Abstract
International concern with human rights did not begin with the United Nations. Early efforts were made not by organizations composed of representatives of states but by non-governmental organizations (“NGOs” in United Nations jargon). The earliest of such bodies was probably the Anti-Slavery Society, formed in Britain in 1787.1 Henri Dunant who conceived the idea of what was to become the Red Cross obtained the support of the private “Geneva Society for the Protection of Public Interests” and used the International Statistical Congress of Berlin in 1863 as an international sounding board which helped to persuade Governments to take the initiatives which led to the first Geneva Conventions of 1864. Obviously enough such activities required for their ultimate success the cooperation of influential Governments. On a number of occasions other than slavery and war victims such cooperation had been forthcoming on an ad hoc basis before the first general international organization, the League of Nations, was formed in 1919.2 No doubt some such state interventions were conceived primarily in a genuine spirit of concern for the rights of man and some (such as British and American support for independence in Latin America) involved less altruistic motives.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
The best short account of the efforts by NGOs is Archer, “Action by Unofficial Organizations on Human Rights” in E. Luard ed., The International Protection of Human Rights 160 (1967). There is much learning on the subject in J. Lador-Lederer, International Nongovernmentdl Organizations and Economic Entities (1963). The Anti-Slavery Society is still active: see the Report of the U.N.’s Special Rapporteur on Slavery who noted his “indebtedness to this great Society” despite a disappointing response from other NGOs, U.N. Doc. E/4168 Add. 2 at 8 (1966).
E.g. successful pressures for an alleviation of King Leopold’s personal rule in the Congo: Goldie, “The Transvaluation of Values in Contemporary International Law,” 53 Iowa L. Rev. 358, 359–60 (1967).
Louis, “African Origins of the Mandates Idea,” 19 Int’l Org. 20 (1965). The classics on Mandates are Q. Wright, Mandates Under the League of Nations (1930) and D. Hall, Mandates, Dependencies and Trusteeships (1948).
Luard, “The Origins of International Concern over Human Rights,” in Luard, op. cit. supra note 1 at 19. See also Hudson, “Australia’s Experience as a Mandatory Power,” 19 Aust. Outlook 35 (1965).
A big drawback was that complaints had to go through the Administering Authority and would-be complainants were deterred by fear of reprisals, Parson, “The Individual Right of Petition: A Study of Methods Used by International Organizations to Utilize the Individual as a Source of Information on the Violations of Human Rights,” 13 Wayne L. Rev. 678, 682 (1967).
On the procedures see I. Claude, National Minorities, An International Problem 22–28 (1955); J. Stone, International Guarantees of Minority Rights esp. at 8–13 (1932).
The Committees had, however, no power to take concrete action on specific complaints: see Stone, “Procedure Under the Minorities Treaties,” 26 Am. J. Intl Law 502, 504 (1932): “The petition… is not a legal document but a piece of information. There is no difference, juridically speaking, between a petition submitted by a minority organization and one submitted by an individual or by an international sectarian or other organization; or between either of these and the newspaper cuttings which the Minorities Section [of the League Secretariat] constantly collects and classifies. All are information, pure and simple…”
See e.g. Calderwood, “The Proposed Generalization of the Minorities Regime,” 28 Am. Pol. Sci. Rev. 1088 (1934).
See further on the term High Commissioner, infra pp. 46, 57.
See J. Simpson, The Refugee Problem esp. 191–226 (1939).
See 6 U.N.C.I.O. Docs. 705 (1945).
For a careful study of the drafting of the Charter provisions see Huston, “Human Rights Enforcement Issues of the United Nations Conference on International Organization,” 53 Iowa L. Rev. 272 (1967).
See J. De Groote, American Private Organizations and Human Rights (unpub. M.A. thesis, Stanford University, 1954) esp. Chapter 6; L. White, International Nongovernmental Organizations; Their Purposes, Methods and Accomplishments 262 (1951); J. Blaustein, Human Rights — A Challenge to the United Nations and to Our Generation 6–7 (Dag Hammarskjold Memorial Lecture, Columbia University December 4, 1963), reprinted in A. Cordier and W. Foote, eds., The Quest for Peace: The Dag Hammarskjold Memorial Lectures 315, 318–19 (1965).
Cf. the use of “shall” in the case of the General Assembly under Article 13.
The Council has broadly interpreted the power in Article 62 to “make or initiate studies and reports with respect to international economic, social, cultural, educational, health, and related matters…” to include reports and studies on human rights.
