Evolution  of  Human  Rights  Norms  
and  Machinery  
By  Bertrand  G.  Ramcharan  
   
   
Introduction    
I.  The  San  Francisco  Choices  
II.  The  Vision  of  an  International  Bill  of  Human  Rights    
III.  The  Development  of  International  Human  Rights  Norms  
IV.  Principles  of  International  Human  Rights  Law  
A.  Universality  
B.  Democratic  Legitimacy    
C.  Justice  
D.  Protection  
E.  Legality  
F.  Equality  and  Non-­‐disclosure  
G.  Respect  and  Ensure  
H.  Remedy  
V.  Measures  of  Implementation  
VI.  Strategies  for  Dealing  with  Situations  of  Gross  Violations  on  Human  Rights  
VII.  The  Struggle  for  Equality  and  Non-­‐discrimination  
VIII.  The  Right  to  Development  and  the  Millennium  Development  Goals  
IX.  The  Office  of  High  Commissioner  for  Human  Rights  
X.  The  Responsibility  to  Protect    
XI.  Reforms:  Towards  a  Human  Rights  Council  
XII.  Preventive  Strategies  
Conclusion  
   
Introduction    

There   are   different   ways   of   looking   at   the   evolution   of   human   rights   norms   and  
machinery  in  the  United  Nations.  It  is,  certainly,  an  imperfect  system,  and  one  might  
point   out   the   imperfections.   It   is,   also,   a   story   of   the   impact   of   politics,   and  
politicization,   and   one   could   spend   time   discussing   these   aspects.   It   is   a   story   in   which  
violations  of  the  rights  of  large  groups  of  humankind  have  been  left  unattended,  and  
one   could   highlight   these   failures.   It   is   also   the   story   of   striving,   in   the   midst   of  
adversity,  to  take  forward  the  idea  that  societies  should  be  governed  on  the  basis  of  
respect   for   the   human   rights   of   all,   without   discrimination   on   grounds   of   race,   sex,  
language,  religion,  or  related  prejudices.  It  is  this  story  of  striving  that  we  shall  try  to  
discuss  in  this  presentation  of  the  evolution  of  human  rights  norms  and  machinery.    

Whatever   its   imperfections,   the   Commission   on   Human   Rights'   initial   vision   of   an  

International   Bill   of   Human   Rights   consisting   of   a   Declaration,   one   or   more   Covenants,  
and   Measures   of   Implementation,   has   inspired   the   human   rights   movement  
throughout   the   history   of   the   United   Nations   and   continues   to   do   so.   Whatever   the  
political  factors  that  led  the  General  Assembly  to  decide  on  two  covenants,  one  on  civil  
and   political   rights,   and   another   on   economic,   social   and   cultural   rights,   the  
contemporary  challenge  remains  one  of  seeing  to  it  that  Governments  do  not  violate  
the  basic  rights  of  their  people,  that  national  resources  are  used  efficiently  and  fairly  to  
give  everyone  in  the  country  equitable  life  chances,  that  there  be  no  discrimination  in  
the   allocation   of   national   resources,   and   that   countries   cooperate   for   their   mutual  
welfare.  It  is  one  of  the  struggles  of  our  times  to  uphold  these  standards  in  a  world  of  
international  economic  inequalities  and  in  a  world  where  the  operations  of  the  market  
takes   precedence   over   basic   minimum   standards   of   economic,   social   and   cultural  
rights  as  well  as  civil  and  political  rights.    

It   is   also   one   of   the   challenges   of   our   times   to   uphold   the   idea   of   international  
protection  when  gross  violations  of  human  rights  take  place  in  any  part  of  the  world  
but   Governments   plead   that   it   is   a   matter   of   their   internal   affairs.   There   are   many  
complexities  here.  Many  new  States  emerged  from  colonialism  with  arbitrary  borders  
drawn   up   for   them   by   colonial   powers.   The   challenges   of   nation   building   are   many.  
During   the   cold   war,   the   major   powers   competed   for   influence   in   many   developing  
countries,  supporting  one  or  another  side  in  the  local  power  struggle.  With  the  end  of  
the   cold   war,   these   nations   have   been   left   fragile   and   have   to   struggle   with   the  
difficulties  of  nation  building.  On  top  of  all  of  this,  with  the  end  of  the  cold  war,  market  
capitalism   has   emerged   internationally   as   the   dominant   economic   system.   But   many  
developing  countries  have  not  had  the  opportunity  to  develop  their  infrastructures  or  
human   capital   so   as   to   be   able   to   compete   on   fair   terms   with   more   developed  
countries,  or  to  withstand  the  onslaught  of  the  major  international  corporations.  How  
are   they   to   uphold   basic   standards   of   economic,   social   and   cultural   rights   and   civil   and  
political   rights   in   these   circumstances?   Given   the   difficulties   they   are   facing,   they  
contend   that   the   United   Nations   should   strive   to   promote   cooperation   among  
countries   rather   than   putting   countries   experiencing   human   rights   problems   in   the  
dock.    

There   are   difficult   issues   to   be   dealt   with   here.   On   the   one   side   there   are   issues   of  
principle:  in  no  circumstance  should  one  tolerate  gross  violations  of  human  rights,  for  
example,  the  right  not  to  be  tortured.  One  needs  to  be  forthright  in  condemning  such  
violations.  At  the  same  time,  with  leading  developing  countries  arguing  for  cooperative  
instead   of   confrontational   approaches   in   dealing   with   human   rights   problems,   one  
needs  to  be  imaginative  in  devising  in  approaches,  bearing  in  mind  that  the  developing  
countries   make   up   a   majority   at   the   United   Nations.   One   needs   to   build   on   the  
principles  of  respect,  confidence-­‐building  and  protection:  one  must,  as  a  general  rule,  
be   respectful   of   those   one   is   dealing   with,   one   must   strive   for   approaches   and  
methods   that   inspire   and   attract   confidence,   and   at   the   same   time,   one   must   be  
faithful   to   the   principle   of   protection:   one   must   come   to   the   aid   of   those   whose   rights  
are  being  violated.  

