1 The Report of the Commission on Human Rights [CHR] on its Fifty-seventh Session, UN ESCOR 2001, Supp. No. 3, UN Doc. E/CN.4/2001/167 (2001) [hereinafter CHR Report], contains the resolutions and decisions of the Commission, as well as a listing of the participants. See also Provisional Statistical Data of the 57th Commission on Human Rights (on file with author). Many of the CHR materials (including press releases) discussed or cited in this note are available online at the Web site of the Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights, <http://www.unhchr.ch>.

2 Chickens and Foxes, Economist, Apr. 21, 2001, at 41.

3 Like similar essays on the 1994 through 2000 sessions, this one is a personal reflection on the Commission’s session and is not a complete record. See Crook, John R., The Fiftieth Session of the UN Commission on Human Rights; 88 AJIL 806 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar [hereinafter Crook, 50th Session]; Crook, John R., The Fifty-first Session of the UN Commission on Human Rights, 90 AJIL 126 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Dennis, Michael J., The Fifty-second Session of the UN Commission on Human Rights, 91 AJIL 167 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Dennis, Michael J., The Fifty-third Session of the UN Commission on Human Rights, 92 AJIL 112 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Dennis, Michael J., The Fifty-fourth Session of the UN Commission on Human Rights, 93 AJIL 246 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Dennis, Michael J., The Fifty-fifth Session of the UN Commission on Human Rights, 94 AJIL 189 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Dennis, Michael J., The Fifty-sixth Session of the UN Commission on Human Rights, 95 AJIL 213 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar [hereinafter, Dennis, 56th Session].

4 For a discussion of the 2001 democracy text, see Dennis, 56th Session, supra note 3, at 213–14.

5 CHR Res. 2001/41 (Apr. 23).

6 CHR Res. 2001/36 (Apr. 23).

7 For a summary of the debate, see CHR Report, supra note 1, at 415–17 (Cuban text), 419–20 (Romanian text); and UN Press Releases HR/CN/01/64, at 9–10 (Apr. 23, 2001), and HR/CN/01/65, at 6–8 (Apr. 23, 2001).

8 Explanation of Vote by India (Apr. 23, 2001) (on file with author). For the second straight year, the Commission also adopted texts on good governance, CHR Res. 2001/72 (Apr. 25), and on the incompatibility between democracy and racism, CHR Res. 2001/43 (Apr. 23).

9 CHR Res. 2001/37 (Apr. 23). The vote in 2000 was 27–13-12. See Dennis, 56th Session, supra note 3, at 214–15. At the 2001 session the Commission also adopted, without a vote, a Russian text that condemned hostage taking as “an illegal act aimed at the destruction of human rights and [which] is, under any circumstances, unjustifiable, including as a means to promote and protect human rights.” CHR Res. 2001/38 (Apr. 23).

10 For a summary of the debate, see UN Press Release HR/CN/01/65, at 3–5 (Apr. 23, 2001).

11 Explanation of Vote on the Draft Resolution on “Human Rights and Terrorism” (L.34) by Belgium on Behalf of the European Union (Apr. 23, 2001) (on file with author). The United States’ explanation of vote (Apr. 23, 2001; on file with author) was substantially similar.

12 GA Res. 56/160 (Dec. 19, 2001). The resolution was adopted by a vote of 102–0-69.

13 CHR Res. 2001/49 (Apr. 24); see CHR Report, supra note 1, at 431.

14 GA 53/144 (Dec. 9, 1998).

15 CHR Dec. 2001/115 (Apr. 25). The note by the Sub-Commission expert is contained in UN Doc. E/CN.4/2001/96. At its 2000 session, the Commission decided, by a vote of 22–21-10, that the Sub-Commission should submit an interim study on the issue at the Commission’s 57th session. See Dennis, 56th Session, supra note 3, at 216.

16 Explanation of Vote on the Sub-Commission’s Draft Decision on “Human Rights and Human Responsibilities” by Belgium on Behalf of the European Union (Apr. 25, 2001) (on file with author).

17 For a summary of the debate, see UN Press Release HR/CN/01/71, at 10–11 (Apr. 25,2001). In another matter of note, a Norwegian proposal for the identification of common rules of human rights and humanitarian law (“fundamental standards of humanity”) asks, for the fifth consecutive year, only that the Secretary-General, in consultation with the International Committee of the Red Cross, submit another report on the matter to the next session. CHRDec. 2001/112 (Apr. 25). As is apparent from Secretary-General’s report, UN Doc. E/CN.4/2001/91 (2001), submitted pursuant to the resolution of the 2000 session, one continuing aspect of the problem is that nonstate actors involved in internal armed conflicts—unlike states—are not legally bound to respect the provisions of international human rights treaties.

