the final adjournment of the session in which they were transmitted; but all proceedings on treaties shall terminate with the Congress, and they shall be resumed at the commencement of the next Congress as if no proceedings had previously been had thereon.

When the Genocide Convention was last considered (1977), it was pending before the Foreign Relations Committee; hearings were held, but the treaty was not reported. That was during the 95th Congress; it is still pending before that Committee.

There are two procedures under which this treaty might be brought out of Committee. The first, and the method normally utilized, is by Committee action in reporting the treaty. Reporting the treaty could include additional public hearings prior to a vote or a decision by the committee to vote without further hearings. Once the treaty has been reported from Committee, it is placed on the

Executive Calendar. It can be taken up either by motion or by unanimous consent to consider it as executive business in executive session. The second, and a method rarely used for treaties, is an action of the Senate in voting to discharge the Committee from further consideration of the treaty.

Senator PELL. Thank you very much, indeed, Mr. Secretary.

I look forward to hearing from your associates.

Mr. CHRISTOPHER. Mr. Chairman, it is always a pleasure to appear before you and your committee.

Senator PELL. Thank you.

Now, Ms. Derian or Mr. Owen, who would like to go first?

Ms. DERIAN. I would defer to Mr. Owen.

Senator PELL. Very well.

Before you begin, might we ask Mr. Jack Goldklang to come to the witness table also. In this way you three, who represent the administration, might appear as a panel.

Mr. Goldklang is the Attorney Adviser of the Office of Legal Counsel of the Department of Justice.

Mr. Owen, we are delighted to hear from you.

STATEMENT OF ROBERTS B. OWEN, LEGAL ADVISER,, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, ACCOMPANIED BY ARTHUR ROVINE, ASSISTANT LEGAL ADVISER

Mr. OWEN. Mr. Chairman, my name is Roberts Owen. I am the relatively new Legal Adviser of the Department of State.

It is a privilege for me to appear before your committee today. I have transmitted a prepared statement to the committee, which I would hope might be included in the record.

Senator PELL. It will be inserted in full.

Mr. OWEN. In the few minutes allowed for my oral presentation, I want to address three specific aspects of the treaties which have just been discussed by Deputy Secretary Christopher.

I want to comment briefly on the consistency between the rights reflected in these treaties and those embodied in U.S. domestic law. I will then refer to the treaty enforcement mechanisms in order to clarify their probable impact within the international community. Finally, I will deal very briefly with some of the criticisms that have been voiced against these treaties in terms of what they will and will not accomplish.

Let me begin by emphasizing that the substantive provisions of these four treaties do not conflict in any way with basic U.S. law or policy.

Let me illustrate the point by making brief reference to the Racial Discrimination Convention. As its title indicates, the treaty calls upon the states parties to undertake to eliminate all forms of discrimination based on race, color, or ethnic origin in order to provide equality before the law in terms of the enjoyment of specified, substantive rights.

In a sense, these undertakings seem to import into international law the legal progress made in this country in the past 100 years through the adoption of the 14th amendment and the civil rights

acts.

Similarly, two others of these treaties, the Civil and Political Rights Covenant and the American Convention on Human Rights, roughly

correspond, in terms of international law, to the Bill of Rights, which is so firmly entrenched in our Constitution.

The treaty rights include the right to vote, the right to free expression, the right to freedom of religion and association, the right to freedom of movement, and a whole series of procedural rights relating to fair trial, representation by counsel, and other fundamental rights so familiar to Americans.

The fourth of the proposed treaties is somewhat different in that it looks not to the recognition of present rights, but to the future. The Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights Covenant commits states to take steps toward the future realization of certain economic, social, and cultural goals for the individual, and calls for their progressive achievement over time. Again, the goals involved are familiar to American citizens. They look toward the realization of such rights as the right to work under just and fair conditions, the right to social security and adequate standards of living and health, the right to the protection of family and children, the right to primary education.