Article 73 of the Charter, the Declaration on Nonselfgoverning Territories (i.e. those not under the Trusteeship System) makes no specific reference to human rights.
H. Kelsen, The Law of the United Nations 100 (1950).
Infra Chapter 5.
Henkin, “The United Nations and Human Rights,” 19 Intl Org. 504, 510 (1965).
See generally, C. Toussaint, The Trusteeship System of the United Nations (1956); G. Thullen, Problems of the Trusteeship System (1964). “Human rights” in this context involves some concentration on the “right of self determination,” but not exclusively so: see Castles, “The United Nations and Australia’s Overseas Territories,” in D. O’Connell ed., International Law in Australia, 368, 382–83 (1965).
This Committee even hears petitioners on occasion; see Carey, “The United Nations’ Double Standard on Human Rights Complaints,” 60 Am. I. Int’l Law 792, 795–96 (1966).
Charter Art. 39.
S/RES./232 of 16 December 1966, S/RES./253 of 29 May 1968. See Cefkin, “The Rhodesian Question at the United Nations,” 22 Int’l Org 649 (1968); McDougal and Reisman, “Rhodesia and the U.N.: The Lawfulness of International Concern,” 62 Am. I. Int’l L. 1 (1968); Rao, “The Rhodesian Imbroglio and the U.N.,” 6 Ind. I. Int’1 L. 233 (1966).
S/RES/259. For the possible future application of Chapter VII in other parts of Southern Africa see W. Korey, The Key to Human Rights — Implementation (Int’l Concil. No. 570, 1968 ) 30–31.
It is hard to document this general impression. Thullen, op. cit. supra note 20
] I.C.J. 128; [1955] I.C.J. 67; [ 1956 ] I.C.J. 23.
The South West Africa Cases (Second Phase) [1966] I.C.J. 5; and see Falk, “The South West Africa Cases: An Appraisal,” 21 Int’l Org. 1 (1967).
] I.C.J. 65. For a list of other human rights cases before the court see Fawcett, “The Protection of human rights on a universal basis: recent experience and proposals,” in A. Robertson ed., Human Rights in National and International Law 289, 292–3 (1968).
For discussions of the work of the Commission from somewhat different viewpoints see Hoare, “The UN Commission on Human Rights,” in Luard, op. cit. supra note 1 at 59 and Resich, “The U.N. Commission on Human Rights,” 15 Rev. Con-temp. L. 27 (1968).
On the work of this Commission see Humphrey, “Human Rights, the United Nations and 1968,” 9 J. Int’l Comm. Jurists 1, 4–6 (1968).
Despite the promise implicit in the word “protection” in the title the Sub-Commission’s activities in respect of minorities have been of the “promotional” kind and indeed it has devoted more of its energies to the “prevention of discrimination”: see J. Lador-Lederer, International Group Protection 365–69 (1968).
Humphrey, op. cit. supra note 31 at 4.
The full name of the Committee is “the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples.” The Committee’s activities in 1970 are reported in U.N. Doc. A/8023 and Adds. See generally Carey, op. cit. supra note 21 at 796–98; Parson, op. cit. supra note 5 at 678, 698–701. The Committee took over activities formerly carried on by a Special Committee on South West Africa and a Committee on Information from Nonselfgoveming Territories. As to the latter see Sud, “The Committee on Information from Nonselfgoveming Territories: Its Role in the Promotion of Self-Determination of Colonial Peoples” 7 Int’l Studies (N. Delhi) 311 (1965).
See Parson, op. cit. supra note 5 at 701, and the Committee’s most recent Report U.N. Doc. A/8022 and Add. 1 (1970).
Comm on Human Rights res. 2 (XXIII) of 6 March 1967, E.S.C.O.R., 42nd Sess., Supp. No. 6 at 76–78, U.N. Doc. E/4322 (1967). See generally J. Carey, U.N. Protection of Civil and Political Rights 95–126 (1970).
G.A. res. 2443 (XXIII) of 17 December 1968, G.A.O.R., 23rd Sess., Supp. No. 18 at 50, U.N. Doc. A/7218 (1968).
L. Henkin, How Nations Behave 15n. (1968). For an excellent attempt at a somewhat more sophisticated description of the nature of international law see Schachter, “Towards a Theory of International Obligation,” 8 Va. J. Int’l L. 300 (1968).
Cf. the little use made of the I.C.J. in human rights matters, supra p. 11 and Henkin, op. cit. supra note 38 at 37.