18 CHR Res. 2001/68 (Apr. 25).

19 The statement is contained in UN Doc. E/CN.4/2001 /161 (2001). While few other industrial countries retain the death penalty, the majority of UN members retain the death penalty for the most serious offenses. See the Secretary-General’s sixth quinquennial report on capital punishment, UN Doc. E/2000/3 (2000) [hereinafter Sixth Quinquennial Report].

20 See Statement of Ambassador George Moose (Apr. 25, 2001) (on file with author). For a summary of the debate, see UN Press Release HR/CN/01/71, at 2–4 (Apr. 25, 2001).

21 The text of the draft decision is reported in UN Doc. E/CN.4/2001/2, at 14 (2000).

22 CHR Res. 2001/45 (Apr. 23) (extrajudicial, summary, or arbitrary executions) (emphasis added); CHR Res. 2001/75 (Apr. 25) (rights of the child) (emphasis added). See Convention on the Rights of the Child, Nov. 20, 1989,1577 UNTS 3, 28ILM 1448 (1989) [hereinafter Child Rights Convention]; International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Dec. 16, 1966, 999 UNTS 171 [hereinafter ICCPR].

21 The Child Rights Convention has been ratified by 191 states—only the United States and Somalia are not parties. The ICCPR has been ratified by 147 states, including the United States and Somalia. See Status of Ratifications of the Principal International Human Rights Treaties as of 08 Jan. 2002, a(<http://www.unhchr.ch/pdf/report.pdf>.

24 Report of the Working Group on a Draft Convention on the Rights of the Child, UN Doc. E/CN.4/1989/48 para. 544 (45th Sess., Mar. 2, 1989).

25 Sixth Quinquennial Report, supra note 19, at 40. A number of the countries mentioned in the report have taken general reservations to the Child Rights Convention based upon their state constitutions or Islamic law. See Reservations, Declarations and Objections Relating to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, UN Doc. CRC/C/2/Rev.8 (1999).

26 See 138 Cong. Rec. 8070–71 (1992). For U.S. constitutional restraints, see Stanford v. Kentucky, 492 U.S. 361 (1989) (Eighth Amendment does not prohibit execution of individuals aged 16 or 17 at the time of their crimes); Thompson v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 815 (1988) (Eighth Amendment prohibits execution of individuals aged 15 or younger at the time of their crimes). Currently, 18 states permit the death penalty to be imposed on 16-year-olds, while 5 states provide for a 17-year-old minimum. See Streib, Victor L., The Juvenile Death Penalty Today (Feb. 2001), at <http://www.law.onu.edu.faculty/streib/juvdeath.htm>>Google Scholar.

27 See United Nations Multilateral Treaties Deposited with the Secretary-General: Status as of 31 December 1994, UN Doc. ST/LEG/SER.E/13 (1995); Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, opened for signature May 23,1969, Art. 20(4) (b), 1155 UNTS 332,333 (objection by a contracting state to another state’s reservation to part of a treaty does not prevent the treaty from entering into force unless such intention “is definitely expressed by the objecting State”).

28 Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Dec. 10, 1984, 1465 UNTS 85.

29 CHR Res. 2001/44 (Apr. 23).

30 For the report of the working group’s ninth session, see UN Doc. E/CN.4/2001/67 (2001). The EU proposal is contained in Annex II.

31 Id., paras. 19–31,37.

32 CHRRes.2001/58 (Apr. 24).

33 Statement by Representative of India on Behalf of the Asian Group (Apr. 24, 2001) (on file with author).

34 For the report of the working group’s sixth session, see UN Doc. E/CN.4/2001/85 (2001).

35 CHR Res. 2001/46 (Apr. 23). The draft convention appears as an annex to the Report of the Sub-Commission Working Group on the Administration of justice, UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1998/19 (1998) [hereinafter Administration of Justice Report]. The Commission also authorized renewal of the mandate of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances for another three-year term.

36 CHR Report, supra note 1, at 425–26.

37 UN Doc. E/CN.4/2001/69/Add.l, at 2 (2001) (comments by Canada on question of enforced or involuntary disappearances) [hereinafter Comments by Canada], and Explanation of Vote by Canadian Representative Marie Gervais-Vidricaire (Apr. 26, 2001) (on file with author), respectively.

38 Comments by Canada, supra note 37, UN Doc. E/CN.4/2001/69/Add.l, at 2.

39 GARes. 47/133 (Dec. 18, 1992).

40 For a summary of the debate, see CHR Report, supra note 1, at 424–26; UN Press Release HR/CN/01 /66, at 2–4 (Apr. 23, 2001).