The treaty is so written that no ratifying party thereby commits itself to present implementation of such rights, but the stated goals nevertheless are completely in keeping with policies pursued in this country for many years.

We believe none of the four treaties runs counter in any way at all to the major thrust of U.S. law and policy.

As Deputy Secretary Christopher has indicated, from the point of view of the United States, one principal goal of these treaties is to bring about a modification in the behavior of other governments in ways that directly affect our own national interest. Although the rights described in these four treaties already are generally recognized and applied in the United States, that is not true in many other countries, and the disregard of human rights abroad may, in some cases, constitute a threat to our own peace and prosperity.

This being so, it is fair to ask whether, if these four treaties were widely ratified, they would be likely to bring about changes in governmental conduct abroad, and that question, in turn, depends to some extent on whether there would be effective enforcement of these treaties.

In fact, the mechanisms of international law have not developed to the point where treaties of this kind can be enforced as rigorously as states enforce their own domestic laws. This is not to say that there will be no enforcement. On the contrary, these treaties contemplate enforcement principally in the form of holding up to international scrutiny and review any conduct on the part of the state party which falls below the standard set forth in the treaty.

To summarize the enforcement picture very briefly, all four of these treaties require states parties to submit compliance reports to specified international committees. Two such committees already have begun to demonstrate their effectiveness through a process of analyzing the reports, calling in representatives of states parties to elicit addit onal information as to their human rights record and, in some cases, letting a particular state know that it has failed to comply with its treaty obligation.

Although it is too early to say with certainty that such techniques will bring about major changes in conduct, experience has shown that such international scrutiny and criticism do, in fact, tend to raise the standards of behavior in the field of international human rights.

Additional and, as yet, untried enforcement mechanisms also are built into some of these treaties. Three of them provide a procedure under which a state party can lodge a complaint against the conduct of another state and invoke the conciliation procedure, although in two cases the treaty, in effect, requires prior consent by the affected state.

In addition, the American Convention provides a method whereby an individual or organization may lodge complaints against a state party. Two of the other treaties provide for the same procedure with

consent.

Finally, the American Convention establishes an Inter-American Court of Human Rights to hear complaints by state parties in certain circumstances.

Again, it is too early to tell what impact these devices will have, but we expect them to lead to higher human rights standards in the international community.

In the short time remaining to me, Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak to the two basic criticisms which have been made against these treaties.

On the one hand, it is said that the treaties are objectionable because, to the extent that they would call upon the United States to observe higher human rights standards than are provided by our domestic law, they improperly intrude into an area which should be left to domestic legislation. The related theme is that, in some instances, the treaties might be read as requiring changes in the laws of our several States and, thus, tend to upset the Federal-State balance.

The administration's answer to these criticisms is, first, that with minor exception, the rights recognized in these treaties already exist under our domestic law, Federal and State; we already largely have met the minimum standards reflected in these documents. Second, as will be explained, the administration has recommended a number of reservations to make clear that, in order to bring about certain domestic law changes in accordance with the treaties, resort must be had to domestic legislation.

Although the reservations proposed by the administration thus lay to rest one of the two basic criticisms of these treaties, those same reservations have aroused another line of criticism, in this case from persons who enthusiastically support ratification. They argue that one purpose of such treaties is to bring about advances in the domestic law of the ratifying states, including the United States; that the administration's recommended reservations run counter to that purpose; and, that if the reservations are adopted, we will not be making as much progress in the field of human rights as these critics would like.

However, the fact remains that, even with the suggested reservations, U.S. ratification will represent a highly constructive step forward. As I have noted, U.S. domestic law largely conforms to the treaty standards already. U.S. ratification of these treaties would commit us not to backslide from those standards. By such adherence, we would be announcing our continuing commitment to the cause of human rights and subjecting our own performance in the field to international scrutiny through the treaty enforcement mechanisms.

Our general approach, through the proposed reservations, is consistent with the approach taken by most of the other Western democracies who have adhered to these treaties, and our own adherence surely