No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Co-operation between Jurisdictions on Different Levels in the Field of Human Rights
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 May 2009
Extract
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations, can be considered as a consolidation of the ideas and principles that are expressed in the preamble and in different articles of the Charter of the United Nations pertaining to human rights. As far as international law is concerned the declaration contained numerous elements which served to stimulate the development of new rules in this discipline. Although the declaration did not mention the use of regional arrangements for the realization of its aims, the development during the past twenty years tends clearly in this direction. In the course of this study a distinction shall be made between matters which fall within the competence of a State, a regional organization or an international organization with a worldwide stature. These spheres of action will be labelled domestic, regional and international jurisdiction respectively.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Press 1968
References
1 Article 1, paragraph 3, on purposes and principles; article 13, sub-paragraph 1b, on the General Assembly; article 55 read together with article 56, on international economic and social cooperation; article 62, paragraph a, on the Economic and Social Council and article 76c, on the international trusteeship system.
2 Moore, J. B., A Digest of International Law, 1906, VI, 936.Google Scholar
3 Miller, D. H., The Drafting of the Covenant, 1928, 1, 276 ff.Google Scholar; II, 238 ff. Walters, F. P., A History of the League of Nations, I, 25 ff.Google Scholar
4 Documents of the United Nations Conference on International Organization, San Francisco, 1945, XII, 764–784Google Scholar. This collection is hereinafter cited as UNCIO. See also: Ruth B. Russell, assisted by Muther, Jeanette E., A History of the United Nations Charter, 1958, 559 ffGoogle Scholar. Arthur H. Vandenberg, Jr. (ed.) with the collaboration of Morris, Joe Alex, The Private Papers of Senator Vandenberg, 1953, 187 ff.Google Scholar
3 UNCIO, X, 196.Google Scholar
6 UN Economic and Social Council, resolution 1147 (XLI) of 4 08 1966.Google Scholar
7 UN Commission on Human Rights, resolution 6 (XXIII) of 16 and 22 03 1967.Google Scholar
8 E/CN.4/966 of 26 January 1968, 10 ff.
9 UN Commission on Human Rights, resolution 7(XXIV) of 1 03 1968.Google Scholar
10 UN Economic and Social Council, sixth session, supplement no. 1, E/600, 48–53. See also A/4796: Observations by governments on future work in the field of the codification and progressive development of international law.
11 The draft Inter American Convention on Human Rights was also based on the other world-wide instruments of the United Nations and on the European Convention on Human Rights. Resolution XXIV of the Second Special Inter American Conference recognized this in its preamble when it stated: “This draft (of the Inter American Council of Jurists) was based on the European Convention on Human Rights (Rome, 1950) and on the draft covenants prepared by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in 1952–1953, which up to 1959 had been only partially studied by the Third Committee of the General Assembly.”
12 UN Economic and Social Council, resolution 1159(XLI) of 5 08 1966.Google Scholar
13 E/CN.4/966, 16.
14 UNCIO, X, 272.Google Scholar
15 At its twenty-third session, the Commission on Human Rights, after considering the report of the working group concerning the creation of the function of United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, adopted resolution 14(XXIII) in which it requested the Economic and Social Council to recommend to the General Assembly the adoption of a draft resolution deciding to establish the mentioned office. Subsequently, the Economic and Social Council adopted resolution 1237 (XLII) recommending the adoption by the General Assembly of the draft resolution proposed by the Commission on Human Rights. The Economic and Social Council also requested, in its resolution 1238(XLII), the Secretary-General to bring resolution 1237(XLII) together with pertinent documentation representing the various points of view to the attention of the Member States and to invite them to express their opinion on the question at issue. Furthermore, the Economic and Social Council requested the Secretary-General to invite the Directors-General of the ILO and UNESCO to submit to the General Assembly, for the assistance at its twenty-second session, a report pertaining to the implementation of human rights in their spheres of competence. The General Assembly, in resolution 2333(XXII), after expressing its regret that consideration of the question had not been possible at its twenty-second session, owing to the heavy programme of work, decided to give the matter high priority at its twenty-third session.