See Fitzmaurice, “Some Problems Regarding the Formal Sources of International Law,” Symbolae Verzijl 193 (1958).
Williams, “International Law and the Controversy Concerning the Word `Law,’ ” 22 Brit. Y. B. Int’l L.146 (1945).
See e.g. J. Austin, 1 Lectures on Jurisprudence 231–32 (4th ed., ed. R. Campbell 1873).
See H. Kelsen, Pure Theory of Law 320–23 (1967) and the strictures cast on such efforts in Fitzmaurice, “The Foundations of the Authority of International Law and the Problem of Enforcement,” 19 Mod. L. Rev. 1,2–6 (1956). Infra pp. 143–148.
Fisher, `Bringing Law to Bear on Governments,“ 74 Harv. L. Rev. 1130, 1132–4 (1961).
Supra pp. 9–11. See also infra pp. 19–20. While not perfect there is nevertheless a high degree of compliance with international law: Henkin, op. cit. supra note 38 passim (1968).
E. Schwelb, Human Rights and the International Community 55 (1964). Schwelb discusses in this context the impossibility of “enforcing” the post-World War II Peace Treaties on human rights in the face of the refusal of the states “bound” by them to cooperate in the appoinment of the machinery contemplated in the treaties. For some observations on the difficulty of distinguishing “law” and “non-law” even in the domestic setting see M. Barkun, Law Without Sanctions 95–6 (1968).
G.A. res. 2081 (XX) of 20 December 1965, Annex II B. paras. 1 and 2, G.A.O.R. 20th Sess., Supp. No. 14 at 44–5, U.N. Doc. A/6014 (1965).
See discussion in Emerson, “Colonialism, Political Development, and the U.N.,” 19 Intl Org 484 (1965) and supra p. 12.
The “Recommendation on Consent to Marriage, Minimum Age for Marriage and Registration of Marriages” (1965) amounts to a Declaration despite the difference in terminology. ILO and UNESCO commonly use the term “Recommendation” for their equivalents of the General Assembly’s Declarations.
U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 32/15 at 3 (1968).
Those in note 26 supra plus the 1966 Covenants on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights on Civil and Political Rights and the Optional Protocol to the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. To these must now be added the Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity, 1968 (which, incidentally, has no “enforcement” procedures at all).
U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 32/15 at 4 (1968).
The 1926 (as amended) and the 1956 Slavery Conventions.
R. Gardner, In Pursuit of World Order 250–4 (rev. ed., 1966); M. Konvitz, Expanding Liberties 353–67 (1966). The ratification of the Supplementary Slavery Convention in 1967 and of the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees and its 1966 Protocol in 1968 are perhaps signs of a new policy.
The writer’s country, New Zealand, had ratified five of the sixteen and signed two others. The best scorers were Yugoslavia, eleven, and Norway, ten.
Twenty-nine states contributed a total of 37 ratifications or accessions: see U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/907/Rev. 3 (1969).
Statement by the International League for the Rights of Man, U.N. Doc. E/CN. 4/NGO/140 (1966). See to the same effect Schwelb, op. cit. supra note 47 at 74.
By September 1970 the Covenants had been ratified by only 8 States each and the Protocol by 4: U.N. Doc. A/8071 (1970).
The term “general recommendations” in this and the 1966 treaties obviously places serious limits on the right to comment on developments in particular states.
On the significance of the reporting procedures under this Convention and the 1966 Covenants see Gormley, “The Use of Public Opinion and Reporting Devices to Achieve World Law: Adoption of ILO Practices by the U.N.,” 32 Albany L. Rev. 273, 292–93 (1968). On the 1965 Convention see Schwelb, “The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination,” 15 Int’l & Comp. L.Q. 996 (1966).
See also Newman, “Ombudsmen and Human Rights: the New U.N. Treaty Proposals,” 34 U. Chi. L. Rev. 951 (1967) and Luini del Russo, “International Law of Human Rights: A Pragmatic Appraisal,” 9 Wm & Mary L.Rev. 749 (1968).
At the time of writing no states have accepted this right of individual petition.
Hoare, op. cit. supra note 30 at 59, 66–7; Schwelb, “Some Aspects of the Measures of Implementation of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights,” 1 Rev. des Droits de l’Homme 363, 363–4 (1968).
See e.g. Capotorti, “The International Measures of Implementation Included in the Covenants on Human Rights,” in A. Eide and A. Schou eds., International Protection of Human Rights 131 (1968).