41 The proposal by Switzerland is contained in UN Doc. E/CN.4/2001/69/Add. 1, at 6–8 (2001). The Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances and the U.S. Sub-Commission expert David Weissbrodt previously questioned the wisdom of creating a new treaty-monitoring body concerning involuntary disappearances. See Report of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, UN Doc. E/CN.4/2001 /68, Annex III, at 34 (2000), and Administration of Justice Report, supra note 35, at 7, respectively.

42 CHR Res. 2001/47 (Apr. 23). The Commission had adopted a resolution on freedom of opinion and expression without a vote each year since 1985. See CHR Res. 1985/17 for the first text on the subject.

43 For a summary of the debate, see CHR Report, supra note 1, at 422–24, and UN Press Release HR/CN/01 /66, at 4–5 (Apr. 23, 2001).

44 Explanation of Vote by Japanese Representative Masaru Watanabe (Apr. 23, 2001) (on file with author). The text of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, Dec. 21,1965, is at 660 UNTS 195 [hereinafter Racial Discrimination Convention].

45 CHR Res. 2001/62 (Apr. 25).

46 For a summary of the debate, see CHR Report supra note 1, at 426–29; CHR Press Release HR/CN/01/70, at 2–5 (Apr. 25, 2001). The annual Canadian text on impunity was also the subject of a vote for the first time. CHR Res. 2001/70 (Apr. 25) (adopted by a vote of 39–0-13). In other actions of note, the Commission authorized renewal of the mandate of the special rapporteurs on freedom of religion or belief, CHR Res. 2001/42 (Apr. 23), and extrajudicial, summary, or arbitrary executions for three-year periods, CHR Res. 2001/45 (Apr. 23).

47 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Dec. 16, 1966, 993 UNTS 3 [hereinafter ICESCR],

48 CHR Res. 2001/30 (Apr. 20).

49 Report of the Committee on a Draft Optional Protocol, UN Doc. E/CN.4/1997/105, annex, at 6 (1996) [hereinafter Draft Optional Protocol Report].

50 See comments by Finland, UN Doc. E/CN.4/1999/112, at 2–3 (1999), Germany, UN Doc. E/CN.4/2000/49, at 5 (2000), and Portugal, UN Doc. E/CN.4/2001/62, at 4–7 (2000). Other EU countries have questioned the need for a protocol. Sec comments by Sweden, UN Doc. E/CN.4/2001/62/Add.l, at 2–3 (2001).

51 Explanation of Vote by India (Apr. 20, 2001) (on file with author). For a summary of the debate, see CHR Report, supra note 1, at 407–08.

52 See The Politics of Human Rights, ECONOMIST, Aug. 18, 2001, at 9.

53 Draft Optional Protocol Report, supra note 49, at 7.

54 See Report on Workshop on the Justiciability of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, UN Doc. E/CN.4/2001/62/Add.l, para. 18 (2001).

55 The Right to Adequate Food (Art. 11), General Comment No. 12, UN Doc. E/C. 12/1999/11, Annex V, paras. 15, 32 (1999); The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Health (Art. 12), General Comment No. 14, UN Doc. E/C. 12/2000/21, Annex TV, paras. 37, 59 (2000).

56 CHR Res. 2001/25 (Apr. 20).

57 CHR Res. 2001/28 (Apr. 20).

58 Declaration on Cities and Other Human Settlements in the New Millennium, para. 8 (adopted by the General Assembly on June 8, 2001). Prior to the special session, the Committee had called upon governments to “maintain conformity” with the principles and provisions of the Universal Declaration and the ICESCR, and to “reaffirm explicitly that the right to adequate housing is a fundamental human right.” Statement by the Committee to the Special Session of the General Assembly (May 11, 2001) (on file with author).

59 GA Res. 217A (III) (Dec. 10, 1948).

60 Emphasis added.

61 ICESCR Article 11(2), unlike Universal Declaration Article 25, further requires that states parties “recogniz[e] the fundamental right of everyone to be free from hunger.” The Commission special rapporteur on housing also asserted that the United States is in violation of a “legal obligation” to implement “the right to housing as a legally binding right” pursuant to Article 5 of the Racial Discrimination Convention. Roman Rollnick, Housing Is a Human Right, Q & A:Miloon Kothari, Conference Daily News, June 8,2001, at 5 (emphasis added). Racial Discrimination Convention Article 5 does list specific economic, social, and cultural rights—including the “right to housing,” which U.S. law does not recognize. States are not required by Article 5, however, to ensure observance of each of the rights listed therein, but rather to prohibit discrimination in the enjoyment of those rights to the extent they are provided by the domestic law. See Committee on the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination, General Recommendation XX on Article 5 (1996), reprintedin UN Doc. HRI/GEN/l/Rev.5, para. 1 (2001) (“Article 5 of the Convention, apart from requiring a guarantee that the exercise of human rights shall be free from racial discrimination, does not of itself create civil, political, economic, social or cultural rights”); Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Report on International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, S. EXEC. REP. No. 103–29, at 28 (1994).