At   a   time   when   the   challenges   of   protection   have   become   intertwined   with   challenges  
of  poverty  and  with  the  problems  of  international  political  divisions  between  countries  
of   the   North   and   the   South,   the   Summit   of   world   leaders   assembled   at   the   United  
Nations   in   September,   2005,   has   placed   on   the   international   agenda   two   issues   that  
will   influence   future   debate:   the   responsibility   to   protect,   and   transforming   the  
Commission  on  Human  Rights  into  a  Human  Rights  Council.  It  was  relatively  easier  for  
the   summit   to   agree   on   the   responsibility   to   protect,   even   though   some   developing  
countries   are   still   wary   that   it   is   a   concept   that   could   lead   to   interventions   by   major  
powers  into  the  internal  affairs  of  smaller  countries.  This  argument  takes  place  against  
the   backdrop   of   the   debate   over   claims   by   powerful   countries   that,   in   a   time   of  
dangers  of  terrorism  combined  with  weapons  of  mass  destruction,  pre-­‐emptive  strikes  
are  permissible  against  terrorist  targets  wherever  they  maybe!    

The   debate   over   reforming   the   Commission   on   Human   Rights   has   been   more  
acrimonious.   Developing   countries   resent   the   fact   that   they   are   being   demonized   in  
the   Commission   on   Human   Rights   at   a   time   when   they   are   facing   massive   economic  
and  social  problems.  Developed  countries,  with  the  United  Nations  Secretary-­‐General  
as   their   cheer-­‐leader,   argue   that   the   Commission   must   be   rid   of   members   that  
egregiously  violate  human  rights.  On  the  one  side  there  is  pride  and  numbers;  on  the  
other  there  is  principle  and  power.  How  this  battle  will  end  up  no  one  knows.  It  is  a  
time  for  wise  counsel  and  prudent  steps.    

What   needs   to   be   done   is,   through   careful   diplomacy,   to   build   a   consensus   widely  
shared   that   the   human   rights   norms   developed   over   the   past   sixty   years   must   be  
upheld   by   all,   and   that   this   includes   civil   and   political   rights   as   well   as   economic,   social  
and   cultural   rights.   As   part   of   this   consensus,   there   must   be   agreement   on   how   to  
tackle  situations  of  gross  violations  of  human  rights.  In  recent  years  the  human  rights  
movement   has   placed   the   emphasis   on   naming   and   shaming.   There   are   situations  
when  this  will  be  inevitable.  But  the  question  that  arises  for  reflection  is  whether  there  
are   ways   other   than   naming   and   shaming   that   might   allow   the   international  
community  to  express  concern  over  situations  of  gross  violations  of  human  rights.    

This  chapter  will  have  these  twin  perspectives  in  mind  when  discussing  the  evolution  
of   human   rights   norms   and   machinery:   building   on   the   universality   of   the   core  
international   norms   developed   since   the   establishment   of   the   United   Nations   and  
examining   ways   of   vindicating   the   principle   of   protection   while   mindful   of   the  
principles  of  respect  and  confidence-­‐building.  We  begin  with  the  San  Francisco  choices  
on  human  rights.    
   
I.  The  San  Francisco  Choices    

As  the  San  Francisco  conference  convened  in  1945  to  draft  the  Charter  of  the  United  
Nations  there  was  a  groundswell  in  civil  society  in  many  countries  that  the  new  world  
order   should   be   built   on   the   foundations   of   human   rights.   Blueprints   for   an  
international   bill   of   human   rights   were   developed   by   leading   academics,   civil   society  
organizations,   and   by   some   governments.   The   leading   powers   assembled   at   San  
Francisco;  however,  almost  all  had  many  human  rights  skeletons  in  their  cupboard.  In  
the  southern  parts  of  the  United  States  segregation  and  racial  discrimination  were  rife.  
Great  Britain  and  France  had  colonies  in  which  all  manner  of  human  rights  violations  
were  taking  place.  The  evidence  that  has  subsequently  come  to  light  about  atrocities  
committed   against   local   populations   in   countries   such   as   Kenya   is   heart-­‐rending.  
France   also   had   a   similar   history.   The   then   Union   of   Soviet   Socialist   Republics   had  
Gulags   and   whole   nations   in   subjection.   On   top   of   all   of   this,   the   cold   war   had  
descended   on   the   San   Francisco   conference   and   the   leading   powers   were   more  
concerned   with   the   looming   struggle   for   supremacy.   It   was   not   an   environment  
conducive   to   inspiring   human   rights   choices   and   the   major   powers   would   have  
preferred   not   to   have   to   deal   with   the   subject.   But   civil   society   would   not   let   them   get  
away  with  this.  

Thanks  largely  to  civil  society  pressure  upon  the  delegates,  particularly  the  American  
delegation   at   San   Francisco,   the   Charter   of   the   United   Nations   as   finally   adopted,  
included  several  human  rights  provisions  that  would  be  significant  for  the  future  world  
order:   First,   the   United   Nations   would   be   based   on   the   principles   of   equality   of,   and  
self-­‐determination   for,   all   peoples.   The   principle   of   self-­‐determination   would   be   the  
bedrock  for  pursuing  the  independence  of  colonial  countries  and  territories,  one  of  the  
great  achievements  of  the  United  Nations.  Second,  the  United  Nations  would  be  based  
on  the  principle  of  non-­‐discrimination  among  nations  and  peoples.  There  was  to  be  no  
discrimination   on   grounds   of   race,   sex,   language,   or   religion.   This   commitment   to  
equality  has  characterized  the  United  Nations  ever  since  its  existence  and  would  also  
be  one  of  the  great  foundation  principles  of  the  new  world  order.  

 
Third,   Member   States   committed   themselves   to   the   pursuit   of   international  
cooperation  for  the  promotion  of  human  rights.  The  aim  was  the  universal  realization  
of   human   rights   for   all   peoples.   Fourth,   all   Member   States   pledged   themselves   to   take  
measures   jointly   and   separately   for   the   achievement   of   universal   respect   for   human  
rights   and   fundamental   freedoms.   This   commitment,   in   Articles   55   and   56   of   the  
Charter   of   the   United   Nations   was   of   great   significance.   Implicit   in   these   Articles   are  
the   principles   of   international   cooperation   and   international   solidarity   for   the  
advancement  of  human  welfare  and  for  the  universal  realization  of  human  rights.  

Fifth,   a   Commission   on   Human   Rights   was   to   be   established   as   a   functional  

Commission  of  the  Economic  and  Social  Council  to  work  for  the  promotion  of  human  
rights.  This  commission  would  be  asked  to  consider  proposals  that  had  been  submitted  
at   the   San   Francisco   conference   for   an   International   Bill   of   Human   Rights.   It   is  
important   to   register   the   point   that   the   Charter   spoke   of   international   cooperation   for  
the   universal   realization   of   human   rights,   and   about   the   promotion   of   human   rights.  
There   were   proposals   at   the   San   Francisco   conference   to   use   the   language   'promotion  
and  protection'  but  the  leading  powers  at  the  conference  would  have  no  part  of  this.  
For  that  would  have  meant  that  segregation  in  the  United  States,  and  discrimination  in  
the   colonies,   or   mistreatment   in   the   Gulags,   could   be   raised   in   efforts   to   protect  
people.  

