26. Human Rights And International Law

Emporium Current Essays 107 fiflMJtli HfOflTS S THF 'Mzm vi'*~Jk-mm.mm mmm'+sf'-Am *J f-Jr •*jrr; .* A,i,.JB-.i li»iifB!ls*»'f5|15jfc'fi if m IMTIHIIA] Article 55 of the United Nations Charter commits the global body to promote "higher standards of living, employment, and development; solution to international economic, social, and health problem; international cultural and educational co-operation; and respect for human right." And the Article 56 constitutes a pledge by all members to achieve these purposes separately and* jointly in cooperation with the United Nations. Leading to the UN proclamation on the globalisation of human rights had been some developments in the pre-1945 period, such as the anti-slavery movement of the 19th and early 20th centuries, culminating in the Slavery ..Convention of 1962 and international expressions of concern over the treatment of Jews in Russia and Armenians in the Turkish empire. Chiefly, however, it was the concern during the period immediately following the World War II for the international implications of Nazi denials that elicited from nations of the world a desire that the new UN undertakes, to promote human rights. The rapid growth of the UN membership in the early 1960s to include a significant number of African and other developing nations deeply concerned with the problems 6f selfdetermination certainly did its part in expanding the scope of the international human rights Jaw. The logic of making human rights a part of the global order through the United Nations would, however, remain invalid without a mechanism to protect them. The UN Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights arc the fundamental sources of such mechanism. These sources form a basis for the concept of Vrogrammatlc obligations under international \a\v, besides providing a point of reference for all analysis in these areas. Besides, there is a host of multilateral treaties concluded under UN auspices, including the Genocide Convention, the Convention the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination, the Convention on Political Rights of Women, and the Convention and Protocol on the Status of Refugees. There is also a great number of international declarations, resolutions, and recommendations relevant to108 Emporium Current Essays Emporium Current Essays

109 international human rights law, adopted hy the UN or by other international organisations or conferences. Other treaties containing very broad sets of obligations are applicable to limited groups of states, most notably, the European Convention on Human Rights, which entered into force in 1953, and the American Convention on Human Rights, which entered into force in 1978. A treaty, however, creates obligations for states only when it is in force, which means a certain number of nations have deposited their ratifications for it. A nation cannot be faulted for not acting in accordance with a multilateral treaty if it has not ratified it; signature alone in the absence of subsequent ratification does not normally legally bind the nation to the obligations of the treaty. Furthermore, it also needs to be seen whether a nation has ratified a treaty with reservations or without them. International customary law is another source of international human rights law. Customary law is equivalent to binding norms emerging from the standards set forth by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. These -standards, initially only declaratory and non-binding, become binding customary laws through wide acceptance and recitation by nations, and apply even to the nations that may not have ratified certain conventions and treaties and accepted certain UN declarations. Today, there is a developed and recognised body of international law, institutions, procedures and precedents for the promotion of human rights international human rights law is not developed, coherent, and extensive as law in certain other areas and the UN instruments for the protection and promotion of human rights are frequently invoked in connection with human rights issue. While the international human rights obligations bind states rather than individuals, the responsibility to provide security to the individual - security from outside aggression and inside repression - rests with states. And understandably so, since the state is by far the most important locus of political power in the world. But while a commitment to international covenants assumes that the state ought to enhance the rights of individual within its jurisdiction, it {Iocs not ensure that it will do so. Rather, history has demonstrated that the governments have themselves become the greatest violators of human rights of their citi/cns. While, it is common to see rights to freedom of expression or political rights being curtailed by states, not unfortunately, even the right to life gets violated - the instruments of statepower, which are supposed to protect human rights, often become the most dangerous weapons against humanity's well-being. Thus, an effort to promote respect for human rights in specific states has not been simple. More often than not, government have shied away from international obligations for reason arising from the complexities of their own societal or political systems. • Submitting to outside international pressure to improve human rights record, governments have often been blamed by their opponents for compromising the country's sovereignty. In addition, the process can lead to cynicism when governments with a poor

human rights record submit to international pressure at maintaining some minimum standards in the expectation that they will not thus be called to account. It was for such expected difficulties in the implementation of the human rights that the wide range of rights set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights were divided into two covenants. The original concept was a single covenant covering all the rights set forth in the Universal Declaration. However, in the course of drafting, the decision was made to divide the Human Rights Covenants into two separate instruments: one covering political and civil rights - the Political Covenant, and one dealing with economic, social, and cultural rights- the Economic Covenant. The reason for this division had been a belief that it was impossible to develop single system of implementation. It w as obvious that 'though some rights such as right to a fair trial could be enacted into law immediately, other rights such as right to health would require programmes over time before they could be enacted. Also, national responses would vary according to the nature or rights. Protecting political and civil rights meant passing laws and revising constitution, while guaranteeing social, rights meant the establishment of programs as well. It seemed that while some kind of international tribunal could be created to deal with alleged violations of political and civil rights, no court like structure could be established to supervise the rights to work, health, etc. Also, there was a substantial disagreement over the desirability of a covenant which dealt with social welfare at all. Many states that were willing to agree to support a covenant guaranteeing political and civil rights were not willing to agree to a document that would commit them to social welfare rights, and thus to social welfare at all. Many states that we willing to agree to support a convenient guaranteeing political and civil rights were not willing to agree to a document that would commit them to social welfare rights, and thus to social welfare programmes. Finally, the decision to have two covenants allowed states to comply with themi Emporium Current Essays General Assembly Resolution

and

still

establish

different approaches.

Because of these difficulties, the international instruments of rectifying unjust treatment of individuals and groups have remained inadequate for the purposes of penetration within states and societies. It is encouraging, however, to note that by the early 1980s, more than sixty-five states from all parts of the world had adhered to the two major covenants of the UN, a number Which has increased, substantially since then. Moreover, there arc currently a great many national laws, regulations, count and administrative decisions, and policy pronouncements in various countries that arc relevant to the international human rights objectives. International law of human rights are based on a social view of the individual welfare all over the world. *The United Nation and its specialised agencies perform a key role in the system of elaborating and implementing programmes for the welfare of the citizens of the world, but international social welfare law must, perforce, deal with national as ell

international programmes and include all international efforts to promote individual wellbeing, whether through the United Nations or otherwise. Given the fact that the United Nations is highly-political body, and the one heavily influenced by Western policies, its treatment of human rights issues is often selective in its targets and inflammatory in its results. During its norm-setting phase, the facts that it spoke for governments and that most governments of the world were its members were crucial to its ability to create human rights treaties. Now, however, a system of bloc caucusing, the tradeoff of votes between particular interest groups and the numerical dominance of the new non-European states has made the attempts of the General Assembly of judging the behaviour of states for from objective,