Vasak, “National, Regional and Universal Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights,” 1 Rev. des Droits de l’Homme 165, 175 (1968). And note the comment by Bilder, “Rethinking Human Rights: Some Basic Questions” [1969] Wisc. L.Rev. 171, 209: “Wide resistance to strong implementation may be only an outward manifestation of an even broader nervousness and low sense of obligation to human rights convention commitments.” Carey, op. cit. supra note 36 at 70–83 is hopeful for the prospects of negotiation in combination with other efforts.
E.g. the I.L.O. proceedings Ghana v. Portugal and the retaliatory action Portugal v. Liberia discussed in E. Landy, The Effectiveness of International Supervision. Thirty Years of I.L.O. Experience 175–76 (1966). See further on the dangers of state versus state complaints Hoffmann, “Implementation of International Instruments on Human Rights,” 53 Proc. Am. Soc. Int’l L. 235, 236 (1959) and infra pp. 41–42.
See e.g. “The European Convention on Human Rights,” (Int’l & Comp. L.Q. Supplementary Publication No. 11, 1965); J. Fawcett, The Application of the European Convention on Human Rights (1969); Buergenthal, “Proceedings Against Greece Under the European Convention on Human Rights,” 62 Am. J. Intl L. 441 (1968).
See e.g. Sandifer, “Human Rights in the Inter-American System,” 11 Howard L.J. 508 (1965); Anna Schreiber, Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (1969); Scheman, “The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights,” 59 Am. I. Int’l L. 335 (1965); American Convention on Human Rights (text in 9 Intl Leg. Mat. 673 (1970)).
See e.g., C. Jenks, Human Rights and International Labour Standards (1960); Landy, op. cit. supra note 67.
An experienced representative, Mr Ganji of Iran, claimed in 1967 that 250,000 communications had been received since 1945: U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/SR.967 (1967). There are no official figures available.
H. Lauterpacht, Preliminary Report for the International Law Association on Human Rights, the Charter of the U.N. and the International Bill of the Rights of Man (U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/89 at 16 (1948)). See also id., at 18: “There is no legal justification for the view, formally recorded in the Report of the Commission and confirmed by the Economic and Social Council, that it has no power to take action in the matter of violations of human rights brought before it. These bodies, and in particular the Commission on Human Rights, are not only entitled to take such action. By the express and implicit terms of the Charter they are bound to do so.” (His specific references were to Articles 55 and 68.) For a recent suggestion that the question is still open to reconsideration see comments by Martin in Robertson ed., op. cit. supra note 29 at 319.
E.S.C.O.R., 28th Sess., Supp. No. 1 at 19 (1959), U.N. Doc. E/3290 (1959).
munications and complaints together with the replies of Governments have proved invaluable supplements to other available information, which at best is incomplete and inadequate.“
Carey, op. cit. supra note 21 at 792: Carey, op. cit. supra note 36 at 143–153.
Henkin, op. cit. supra note 19 at 504, 512. See also Kay, “The Politics of Decolonization: The New Nations and the U.N. Political Process,” 21 Int’l Org 786 (1967).
See supra p. 12. A further nominal example of the double standard is the Fact Finding and Conciliation Commission on Freedom of Association established in 1950 by agreement between the I.L.O. and the U.N. to consider complaints of interference with freedom of association. It has seldom functioned and complaints of this nature are usually channelled through an informal I.L.O. body. See Jenks, “The International Protection of Trade Union Rights” in Luard, op. cit. supra note 1 at 210, 221–35.
See Carey, “Procedures for International Protection of Human Rights,” 53 Iowa L. Rev. 291, 307–8 (1967) and Carey, op. cit. supra note 36 at 95–126.
Thus: Mudge, “Domestic Policies and U.N. Activities: The Cases of Rhodesia and the Republic of South Africa,” 21 Int’l Org 55 (1967).
For a description of these efforts see U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 32/6 at 6–9 (1968) and Carey, op. cit. supra note 78 at 310.
Comm. on Human Rights res. 8 (XXIII) of 16 March 1967, E.S.C.O.R., 42nd Sess., Supp. No. 6 at 131–32, U.N. Doc. E/4322 (1967).
Comm. on Human Rights res. 9 (XXIII) of the same date, id., at 133–34.
ECOSOC res. 1235 (XLII) of 6 June 1967, E.S.C.O.R. 42nd Sess., Supp. No. 1 at 17, U.N. Doc. E/4393 (1967).