At   San   Francisco   and   in   subsequent   debates   in   the   General   Assembly,   delegates   of   the  
major  powers,  including  the  much  venerated  Mrs.  Eleanor  Roosevelt,  argued  that  the  
United   Nations   could   only   act   for   the   promotion   of   human   rights,   not   their   protection.  
This   would   lead   to   a   great   struggle   in   the   evolution   of   international   norms   and  
machinery.  To  begin  with,  protection  had  to  be  tackled  under  the  guise  of  promotion.  
The   protective   capacity   of   the   world   organization   would   have   to   be   built   up   through  
practice.   The   word   protection   was   rarely   used   in   United   Nations   documents   and  
parlance   until   1993,   after   the   end   of   the   cold   war,   when   the   General   Assembly   gave  
the   newly-­‐established   United   Nations   High   Commissioner   for   Human   Rights   the  
competence  to  act  for  the  promotion  and  protection  of  human  rights.  

This   San   Francisco   choice   for   promotion   over   protection   had   major   consequences  
throughout   the   cold   war.   The   Commission   on   Human   Rights,   with   Mrs.   Roosevelt  
herself   in   the   driver's   seat,   first   took   the   view   that   it   had   no   competence   to   act   on   the  
thousands  of  petitions  reaching  it  complaining  about  gross  violations  of  human  rights  
in   different   parts   of   the   world.   It   took   great   ingenuity   to   establish   procedures   for  
dealing   with   allegations   of   gross   violations   of   human   rights,   including   the   procedure  
still  in  existence  in  the  Commission  on  Human  Rights  (up  to  2005)  whereby  it  held  an  
annual   debate   to   discuss   gross   violations   in   any   part   of   the   world.   It   took   great  
ingenuity   also,   and   persistence   as   well,   to   develop   the   system   of   special   rapporteurs  
and   working   groups   who   engage   in   fact-­‐finding   into   allegations   of   gross   violations   of  
human  rights  in  different  parts  of  the  world.  

The  newly  independent  countries  entering  the  United  Nations  in  the  mid  1960s  pushed  
for   procedures   to   deal   with   gross   violations   of   human   rights   in   the   colonies   and   in  
Apartheid   South   Africa.   Their   push   gave   the   foundation   for   the   procedures   and  
mechanisms  subsequently  developed.  Now,  in  an  ironic  twist  of  history,  it  is  those  very  
developing   countries   which   are   arguing   that   the   United   Nations   should   not   seek   to  
condemn   countries   but   to   assist   them:   cooperation   rather   than   confrontation  
promotion   rather   than   protection.   The   Charter's   choice   for   promotion   had   been  
championed   by   the   developed   countries.   The   developing   countries   championed   the  
cause   of   protection.   Now   they,   in   turn,   opt   for   promotion.   The   way   forward   must   be   a  
balance   between   promotion   and   protection.   The   key   must   surely   lie   in   prevention  
through   efforts   to   build   up   in   each   country   of   the   world   an   effective   national  
protection   system   covering   civil   and   political   rights   as   well   as   economic,   social   and  
cultural   rights.   This   is   a   challenge   of   human   rights   and   also   a   challenge   of   nation  
building  and  a  challenge  of  development.  The  San  Francisco  choices  are  thus  still  with  
us  and  the  key  lies  in  Articles  55  and  56  of  the  Charter.    

How   would   the   United   Nations   take   forward   the   choices   made   at   San   Francisco   into  
practical   courses   of   action   for   their   realization?   The   first   effort   was   made   by   the  
Commission   on   Human   Rights,   which   laid   down   the   vision   of   an   International   Bill   of  
Human  Rights,  which  we  turn  to  next.    
   
II.  The  Vision  of  an  International  Bill  of  Human  Rights  

At   the   San   Francisco   Conference,   when   the   Charter   of   the   United   Nations   was   being  
drafted,   some   governments,   especially   from   Latin   America,   had   proposed   that   the  
Charter   should   contain   an   International   Bill   of   Human   Rights.   The   topic   of   human  
rights,   as   was   seen   earlier,   had   given   rise   to   difficult   debates   at   the   Conference   and  
partly  for  this  reason,  and  partly  because  of  shortage  of  time,  it  was  decided  that  the  
issue  would  be  referred  to  the  new  Commission  on  Human  Rights  provided  for  under  
Article  68  of  the  Charter.  

After   the   Commission   was   formally   constituted   it   retained   this   idea   of   an   international  
bill  of  human  rights  and  set  forth  the  vision  of  an  international  bill  that  would  contain  
three   parts:   a   declaration   of   moral   principles,   one   or   more   treaties   that,   after  
ratification   by   governments,   would   contain   obligations   legally   binding   on   them;   and  
measures  of  implementation.  

The   Universal   Declaration   of   Human   Rights   was   adopted   in   1948,   the   Convention  
against   Genocide   that   same   year,   the   International   Convention   on   the   Elimination   of  
Racial   Discrimination   in   1965,   the   International   Covenant   on   Economic,   Social   and  
Cultural   Rights,   the   International   Covenant   on   Civil   and   Political   Rights,   and   an  
Optional  Protocol  thereto  in  1966,  and  thereafter,  by  a  series  of  human  rights  treaties.  
Measures  of  implementation  would  prove  difficult  to  conceptualize  and  to  set  in  place.  
The   challenge   of   implementation   remains   six   decades   after   the   founding   of   the   United  
Nations,  as  we  shall  see  later  in  this  chapter.  

Nevertheless,   the   idea   of   an   International   Bill   of   Human   Rights   proved,   from   the  
outset,  a  rallying  vision  and  remains  so  to  this  day.  
   
III.  The  Development  of  International  Human  Rights  Norms  

The   development   of   international   human   rights   norms   has   been   one   of   the   great  
success   stories   of   the   United   Nations.   Cumulatively,   we   now   have   a   veritable  
international   code   of   human   rights   governing   practically   every   area   of   the   relationship  
between  the  individual  and  the  state,  and  the  process  of  drafting  new  norms  continues  
at   the   present   time   with   a   convention   under   preparation   banning   enforced   and  
involuntary   disappearances,   one   of   the   terrible   forms   of   gross   violations   of   human  
rights  prevalent  since  the  1970s.  