62 CHR Res. 2001/30 (Apr. 20) and 2001/33 (Apr. 23), respectively.

63 Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, Apr. 15, 1994, Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex 1C, The Results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations: The Legal Texts 365, reprinted in 33 ILM 81 (1994). This multilateral trade agreement binds all members of the World Trade Organization.

64 See Zarocostas, John, U.S., Brazil Lock Horns over AIDS Drugs, UPI, Apr. 23, 2001, LEXIS, News Library, Wire Service StoriesGoogle Scholar; A Cure for High Prices, Economist, May 19, 2001, at 34. Subsequently, the United States withdrew its patent case against Brazil and elected to pursue the matter on a bilateral basis. See Crossette, Barbara, U.S. Drops Case over AIDS Drugs in Brazil, N.Y. Times, June 26, 2000, at A4 Google Scholar.

65 Explanation of Vote by Ambassador George E. Moose (Apr. 23, 2001) (on file with author). While the United States is not a party to the ICESCR, it has ratified the 1946 World Health Organization Constitution, which contains a preambular reference to “the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health [as] one of the fundamental rights of every human being without distinction of race, religion, political belief, economic or social condition.” At the time of ratification, the United State declared its understanding that nothing in the WHO Constitution would require legislative action. See 22 U.S.C. §290(d) (1994).

66 Explanation of Vote by Belgium on Behalf of the European Union and Associate Countries (Apr. 23, 2001) (on file with author).

67 See Faiola, Anthony, Brazil to Ignore Patent on AIDS Drug, Wash. Post, Aug. 23, 2001, at A20 Google Scholar.

68 CHR Res. 2001/27 (Apr. 20).

69 CHR Res. 2001/65 (Apr. 25) (adopted by a vote of 32–16-4), CHR Res. 2001/69 (Apr. 25) (adopted by a vote of 29–16-7), CHR Res. 2001/73 (Apr. 25) (adopted by a vote of 36–16), respectively. Cuba introduced each of the resolutions under agenda item 17 on the promotion and protection of human rights, rather than under agenda item 10 on economic, social, and cultural rights. See CHR Report, supra note 1, at 445–46, 448–49, 451–52.

70 CHR Res. 2001/32 (Apr. 23). For a summary of the debate, see UN Press Release HR/CN/64, at 3–4 (Apr. 23, 2001).

71 Explanations of Vote by the European Union on Structural Adjustment and Foreign Debt (L.33) (Apr. 20, 2001), on Promotion of a Democratic and Equitable International Order (L.86) (Apr. 25,2001), on Human Rights and International Solidarity (L.96) (Apr. 25, 2001), on Promotion of the Right of Peoples to Peace (L.95) (Apr. 25, 2001), and on Globalization (L.48) (Apr. 20, 2001) (all on file with author).

72 See Statement of the European Union on the Right to Development (Mar. 23, 2001) (on file with author); see Report of the Independent Expert on Right to Development, UN Doc. E/CN.4/1999/WG.18/2, table 1(1999). The United States has not accepted this commitment.

73 Explanation of Vote by Japan (Apr. 25, 2001) (on file with author). Other related texts reflecting similar North-South splits included the South African text on unilateral coercive measures, CHR Res. 2001/26 (Apr. 20) (adopted by a vote of 37–8-8), and a Kenyan text on toxic waste, CHR Res. 2001/35 (Apr. 23) (adopted by a vote of 38–15) (authorizing renewal of mandate of special rapporteur for a three-year term).

74 CHRRes. 2001/9 (Apr. 18).

75 For a discussion of the debate, see CHR Report, supra note 1, at 374–76; UN Press Release HR/CN/01/56, at 2–4 (Apr. 18,2001).

76 Third Report of the Independent Expert on the Right to Development, UN Doc. E/CN.4/2001/WG.18/2, paras. 21, 43 (2001), respectively (emphasis added).