U.N. Doc. E/CN. 4. Sub. 2/286 at 42 (1967). One of the communications on Greece was from Amnesty International, the other from the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions. That on Haiti was apparently from the International League for the Rights of Man; see comments by representative of Haiti in U.N. Doc. E/CN. 4/SR. 966 at 262 (1967). NGOs also supplied background information to members of the Sub-Commission and Commission.
U.N. Doc. E/CN$14/Sub. 2/286 at 40 (1967).
See Report of the Session in E.S.C.O.R., 44th Sess., Supp. No. 4 at 58–79, U.N. Doc. E/4775 (1968).
Cf. the comments of the New Zealand representative on the Commission: “It was the intention of the majority in the Economic and Social Council to keep the spotlight on Southern Africa, but they had admitted the possibility that situations in other parts of the world might merit attention. The Sub-Commission… knowing that several United Nations bodies were at that time examining the problems of Southern Africa, decided to report… on Greece and Haiti.” Quentin-Baxter, “International Protection of Human Rights,” in K. Keith ed., Essays on Human Rights 132, 140 (1968).
Op. cit. supra note 86 at 60.
Id., at 71.
Id., at 62–4. One preambular paragraph read: “Recognizing that, wherever situations exist that may involve a consistent pattern of violations of human rights, the Commission should be prepared to study and make recommendations as requested by resolution 1235 (XLII) of the Economic and Social Council, but that information sufficient for such recommendations has not been brought to the attention of the Commission….”
Korey, op. cit. supra note 24. Dr Korey was an observer for the Coordinating Board of Jewish Organizations at the meeting.
See U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/294 at 21–22 (1968). For another attempt to expand the activities of the Sub-Commission that also failed see infra pp. 36–38.
ECOSOC res. 1503 (XLVIII) of 27 May 1970. See discussion in Rachlin, “Report of the 26th Session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights,” 3 Rev. des Droits de l’Homme 487, 487–489 (1970) and Carey, op. cit. supra note 36 at 91–92.
Res. 1503 (XLVIII), operative para. 10.
ECOSOC res. 624 B I (XXII) of 1 August 1956, E.S.C.O.R., 22nd Sess., Supp. No. 1 at 12, U.N. Doc. E/2929 (1956). On the more effective ILO reporting procedures see infra p. 107 and on those of UNESCO and the Council of Europe see Gol-song, “Implementation of International Protection of Human Rights,” 110 Recueil des Cours 7, 25–39 (1963).
E.S.C.O.R., 38th Sess., Supp. No. 1 at 24–25, U.N. Doc. E/4117 (1965).
i) In the first year, on civil and political rights, the first such reports to cover the period ending 30 June 1965.
ii) In the second year, on economic, social and cultural rights, the first such reports to cover the period ending 30 June 1966.
iii) In the third year on freedom of information, the first such reports to cover the period ending 30 Juni 1967.
See infra pp. 35–38 for the role of NGOs in the reporting process.
Infra pp. 36–38.
Korey, op. cit. supra note 24 at 25–6.
U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/948 and Add. 1–9 (1968).
See U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/980 (1969). No procedure is laid down in the resolution for comments by states on other states’ reports. The Israeli Report, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4 /973 (1968), which noted legislation dealing with occupied territories drew some comments from Jordan, circulated as U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/1001. See also letter from Spain, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/1002 (1969) commenting on references to Gibraltar in the British Report. In the course of the discussion of the item at the 1969 Session of the Commission the representative of Israel withdrew the whole of the Report. See Report of the Session, E.S.C.O.R., 46th Sess., Supp. No. 4 at 160, U.N. Doc. E/4621 (1969). 36 Reports on economic, social and cultural rights were received in 1969.
M. Moskowitz, The Politics and Dynamics of Human Rights 94 (1968).
Ibid
U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 32/6 at 176 (1967). One country receiving advice on electoral law and practice was Costa Rica, the original sponsor of the current High Commissioner proposal: U.N. Doc. E/3075 at 9 (1958).
Humphrey, “The United Nations and Human Rights,” 11 How. L.J. 373, 377 (1965). On the programme generally see Higgins, “Technical Assistance for Human Rights,” 19 The World Today 174 and 219 (1963).
MacBride, “The Meaning of Human Rights Year,” 8 J. Int’l. Comm. Jurists
viii. See generally Debevoise, “Lessons from Organisations like the International Commission of Jurists in Focusing Public Opinion,” 58 Proc. Am. Soc. Int’l L. 143, 145 (1964).