16 See: Report of the Organization of American States to the International Conference on Human Rights, 1968, 18 ff, 94 ff.Google Scholar
17 See: Report of the Council of Europe to the International Conference on Human Rights, 1968, 61 ff., 117ff.Google Scholar
18 See: “The ILO and Human Rights”; Report presented by the International Labour Organization to the International Conference on Human Rights, 1968, 76ff. Jenks, C. Wilfred, Human Rights and International Labour Standards, 1960, 121, 122.Google Scholar
19 A/7201, 145.
20 UN Security Council, 676th meeting, 29, 34.Google Scholar
21 UN Yearbook on Human Rights for 1964 (1957), 123, 124.Google Scholar
22 UN Security Council, 1196th meeting ff. See also UN Yearbook on Human Rights for 1965 (1968), 72 ff.Google Scholar
23 Inter American Peace Committee, CIP-2–60.
24 UN Commission on Human Rights, Official Records 44th session, Supplement no. 4, 66.
25 Council of Europe, Doc. 18312, 1967.Google Scholar
26 Council of Europe, Applications 3321–3323 and 3344, 1967.Google Scholar
27 European Commission of Human Rights, Collection of Decisions no. 25, 113, 114; Ibid., Lawless Case, Serie B, 1960–1961, 395.
28 The above mentioned provision concerning the exhaustion of domestic remedies is a condition precedent to all rules of international organs which create a machinery for judging the behaviour of States. This rule, which is a creation of international law, is very sensitive as it contains a double protection, i.e. the protection of the judicial system of a State and equally the protection of individuals who hold the complaint that this system does not offer them effective and adequate redress. Although there are some differences pertaining to the definition of this principle, it is clear that it has to be applied in the same sense in both regional and world wide covenants, in accordance with general recognized principles of international law.
29 Scheman, L. Ronald, “The Inter American Commission on Human Rights”, The American Journal of International Law, 59 (1965), 335–344.CrossRefGoogle ScholarVasak, Karel, La Commission Interamericaine des Droits de l'Homme, 1968, 63 ff.Google Scholar
30 Resolution XXII of the Second Special Inter American Conference, Rio de Janeiro, 1965.Google Scholar
31 See also: Johnson, Harold S., Self-determination within the Community of Nations, 1967, 37 and 38.Google Scholar
32 UN General Assembly, Third Committee, 676th meeting, 262.Google Scholar
33 European Convention on Human Rights: art. 19 ff.Google Scholar; Draft Inter American Convention on Human Rights: art. 34 ff.Google Scholar; International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: art. 28 ff.Google Scholar
34 European Convention on Human Rights: art. 30 ff.Google Scholar; Draft Inter American Convention on Human Rights: art. 55 ff.Google Scholar; Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: article 5, paragraph 4.
35 Draft Inter American Convention on Human Rights: article 57; European Convention on Human Rights: article 32.
36 Inter American Commission on Human Rights, OEA/Ser. L/V/II 16, doc. 8, rev., 37.
37 Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe, “Measures to be Taken Against Incitement to Racial, National and Religious Hatred”, 6.Google Scholar
38 The problem of the co-existence of regional and world wide conventions on human rights has compelled the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe to instruct its Committee of Experts on Human Rights to study all the problems which might arise from the divergencies and competing rules in this respect. That members of the Council attach great importance to the forthcoming study of the experts, appears from the answer of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs and Justice of the Netherlands to members of the Second Chamber who had questioned their government on the delay in signing the draft covenants on human rights. The government was of the opinion that the delay was caused by some preliminary questions concerning the implementation of the world wide provisions in the national legal system and it referred in this respect to the study of the regional experts that was given some priority in the Council of Europe (See session 1967–1968 of the Second Chamber of the Netherlands, appendix 527). As regards the opinion of the Organization of American States pertaining to the divergencies and competing rules, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights had already made an exhaustive study on this matter. The commission reached the following conclusions: “I. It is perfectly possible for the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, with the Optional Protocol thereto, and its International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the Inter American Convention on Human Rights to coexist…III. The need for, and the desirability of a regional convention for the Americas are based on the existence of a body of American international law built up in accordance with the specific requirements of the countries of this hemisphere. That need and desirability also follow from the close relationship that exists between human rights and regional economic development and integration, in accordance with the statements of the Chiefs of State made at the meeting in Punta del Este. (OEA/Ser.L/V/II.19, doc. 26, 2 and 3).” The final word on this matter has now been left to the Members of the Organization of American States, in accordance with the third operative paragraph of resolution XXIV of the Second Special Inter American Conference, held in Rio de Janeiro in November 1965. According to this resolution, the Organization of American States shall convoke an Inter-American Specialized Conference to decide on the approval and signing of a Convention on Human Rights for the Americas; this conference to be called within thirty days after the expiration of a period during which important organs in the American hemisphere, and later the governments, were to have considered the final stage of the drafts. These consultations ended several months ago.
39 E/1992, 85.
40 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: art. 44; International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination: art. 16.
41 European Convention on Human Rights: art. 62.Google Scholar
42 More recently: Gormley, W. Paul, The Procedural Status of the Individual before International and Supranational Tribunals, 1966.Google Scholar
43 See: Lauterpacht, H., International Law and Human Rights, reprinted 1968, 148, 296 ff.Google Scholar