77 CHR Res. 2001/9, operative para. 4; see id., operative para. 9.

78 Report of the Open-Ended Working Group on the Right to Development, UN Doc. E/CN.4/2001/26, at 45–46 (2001).

79 Explanation of Vote by Japan (Apr. 18, 2001) (on file with author).

80 For a summary of the relevant actions, see CHR Report, supra note 1, at 430–41, 445.

81 The Commission texts addressing the subject were as follows: CHR Res. 2000/57 (special rapporteur); CHR Res. 2001/58 (draft declaration); CHR Res. 2001/59 (Working Group on Indigenous Populations and the International Decade of the World’s Indigenous People); and CHR Dec. 2001/110 (on the Working Group on indigenous Populations) (all Apr. 24).

82 See Statement by Steven Wagenseil on Behalf of the United States and Australia (Apr. 24, 2001) (on file with author); UN Press Release HR/CN/01/69, at 4–7 (Apr. 24, 2001) (summarizing the debate on indigenous resolutions). In other actions of note, the Commission authorized renewal for three-year periods of the mandates of the special rapporteur for the sale of children, child prostitution, and child pornography, CHR Res. 2001/75 (Apr. 25), and of the Secretary-General’s representative on internally displaced persons, CHR Res. 2001/54 (Apr. 24).

83 CHR Res. 2001/13 (Apr. 18), 2001/21 (Apr. 20), 2001/19 (Apr. 20), 2001/22 (Apr. 20), and 2001/15 (Apr. 18), respectively.

84 CHR Res. 2001/14 (Apr. 18), 2001/17 (Apr. 20), 2000/18 (Apr. 20), and 2001/12 (Apr. 18), respectively.

85 Statement of U.S. Ambassador George Moose (Apr. 20, 2001) (on file with author).

86 See UN Press Release HR/CN/01/61, at 5–7 (Apr. 20, 2001); Zarocostas, John, Sudan Cited by U.N. on Rights Violations, UPI, Apr. 20, 2001, LEXIS, News Library, Wire Service StoriesGoogle Scholar.

87 CHR Res. 2001/23 (Apr. 20).

88 For a summary of the debate, see CHR Report, supra note 1, at 394–97; UN Press Release HR/CN/01/62, at 5–7 (Apr. 20, 2001). See also Crook, 50th Session, supra note 3, at 820–21, for a summary of the 1994 special session on Rwanda.

89 CHR Res. 2001/16 (Apr. 18).

90 For a summary of the debate, see UN Press Release HR/CN/01/57, at 10–13 (Apr. 18, 2001).

91 CHR Res. 2001/24 (Apr. 20).

92 See UN Press Release HR/CN/01/63, at 3–5 (Apr. 20, 2001); Olson, Elizabeth, UN Commission Censures Russia for Rights Abuses in Chechnya, Int’l Herald Trib., Apr. 21, 2001, at 4 Google Scholar.

93 The no-action motion carried by a vote of 23–17-12. For the text of the unsuccessful resolution, as well as the vote on the no-action motion, see CHR Report, supra note 1, at 383–86.

94 See Who Will Condemn China, Economist, Mar. 24, 2001, at 21.

95 See Olson, Elizabeth, China Wins UN Vote on Rights Issue, Int’l Herald Trib., Apr. 19, 2001, at 8 Google Scholar; UN Press Release HR/CN/01/56 at 1–2, 6–9 (Apr. 18, 2001).

96 The annual Middle East resolutions critical of Israel were as follows: CHR Res. 2001/2 (Apr. 6) (occupied Palestine; adopted by a vote of 48–2-2); CHR Res. 2001/6 (Apr. 18) (occupied Syrian Golan; 29–2-21); CHR. Res. 2001/7 (Apr. 18) (occupied Arab territories including Palestine; 28–2-22); CHR Res. 2001/8 (Apr. 18) (Israeli settlements in the occupied Arab territories; 50–1-1); and CHR Res. 2001/10 (Apr. 18) (Lebanese detainees in Israel; 33–1-19).

97 Geneva Convention [No. TV] Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Aug. 12, 1949, 6 UST 3516, 75 UNTS 287.

98 In other country-specific actions, the Commission adopted resolutions concerning Western Sahara and Sierra Leone, and again requested that the Secretary-General fund the advisory and technical-assistance activities of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Somalia and Cambodia. See CHR Res. 2001 / 1 (Apr. 6), CHR Res. 2001/20 (Apr. 20), CHR Res. 2001/81 (Apr. 25), and 2001/82 (Apr. 25), respectively. Additionally, the Commission announced that it had decided to continue its consideration of Togo under its confidential procedures established by Economic and Social Council resolutions 1503 and 2000/3. CHR Report, supra note 1, at 399. Chairman Despouy also read negotiated statements concerning the human rights situation in Colombia and East Timor. See id. at 361–66, 400–02, respectively.

99 See Shameful All Round, Economist, May 10, 2001, at 14.