U.N. Doc. A/CONF.32/6 at 180–82 (1967).
See U.N. Doc. E/CN 4/727 (1956). In addition to the Commission and Sub-Commission studies there have been various studies by ad hoc Committees or Special Rapporteurs, especially on slavery and freedom of information. See U.N. Doc. A/ CONF. 32/6 at 169–70 (1967).
A revised version of the study was published in 1964 (U.N. Pub. Sales no: 65 xiv. 2).
As to the nature of consultative status, see infra pp. 32–34.
See list in published version, supra note 109 at 3.
This step in the process may be more than an opportunity to water down anything critical. See Humphrey, op. cit. supra note 105 at 373, 376: “it gives governments an opportunity to rectify anything that may not be right in their legislation or practice without too much publicity being given to the matter.”
Discrimination in Education, (1957); in the Matter of Religious Rights and Practices (1960); in the Matter of Political Rights (1963); in Respect of the Right of Everyone to Leave Any Country, Including his Own, and to Return to His Country (1964); Against Persons Born Out of Wedlock (1967); Study of Equality in the Administration of Justice ( 1970 ); Special Study of Racial Discrimination in the Political, Economic, Social and Cultural Spheres (1970).
Op. cit. supra note 31 at 13.
Ibid
Supra pp. 5, 8.
For an analysis of the different types of NGOs see Lador-Lederer, op. cit. supra note 1.
U.N. Doc. E/42/Rev. 2 at 4 (1946).
ECOSOC res. 1296 (XLIV) of 23 May 1968, E.S.C.O.R., 44th Sess., Supp. No. 1 at 21–26, U.N. Doc. E/4548 (1968), as amended by res. 1391 (XLVI) of 3 June 1969. On the superseded arrangements (generally a little more generous to the organizations) see Lador-Lederer, op. cit. supra note 32 at 402–408.
See White, op. cit. supra note 13 at 263.
Quentin-Baxter, op. cit. supra note 87 at 132, 138.
Juvigny, “The Legal Protection of Human Rights at the International Level,” 18 Int. Soc. Sci. J. 55, 67 (1966).
ECOSOC res. 454 (XIV) of 28 July 1952, E.S.C.O.R., 14th Sess., Supp. No. 1 at 60.61, U.N. Doc. E/2332 (1952).
Supra p. 21.
Communications Concerning Human Rights, U.N. Doc. E/CN. 4/NGO/68 at 3 (1956). See also joint submission by a number of human rights NGOs in U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/NGO/86 (1959).
E.S.C.O.R., 34th Sess., Supp. No. 1 at 21, U.N. Doc. E/3671 (1962). On periodic reports in general see supra p. 27.
See UN. Doc. E/3616/Rev. 1 at 12 (1962). As to res. 454 (XIV) see supra note 125.
Statements of NGOs, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/NGO/120 (1964).
ECOSOC res. 1074 C (XXXIX) of 28 July 1965, E.S.C.O.R., 39th Sess., Supp. No. 1 at 24–25, U.N. Doc. E/4117 (1965).
U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/AC.30/SR. 1 (1966).
Supra,p. 28.
U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/L.458 and Rev. 1 (1967).
Id., at 4. This passage is deleted from the revised text.
NGO comments are not circulated as U.N. Docs. or even automatically referred to members of the Commission and Sub-Commission. Res. 1074 C (XXXIX) requested the Secretary-General to forward governmental material but only to make NGO material “available.” See discussion in U. N. Doc. E/CN.4/903, E/CN.4/Sub.2/ 263 at 30–32 (1966). The public record does not show which countries were criticized but one was the Soviet Union; see the remarks of the U.S. delegate: Abram, “The U.N. and Human Rights,” 47 For. Aft 363, 371 (1969).
U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/930 at 82–83 (1%7).
Commission res. 16 (XXIII) of 22 March 1967, E.S.C.O.R., 42nd Sess., Supp. No. 6 at 181–84, U.N. Doc. E/4322 (1967).
ECOSOC res. 1230 (XLII) of 26 June 1967, E.S.C.O.R., 42nd Sess., Supp. No. 1 at 12–13, U.N. Doc. E/4393 (1967).
Note the mild report of the Ad Hoc Committee dealing with freedom of information: U.N. Doc. E/CN. 4 /968 (1968).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1972 Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, Netherlands
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Clark, R.S. (1972). International Human Rights Activity. In: A United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-8800-5_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-8800-5_2
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-011-8163-1
Online ISBN: 978-94-011-8800-5
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive