1979] HUMAN RIGHTS COVENANTS 119 are some peculiar types of limitations, or even protests, which certain ideological blocs of states have seen fit to devise. For instance, members of the Soviet-led bloc submitted a curious reservation which appears to be a protest against Article 48 of the Civil and Political Covenant as discriminatory inasmuch as they believe it should be open to signature by all states, instead of those excluded by implication in Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 48.107 This is the only reservation or declaration made by Bulgaria, the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Czechoslovakia, the German Democratic Republic, Hungary, Mongolia, the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Rumania added to its declaration a protest against the mention of territories in Article 1." 108 Some of the Arab states emphatically asserted that ratification of the Covenant in no way constituted recognition of the state of Israel. The reservations of Iraq, Libya and Syria follow this pattern, with only the Syrian reservation including a paragraph closely resembling the Soviet bloc's protest of the so-called “discriminatory nature" of Article 48.109 The Western European states, in contrast to the group approach, made an independent, article-by-article examination of the Covenant. In so doing, Denmark, Finland, the Federal Republic of Germany, Norway, Sweden and the United Kingdom emphasized the accepted practices in each of their jurisdictions. Almost all of their reservations contained references to Article 20 and its potential for restricting the right of freedom of expression. The Federal Republic of Germany was the only ratifying nation not to take exception to the "propaganda for war" statement in Article 20. The United Kingdom submitted an exhaustive list of reservations due to its complicated system of territories and dependencies, indicating the territory or dependency to which a particular reservation is to be applied. In addition, the United Kingdom has availed itself of the provisions of Article 4 (1) and (3) of the Covenant by giving notification that the situation in Northern Ireland constitutes a public emergency within the meaning of Article 4 (1). Thus, the United Kingdom has gone on record as failing to honor its obligations in Northern Ire 107. For the complete text of all the reservations, understandings and notifications submitted regarding the Civil and Political Covenant, see Multilateral Treaties in Respect to Which the Secretary General Performs Depositary Functions, List of Signatures, Ratifications and Accessions as of December 31, 1977, 105, at 106-110, U.N.Doc. ST/LEG/SER.D/11 (1978). 108. Id. 109. Id. 110. Id. at 103-105. 1979] HUMAN RIGHTS COVENANTS 119 are some peculiar types of limitations, or even protests, which certain ideological blocs of states have seen fit to devise. For instance, members of the Soviet-led bloc submitted a curious reservation which appears to be a protest against Article 48 of the Civil and Political Covenant as discriminatory inasmuch as they believe it should be open to signature by all states, instead of those excluded by implication in Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 48.107 This is the only reservation or declaration made by Bulgaria, the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Czechoslovakia, the German Democratic Republic, Hungary, Mongolia, the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Rumania added to its declaration a protest against the mention of territories in Article 1.108 Some of the Arab states emphatically asserted that ratification of the Covenant in no way constituted recognition of the state of Israel. The reservations of Iraq, Libya and Syria follow this pattern, with only the Syrian reservation including a paragraph closely resembling the Soviet bloc's protest of the so-called “discriminatory nature" of Article 48.109 The Western European states, in contrast to the group approach, made an independent, article-by-article examination of the Covenant. In so doing, Denmark, Finland, the Federal Republic of Germany, Norway, Sweden and the United Kingdom emphasized the accepted practices in each of their jurisdictions. Almost all of their reservations contained references to Article 20 and its potential for restricting the right of freedom of expression. The Federal Republic of Germany was the only ratifying nation not to take exception to the "propaganda for war" statement in Article 20. 110 The United Kingdom submitted an exhaustive list of reservations due to its complicated system of territories and dependencies, indicating the territory or dependency to which a particular reservation is to be applied. In addition, the United Kingdom has availed itself of the provisions of Article 4 (1) and (3) of the Covenant by giving notification that the situation in Northern Ireland constitutes a public emergency within the meaning of Article 4 (1). Thus, the United Kingdom has gone on record as failing to honor its obligations in Northern Ire 107. For the complete text of all the reservations, understandings and notifications submitted regarding the Civil and Political Covenant, see Multilateral Treaties in Respect to Which the Secretary General Performs Depositary Functions, List of Signatures, Ratifications and Accessions as of December 31, 1977, 105, at 106-110, U.N.Doc. ST/LEG/SER.D/11 (1978). 108. Id. 109. Id. 110. Id. at 103-105. 120 HOUSTON JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW [Vol. 1:103 land under Articles 9, 10, 12, 14, 17, 19, 21 and 22. The wording of the British reference to Article 20 is as follows: "The government of the United Kingdom interprets Article 20 consistently with the rights conferred by Articles 19 and 21 of the Covenant and having legislated in matters of practical concern in the interests of public order (ordre public) reserves the right not to introduce any further legislation." An approach similar to the British reservation should be sufficient to safeguard the constitutional standards of the United States. The reservation submitted by the Federal Republic of Germany went further than that of any other ratifying nation concerning the right to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and association. The West Germans declared that Articles 19, 21, and 22 “in conjunction with Articles 2 (1) of the Covenant shall be applied within the scope of Article 16 of the Convention of 4 November 1950 for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedom."2 This reservation has the effect of giving the European regional convention priority in “imposing restrictions on the political activity of aliens,"113 meaning that the political activity of aliens in these areas will be defined in regional terms rather than in the universal terms of the Covenant. Barbados is the only country of the Western Hemisphere which has both ratified the Civil and Political Covenant as well as attached a reservation. This small island-nation reserved its right not to apply the guarantee of full legal assistance provided for by Article 14 (3) (d) due to implementation problems. In fact, other Western nations (Denmark, Finland, the Federal Republic of Germany, Norway, Sweden and the United Kingdom) found it necessary to modify their obligations under Article 14. Obviously, the wide variety of criminal justice systems in these countries gives rise to differing views of the rights to be accorded in criminal proceedings. The United States should have minimal problems with this Article and the understanding put forth by the executive branch would appear to be appropriate under the circumstances, albeit somewhat overly cautious. Chile is a prime example of the way in which sanctioned derogation from the Covenant's standards leads to "authorized" abuses. When Chile submitted a notification pursuant to the public emergency exception of Article 4 (1), it claimed it was in a state of siege. The notification listed Article 9 (prohibiting arbitrary arrest or detention), Article 12 (the right to choose residence and freedom to leave one's 111. Id. at 106. 112. Id. at 104. 113. See Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, open for signature Nov. 4, 1950, 213 U.N.T.S. 221, 230-33. 1979] HUMAN RIGHTS COVENANTS 121 country), Article 13 (the right of an alien not to be expelled except through lawful process), Article 19 (freedom of expression) and Article 25 (b) (the right and opportunity to vote and be elected), as those rights to be suspended indefinitely. VII. INTERnational Versus Regional ConvenTIONS The existence of a regional human rights organization such as that created in Europe (the European Court of Human Rights), presents interesting questions of overlap and interaction with the international system set forth in the Covenants. Article 44 of the Civil and Political Covenant does not specifically provide for coordination with regional organizations, yet it seems to include them by implication when it says: "The provisions for the implementation of the present Covenant. . . shall not prevent the States Parties to the present Covenant from having recourse to other procedures for settling a dispute in accordance with general or special international agreements in force between them." Clearly, the Covenant does not preempt States Parties from having recourse to "other procedures," leaving more specialized regional organizations "free to develop and maintain more effective systems for the protection of human rights."114 The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 15 entered into force in 1953. The Convention has become the "eldest daughter" of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by embodying a selective codification of the Declaration's provisions. The European Convention's selectivity emphasized civil and political rights which had traditionally been recognized by the contracting parties in Europe. 7 Among the advantages of the Convention are provisions holding as binding the decisions of both the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe and the European Court of Human Rights and declaring that European case law will be applied to define and interpret the European Convention. Thus, it has been argued that "there is little reason to abandon a regional system which has proved its worth."118 Furthermore, a system of co-existence between 114. Buergenthal, International and Regional Human Rights Law and Institutions: Some Examples of their Interaction, 12 Tex. Int'l L.J. 321, 327 (1977). 115. 213 U.N.T.S. 222. 116. Eissen, The European Convention on Human Rights and the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Problems of Coexistence, 22 BUFFALO L. Rev. 181, 182 (1973). 117. HUMAN Rights in National and International Law 236 (A. Robertson ed. 1968). 118. Id. at 183. |