The  development  of  human  rights  norms  has  been  influenced  by  many  factors.  In  the  
first   place,   concepts   of   human   rights   from   different   parts   of   the   world   were   drawn  
upon   in   giving   content   to   the   Universal   Declaration,   including   the   historic   English,  
French   and   American   declarations   of   human   rights.   In   the   second   place,   there   was   a  
strong   push   for   an   approach   to   human   rights   that   recognized   the   interrelationship  
among   civil   and   political   rights   and   economic,   social   and   cultural   rights.   However,  
Western  countries,  mainly,  argued  that  civil  and  political  rights  were  interdictions  upon  
Governments,   whereas   economic,   social   and   cultural   rights   were   programmatic  
aspirations  to  the  realization  of  which  a  progressive  approach  should  be  taken.  

This,  basically,  was  the  reason  why  the  international  community  ended  up  eventually  
with   two   Covenants   instead   of   one.   Governments   such   as   those   of   Great   Britain,  
France,   and   the   USA   were   reluctant   to   recognize   equality   rights   during   an   era   in   which  
the  first  two  had  colonies  still  while  the  third  had  corrosive  segregation  in  the  South.  
The   protection   of   minorities   and   indigenous   populations   was   also   a   difficult   topic   to  
grapple   with,   especially   as   Latin   American   countries   insisted   that   they   did   not   have  
minority   populations   and   were   reluctant   to   recognize   the   rights   of   indigenous  
populations.   It   would   take   years   to   overcome   some   of   these   difficulties   and   this   has  
been   achieved   only   partially   in   some   instances.   To   this   day,   for   example,   some  
Western  countries  deny  the  character  of  human  rights  to  economic,  social  and  cultural  
rights.  

The   developing   countries,   for   their   part,   pressed   hard   for   recognition   of   the   right   to  
self-­‐determination   and   the   right   to   development.   These   countries   saw   the  
development   of   human   rights   norms   as   having   a   role   to   play   in   consecrating   as  
international   public   policy   major   aspirations   of   large   parts   of   humanity   for   peace,   self-­‐
determination,   development,   and   justice.   A   tension   between   classical,   restrictive  
approaches   to   human   rights   and   more   dynamic,   public   order   approaches   to   human  
aspirations   and   rights   continues   to   be   felt   in   our   time,   particularly   as   regards   the  
implementation  of  the  right  to  development.  

Whatever  the  difficulties,  we  are  now  the  inheritors  of  great  normative  human  rights  
instruments,   with   pride   of   place   belonging   to   the   Universal   Declaration   of   Human  
Rights.   Some   authors   have   argued   that   the   Declaration   is   an   elaboration   upon   the  
human  rights  provisions  of  the  Charter  and  therefore  deserves  to  be  ranked  alongside  
the   United   Nations   Charter   as   one   of   the   basic   constitutional   documents   of   the  
contemporary   world   order.   Views   differ   as   to   whether   the   Universal   Declaration,   in  
part  or  as  a  whole,  is  a  legally  binding  document  but  most  commentators  agree  that  
some  parts  of  it  represent  binding  international  law.  

The   Universal   Declaration,   the   two   International   Covenants,   the   Convention   against  
racial  discrimination,  the  Convention  against  torture,  the  Convention  on  the  rights  of  
the   child,   the   Convention   on   the   elimination   of   discrimination   against   women,   and   the  
Convention  on  the  rights  of  migrant  workers  and  their  families  are  the  principal  human  
rights  treaties  to  date.  The  first  six  conventions  are  widely  ratified,  with  the  convention  
on   the   rights   of   the   child   being   the   one   subscribed   to   by   all   but   two   states.   The  
convention  on  the  rights  of  migrant  workers  and  their  families  is  the  least  ratified  of  all  
because   Western   countries   in   particular   have   consistently   objected   to   many   of   its  
provisions.  

From   the   principal   human   rights   declarations   and   conventions   may   be   distilled   a  
number  of  principles  of  international  human  rights  law  which  we  present  next.  
   
IV.  Principles  of  International  Human  Rights  Law  

General  principles  of  law  found  in  the  major  legal  systems  of  the  world  are  a  source  of  
international  law  that  international  courts  and  tribunals  may  invoke.  General  principles  
of  law  include:  The  Rule  of  law:  Society  shall  be  governed  through  laws  and  everyone  is  
subject   to   the   law.   Constitutionalism:   governance   that   advances   the   rights   of   the  
people.   Democratic   Governance:   The   will   of   the   people   shall   be   the   basis   of   the  
authority   of   governments.   The   Principle   of   Responsibility   for   Unlawful   Acts.   In   the  
Chorzow   Factory   case   the   Permanent   Court   of   International   Justice   declared   that   it  
was   a   principle   of   international   law   that   any   breach   of   an   engagement   involves   an  
obligation  to  make  reparation.  

Principles   of   international   public   policy   (jus   cogens)   have   been   recognized   in  

international   law.   The   International   Court   of   Justice   has   asserted   the   existence   of  
obligations   of   a   state   towards   the   international   community   as   a   whole.   "Such  
obligations  derive,  for  example,  in  contemporary  international  law,  from  the  outlawing  
of  acts  of  aggression,  and  of  genocide,  as  also  from  the  principles  and  rules  concerning  
the   basic   rights   of   the   human   person,   including   protection   from   slavery   and   racial  
discrimination."  Professor  Ian  Brownlie  considers  that  the  least  controversial  examples  
of  principles  of  international  public  policy  (jus  cogens),  are  the  prohibition  of  the  use  of  
force,   the   law   of   genocide,   the   principle   of   racial   non-­‐discrimination,   crimes   against  
humanity,   and   the   rules   prohibiting   trade   in   slavers   and   piracy.   We   would   the  
international  outlawry  of  torture.  

International   humanitarian   law   seeks   to   uphold   the   principle   of   humanity   in   armed  

conflicts.   The   principles   pervading   international   humanitarian   law   are,   as   classically  
developed   in   the   International   Red   Cross   movement,   the   principles   of   humanity,  
impartiality,  neutrality,  independence,  voluntary  service,  unity,  and  universality.  

In   the   Nicaragua   case   the   International   Court   of   Justice   invoked   general   principles   of  
humanitarian   law   based   upon   Article   3   common   to   the   four   Geneva   Conventions   on  
humanitarian   law.   Expounding   on   the   general   principles   of   humanitarian   law,   the  
Court  held  that  the  Geneva  Conventions  were  in  some  respects  a  development  and  in  
other  respects  no  more  than  the  expression,  of  such  principles.  Common  article  3  of  
the   four   Geneva   conventions   provides   that   in   the   case   of   armed   conflict   not   of   an  
international  character  occurring  in  the  territory  of  one  of  the  High  Contracting  Parties,  
each   Party   to   the   conflict   shall   be   bound   to   apply,   as   a   minimum   the   following  
provisions:  

"Persons  taking  no  part  in  the  hostilities,  including  members  of  armed  forces  who  have  
laid  down  their  arms  and  those  placed  hors  de  combat  by  sickness,  wounds,  detention,  
or   any   other   cause,   shall   in   all   circumstances   be   treated   humanely,   without   any  
adverse  distinction  founded  on  race,  colour,  religion  or  faith,  sex,  birth,  or  wealth,  or  
any  other  similar  criteria.  

"To   this   end,   the   following   acts   are   and   shall   remain   prohibited   at   any   time   and   in   any  
place  whatsoever  with  respect  to  the  above-­‐mentioned  persons:  

(a)   violence   to   life   and   person,   in   particular   murder   of   all   kinds,   mutilation,   cruel  
treatment  and  torture:  

(b)  taking  of  hostages;  

(c)  outrages  upon  personal  dignity,  in  particular  humiliating  and  degrading  treatment;  

(d)   the   passing   of   sentences   and   the   carrying   out   of   executions   without   previous  
judgment   pronounced   by   a   regularly   constituted   court,   affording   all   the   judicial  
guarantees  which  recognized  as  indispensable  by  civilized  peoples.  

"(2)  The  wounded  and  sick  shall  be  collected  and  cared  for."  

Turning,   specifically,   to   principles   of   international   human   rights   law,   we   may   identify  

the   principles   of:   universality,   democratic   legitimacy,   justice,   protection,   legality,  
respect   and   ensure,   equality   and   non-­‐discrimination   and   remedy.   In   view   of   their  
importance  we  present  these  principles  next.  

 
A.  Universality  

The   World   Conference   on   Human   Rights,   held   in   1993,   succinctly   expressed   the  
consensus   of   the   international   community   on   the   universality   of   human   rights   as  
follows:   "The   universality   of   these   rights   and   freedoms   is   beyond   question"   It   went   on  
to   say:   "While   the   significance   of   national   and   regional   particularities   and   various  
historical,  cultural  and  religious  backgrounds  must  be  borne  in  mind,  it  is  the  duty  of  
States,   regardless   of   their   political,   economic   and   cultural   systems,   to   promote   and  
protect  all  human  rights."  

B.  Democratic  Legitimacy  

Article   21,   paragraph   3   of   the   Universal   Declaration   of   Human   Rights   provides   that   the  
will  of  the  people  shall  be  the  basis  of  the  authority  of  government:  this  will  shall  be  
expressed   in   periodic   and   genuine   elections   which   shall   be   by   universal   and   equal  
suffrage   and   shall   be   held   by   secret   vote   or   by   equivalent   free   voting   procedures.  
Article   25   of   the   International   Covenant   on   Civil   and   Political   Rights   states   that  
Everyone   shall   have   the   rights   and   the   opportunity,   without   any   of   the   distinctions  
mentioned   in   article   2   and   without   unreasonable   restrictions   (a)   to   take   part   in   the  
conduct   of   public   affairs,   directly   or   through   freely   chosen   representatives;   (b)   to   vote  
and  to  be  elected  at  genuine  periodic  elections  which  shall  be  by  universal  and  equal  
suffrage  and  shall  be  held  by  secret  ballot,  guaranteeing  the  free  expression  of  the  will  
of   the   electors;   (c)   to   have   access,   on   general   terms   of   equality,   to   public   service   in   his  
or  her  country.  

The   World   Conference   on   Human   Rights   declared   that   democracy,   development   and  
respect   for   human   rights   and   fundamental   freedoms   are   interdependent   and   mutually  
reinforcing.   It   emphasized   that   "The   international   community   should   support   the  
strengthening   and   promoting   of   democracy,   development   and   respect   for   human  
rights  and  fundamental  freedoms  in  the  entire  world."  

C.  Justice  

The   principle   of   justice   is   at   the   heart   of   the   human   rights   movement   and   has   been  
taken  forward  with  the  establishment  of  institutions  such  as  the  International  Criminal  
Court.   In   A.v.Australia,   the   Human   Rights   Committee   recalled   that   the   notion   of  
'arbitrariness'   must   not   be   equated   with   'against   the   law'   but   be   interpreted   more  
broadly  to  include  such  elements  as  inappropriateness  and  injustice.  

D.  Protection  

The   International   Commission   on   Intervention   and   State   Sovereignty,   in   a   widely  

acclaimed  report  issued  in  2001,  elaborated  on  the  core  principles  of  the  responsibility  
to   protect.   This   responsibility,   according   to   the   Commission,   embraces   three   specific  
duties:  

A.  The  responsibility  to  prevent:  to  address  both  the  root  causes  and  direct  causes  of  
internal  conflict  and  other  man-­‐made  crises  putting  populations  at  risk.  

B.   The   responsibility   to   react:   to   respond   to   situations   of   compelling   human   need   with  

appropriate   measures   which   may   include   coercive   measures   like   sanctions   and  
international  prosecution,  and  in  extreme  cases  military  intervention.  

C.  The  responsibility  to  rebuild:  to  provide,  particularly  after  a  military  intervention,  full  
assistance   with   recovery,   reconstruction   and   reconciliation,   addressing   the   causes   of  
the  harm  the  intervention  was  designed  to  halt  or  avert.  

As  seen  earlier  in  this  chapter,  the  General  Assembly  has  now  explicitly  endorsed  the  
responsibility  to  protect.  

E.  Legality  

In   General   Comment   No.   27,   the   Human   Rights   Committee   provides   general   principles  
applicable   in   the   interpretation   of   restrictions   or   limitation   clauses   in   human   rights  
treaties.   Where,   for   example,   one   finds   the   expression   'as   provided   by   law',   the   law  
itself   has   to   establish   the   conditions   under   which   the   rights   may   be   limited.   Further,  
the  restriction  must  not  impair  the  essence  of  the  right,  should  use  precise  criteria  and  
may  not  confer  unfettered  discretion  on  those  charged  with  their  execution.  

In   the   same   vein,   a   restriction   must   be   legitimate   and   necessary.   'Restrictive   measures  
must   conform   to   the   principle   of   proportionality;   they   must   be   appropriate   to   achieve  
their   protective   function;   they   must   be   the   least   intrusive   instrument   amongst   those  
which  might  achieve  the  desired  result;  and  they  must  be  proportionate  to  the  interest  
to   be   protected.'   The   Committee   puts   particular   emphasis   on   the   fundamental  
principles  of  equality  and  non-­‐discrimination  whenever  restrictions  are  made.  

F.  Equality  and  Non-­‐Discrimination  

The  principle  of  equality  and  non-­‐discrimination  is  a  hallowed  principle  of  international  
human   rights   law.   In   its   General   Comment   No.   18,   the   Human   Rights   Committee  
provided  the  following  definition  of  the  term  discrimination:  

"(T)he   Committee   believes   that   the   term   'discrimination'   as   used   in   the   Covenant  
should   be   understood   to   imply   any   distinction,   exclusion,   restriction   or   preference  
which  is  based  on  any  ground  such  as  race,  colour,  sex,  language,  religion,  political  or  
other  opinion,  national  or  social  origin,  property,  birth  or  other  status,  and  which  the  
purpose  or  effect  of  nullifying  or  impairing  the  recognition,  enjoyment  or  exercise  by  
all  persons,  on  an  equal  footing,  of  all  rights  and  freedoms."  

G.  Respect  and  Ensure  

In   today's   world   of   pervasive   terrorist   threats,   the   Human   Rights   Committee   has  
provided  invaluable  guidance  on  the  balance  to  be  struck  between  security  and  human  
rights.  Referring  to  Article  4  of  the  International  Covenant  on  Civil  and  Political  Rights,  
the  Committee  declared  in  General  Comment  No.  29:  

"Not  every  disturbance  or  catastrophe  qualifies  as  a  public  emergency  which  threatens  
the   life   of   the   nation,   as   required   by   article   4,   paragraph   1.   During   armed   conflict,  
whether   international   or   non-­‐international,   rules   of   international   humanitarian   law  
become   applicable   and   help,   in   addition   to   the   provisions   in   article   4   and   article   5,  
paragraph   1,   of   the   Covenant,   to   prevent   the   abuse   of   a   State's   emergency   powers.  
The  Covenant  requires  that  even  during  an  armed  conflict  measures  derogating  from  
the   Covenant   are   allowed   only   if   and   to   the   extent   that   the   situation   constitutes   a  
threat   to   the   life   of   the   nation.   If   States   parties   consider   invoking   article   4   in   other  
situations  than  an  armed  conflict,  they  should  carefully  consider  the  justification  and  
why  such  a  measure  is  necessary  and  legitimate  in  the  circumstances."  
H.  Remedy  

Article  8  of  the  Universal  Declaration  of  Human  Rights  states  the  fundamental  principle  
that   "Everyone   has   the   right   to   an   effective   remedy   by   the   competent   national  
tribunal…"   The   World   Conference   on   Human   Rights   (1993)   emphasized   that   "Every  
State   should   provide   an   effective   framework   of   remedies   to   redress   human   rights  
grievances   or   violations.   In   its   views   under   the   Optional   Protocol   the   Human   Rights  
Committee  has  consistently  retained  its  position  that  in  a  case  where  a  violation  of  the  
Covenant   has   been   established   through   the   Optional   Protocol   procedure,   the   State  
Party  in  Question  has  a  legal  obligation  to  provide  an  effective  remedy.  

Having   recapitulated   key   principles   of   international   human   rights   law,   we   may   now  
turn   to   a   discussion   of   the   third   part   of   the   International   Bill   of   Human   Rights   as  
envisioned   by   the   Commission   on   Human   Rights,   namely,   measures   of  
implementation.  
   
V.  Measures  of  Implementation    

As   we   have   seen   previously,   the   vision   of   the   Commission   on   Human   Rights   for   an  
International   Bill   of   Human   Rights   placed   emphasis   on   measures   of   implementation   to  
follow   the   adoption   of   the   Universal   Declaration   and   the   International   Covenants   on  
Human  Rights.  This  third  part  of  the  International  Bill  of  Human  Rights  would  prove  the  
hardest   part   to   achieve   and   even   though   some   incipient   steps   have   been   made,   the  
quest  for  measures  of  implementation  remains  problematic  to  this  day.  

Shortly  after  the  United  Nations  General  Assembly  adopted  the  Universal  Declaration  
of   Human   Rights   and   the   Convention   against   Genocide,   it   registered   an   important  
success   on   the   route   to   implementation.   India   had   brought   the   issue   of   Apartheid   in  
South   Africa   before   the   General   Assembly.   South   Africa   argued   strenuously   that   this  
was   a   matter   within   its   internal   jurisdiction   and   that   the   General   Assembly   lacked  
competence   to   consider   it.   In   one   of   its   historic   rulings,   the   General   Assembly   decided  
that   it   was   competent   to   discuss   the   matter.   Thus   was   established   the   principle   of  
international   concern   with   situations   of   gross   violations   of   human   rights.   Thereafter,  
the  United  Nations  would  set  in  train  a  variety  of  investigative  working  groups  and  a  
Special   Committee   against   Apartheid   and   would   stay   the   course   until   the   end   of  
Apartheid  had  been  achieved  in  South  Africa.  

The   Commission   on   Human   Rights,   however,   would   fail   dismally   in   dealing   with  
allegations   of   gross   violations   of   human   rights.   As   it   drafted   the   Covenants   it   placed  
emphasis  on  reporting  procedures  to  be  monitored  by  treaty-­‐based  organs  such  as  the  
Human  Rights  Committee  and  the  Committee  on  Economic,  Social  and  Cultural  Rights  
in  existence  today.  But  how  would  it  respond  to  the  thousands  of  petitions  coming  in  
to  the  United  Nations  alleging  gross  violations  of  human  rights  in  different  parts  of  the  
world?   In   the   time   of   the   cold   war,   of   colonies,   and   of   segregation   in   the   southern  
United   States   of   America,   the   Commission   on   Human   Rights   declared   that   ii   lacked  
competence   to   deal   with   those   petitions.   It   was   an   historic   betrayal   from   which   the  
Commission  only  ever  partially  recovered.  

It   would   take   the   newly-­‐independent   countries   coming   in   to   the   United   Nations   in   the  
mid  1960s  to  press  for  the  United  Nations  to  deal  with  allegations  of  gross  violations  of  
human  rights  in  colonial  and  dependent  territories  and  in  Apartheid  South  Africa.  Thus  
it  was  that  the  Commission  on  Human  Rights  decided  in  1967  that  it  would  consider  
annually  the  question  of  violations  of  human  rights  and  fundamental  freedoms  in  any  
part  of  the  world.  This  would  lead  to  annual  debates  on  the  item  in  the  Commission,  to  
the  establishment  of  working  groups  and  rapporteurs,  to  the  adoption  of  resolutions  
of  concern  and  condemnation,  to  the  generation  of  technical  advice  and  assistance  to  
countries,   and   to   other   approaches   intended   to   deal   with   the   problems   of   gross  
violations  of  human  rights.    

As   the   developing   countries   pressed   for   action   on   situations   of   gross   violations   of  

human  rights  in  colonial  and  dependent  territories  and  in  Apartheid  South  Africa,  non-­‐
governmental   organizations   and   independent   experts   in   the   Sub-­‐Commission   of   the  
Commission   on   Human   Rights   pressed   for   a   system   of   dealing   with   the   petitions  
reaching  the  United  Nations  complaining  about  violations  of  human  rights.  Thus  it  was  
that  a  confidential  procedure  was  established  to  deal  with  those  petitions.  What  might  
be  the  outcome  of  such  consideration?  A  dialogue  with  the  countries  concerned,  the  
initiation  of  a  study  into  the  situation,  or  the  provision  of  advice  or  assistance.  This  was  
not   much,   but   it   was   something   and,   since   the   establishment   of   this   confidential  
petitions  procedure  in  1970,  some  one  hundred  countries  have  been  brought  before  
the  Commission  for  scrutiny.    

Meanwhile,  under  the  principal  human  rights  treaties,  countries  have  been  reporting  
on   their   efforts   to   implement   those   treaties   and   the   treaty-­‐monitoring   bodies   have  
been   providing   country-­‐specific   comments   as   well   as   general   comments   providing  
guidance  on  the  implementation  of  the  treaties.  A  few  of  these  treaties  also  provide  
for   individual   petitions   procedures.   This   is   the   case   for   the   Optional   Protocol   to   the  
International   Covenant   on   Civil   and   Political   Rights,   Article   14   of   the   International  
Convention   on   the   Elimination   of   All   Forms   of   Racial   Discrimination,   the   Convention  
against   Torture,   and   the   Optional   Protocol   to   the   Convention   on   the   Elimination   of  
Discrimination   Against   Women.   Under   these   petitions   procedures   important  
jurisprudence  has  been  developed  of  lasting  value  and  global  relevance.    

Alongside   the   specifically   human   rights   machinery   known   as   the   Charter-­‐based  

machinery   and   the   treaty-­‐based   human   rights   monitoring   bodies,   a   modest  
implementation  role  is  played  by  the  General  Assembly,  and  a  developing  role  by  the  
Security   Council.   The   General   Assembly   has   been   inconsistent   on   this   issue   of  
measures   of   implementation.   In   the   first   place,   under   the   pressure   of   the   newly  
independent  countries,  it  led  the  call  for  the  United  Nations  to  deal  with  gross    

violations   of   human   rights.   At   times,   it   has   provided   important   statements   of   principle  

on   this   matter,   such   as   when,   at   its   thirty-­‐fourth   session   in   19..   it   adopted   a   resolution  
expressing  its  determination  to  deal  with  situations  of  mass  and    

flagrant   violations   of   human   rights.   More   recently,   it   has   underscored,   as   we   have  

seen,   the   responsibility   to   protect.   But,   under   the   counter   pressure   of   the   very  
majority   that   had   called   for   United   Nations   action   to   deal   with   gross   violations   of  
human  rights,  the  General  Assembly,  these  days.  is  more  and  more  inclined  to  the  view  
that   the   United   Nations   should   not   place   countries   in   the   dock   when   it   comes   to  
allegations  of  violations  of  human  rights.    

In  this  matter  the  General  Assembly  has  echoed  the  voices  of  the  developing  countries  
and  others  in  the  Commission  on  Human  Rights,  which  now  argue  that  the  role  of  the  
United  Nations  is  not  to  engage  in  confrontation  about  human  rights  but  to  promote  
dialogue   and   cooperation.   It   is   this   issue,   coupled   with   the   increasing   tendency   for  
countries  accused  of  gross  violations  of  human  rights  to  secure  election  as  members  of  
the  Commission  for  self-­‐protection,  that  has  caused  a  crisis  in  the  Commission,  leading  
to   calls   for   its   abolition   and   replacement   by   a   Human   Rights   Council,   an   issue   we  
discuss   below.   We   are   therefore   living   through   a   veritable   crisis   when   it   comes   to  
measures   of   implementation   and   protection.   The   adoption   of   the   Statute   of   the  
International   Criminal   Court,   and   the   commencement   of   operations   of   the   Court   are  
important   milestones   in   the   quest   for   stronger   protection   but   have   been   marred   by  
the   hostile   and   uncooperative   attitude   of   the   United   States   of   America   towards   the  
court.  

As   for   the   human   rights   treaty   bodies,   which   are   part-­‐time   institutions,   there   is   an   on-­‐
going   process   aiming   at   the   greater   efficiency   and   rationalization   of   these   bodies.   It  
would   certainly   help   if   these   bodies   were   not   to   exclude   political   nominees   or   officials  
owing  their  loyalties  to  governments.  It  would  also  assist  for  these  bodies  to  have  the  
support  of  more  staff.  Whether  it  is  wise,  at  this  relatively  early  stage,  to  call  for  the  
consolidation  of  the  treaties  or  of  the  various  treaty  bodies  is  open  to  discussion.  

In  the  quest  for  measures  of  implementation,  the  call  for  an  institution  such  as  a  High  
Commissioner   for   Human   Rights   has   been   with   the   United   Nations   ever   since   1947,  
and  was  finally  achieved  in  1993,  with  the  first  High  Commissioner,  Jose  Ayala  Lasso,  
commencing  operations  in  1994.  We  discuss  the  Office  of  the  High  Commissioner  later.  
However,   in   view   of   the   debates   taking   place   at   the   time   of   writing   about   how   the  
international   community   should   deal   with   allegations   of   gross   violations   of   human  
rights  we  look  specifically  at  this  issue  next.  
   
VI.   Strategies   for   dealing   with   situations   of   gross   violations   of   human  
rights  

What,   it   may   be   asked   are   the   main   strategies   that   have   been   developed   in  
international  and  regional  bodies  since  1948  to  deal  with  situations  of  gross  violations  
of   human   rights?   Human   rights   strategies   in   use   at   the   present   time   include   the  
drafting   of   norms   to   deal   with   new   problems,   which   continues   in   areas   of   need,   the  
conduct  of  research  and  studies  into  contemporary  problems,  the  provision  of  advisory  
services   and   technical   assistance   to   governments   to   help   them   strengthen   national  
capacity   for   the   protection   of   human   rights,   the   consideration   of   state   reports,   the  
operation   of   some   regional   and   international   petitions   procedures,   the   conduct   of  
fact-­‐finding  into  problem  situations,  naming  and  shaming  governments  and  non-­‐state  
actors   responsible   for   gross   violations   of   human   rights,   the   development   of   human  
rights  education,  and  the  dissemination  of  information  about  human  rights.  

An   examination   of   the   methods   in   use   by   international   and   regional   human   rights  

bodies   shows   the   following.   Reporting   systems   are   in   operation   under   the   seven  
principal  human  rights  treaties  and  in  the  African  Commission  on  Human  and  Peoples  
Rights.   The   Secretary-­‐General   of   the   Council   of   Europe   may   call   for   reports   but   has  
rarely  done  so.  A  reporting  system  is  provided  for  under  the  Arab  Charter  on  Human  
Rights  but  has  not  taken  off  so  far.  The  Inter-­‐American  Commission  on  Human  Rights  
does   not   have   a   reporting   system.   A   monitoring   role   in   respect   of   states   reports   is  
being   carried   out   by   the   seven   international   treaty   bodies   and   by   the   African  
Commission.   A   Peer   Review   Process   has   begun   operations   within   the   framework   of  
NEPAD.  

Country  studies  are  carried  out  by  the  Inter-­‐American  Commission  on  Human  Rights  on  
its  own  initiative.  The  Commission  has  a  long-­‐standing  practice  in  the  conduct  of  such  
studies.   A   system   of   country   studies   as   such   does   not   exist   under   other   regional  
systems  or  in  international  organizations.  However,  the  Peer  Review  Process  under  the  
NEPAD  has  begun  to  produce  country  studies.  

Early  warning,  preventive  procedures,  strategies  or  policies  exist  under  some  treaties  
or   in   some   of   international   or   regional   bodies.   The   Convention   on   the   Prevention   of  
Genocide,   the   European   Convention   on   the   Prevention   of   Torture   and   the   Inter-­‐
American  Convention  on  the  Prevention  of  Violence  against  Women  are  examples  of  
treaties  with  a  preventive  orientation.  The  first  Summit  of  the  Americas,  held  in  Miami,  
called   for   preventive   capacity   in   the   Inter-­‐American   human   rights   system.   The   OSCE  
High   Commissioner   on   National   Minorities   has   a   preventive   role   as   does   the   OSCE  
Representative  on  Freedom  of  the  Media.  

Emergency   measures   may   be   taken   by   the   United   Nations   Security   Council   and   this  
aspect   is   being   emphasized   in   the   discussions   about   the   proposed   Human   Rights  
Council.  The  African  Commission  has  developed  a  significant  practice  when  it  comes  to  
emergency  measures.  

Petitions   procedures   are   in   operation   in   the   African,   European   and   Inter-­‐American  

regional   systems,   in   optional   procedures   established   by   the   Convention   on   the  
Elimination   of   Racial   Discrimination,   the   Optional   Protocol   to   the   International  
Covenant   on   Civil   and   Political   Rights,   the   Convention   Against   Torture,   and   under  
procedures   established   within   the   ILO   and   UNESCO.   There   is   a   growing   body   of  
international  and  regional  human  rights  case  law.  There  are  admissibility  rules  before  
petitions  may  be  considered.  These  include  that  petitions  should  not  be  anonymous  or  
abusive.  Local  remedies  must  have  been  exhausted  where  they  exist.  In  the  European  
Court  of  Human  Rights  petitioners  participate  in  all  stages.  This  is  also  the  case  in  the  
Inter-­‐American  Court.  

Provisional   or   interim   measures   of   protection   may   be   indicated   by   international   treaty  

bodies  considering  petitions  or  under  the  African,  European  or  Inter-­‐American  regional  
systems.   The   American   Convention   expressly   authorizes   the   issuance   of   temporary  
restraining   orders.   The   other   bodies   have   indicated   such   measures   as   part   of   their  
practice.  

Inter-­‐State   Complaint   Procedures   exist   under   the   African,   European,   and   Inter-­‐
American   systems,   in   under   treaties   such   as   the   International   Covenant   of   Civil   and  
Political   Rights.   They   have   been   most   successfully   used   under   the   European   regional  
system.  
A   United   Nations   human   rights   commission   has   existed   since   1947   and   discussions   are  
under  way  to  replace  it  by  a  stronger  body,  a  Human  Rights  Council.  Regional  Human  
Rights   Commissions   are   functioning   under   the   African   and   Inter-­‐American,   systems.  
Previously   there   had   been   a   European   Commission   but   its   role   has   been   taken   over   by  
the   European   Court   of   Human   Rights.   The   Arab   Charter   provides   for   an   Arab  
Commission   and   the   Commonwealth   of   Independent   States   established   a   human  
rights   commission   in   1993.   The   last   two   commissions   have   not   yet   taken   off.   The   Asia-­‐
Pacific  region  does  not  have  a  regional  commission.  The  Office  of  United  Nations  High  
Commissioner   for   Human   Rights   organizes   an   annual   Asia-­‐Pacific   Forum   which  
concentrates   on   human   rights   education,   national   human   rights   plans   of   actions,  
economic  and  social  rights,  and  the  right  to  development.  

General  or  country-­‐specific  recommendations  are  put  forward  by  the  United  Nations  
Commission  on  Human  Rights  or  by  the  African  and  Inter-­‐American  Commissions.  

Regional   human   rights   courts   are   operational   in   the   European   and   Inter-­‐American  
regional  systems.  An  African  Court  of  Human  Rights  has  been  agreed  upon  but  is  in  the  
process   of   being   merged   with   the   African   Court   of   Justice.   There   is,   as   yet,   no  
international   human   rights   court.   The   African,   European   and   Inter-­‐American   courts  
may   consider   petitions   referred   to   them   under   their   respective   procedures   and   may  
also  give  advisory  opinions.  

The  enforcement  of  judgments  of  the  European  Court  of  Human  Rights  is  followed  up  
by   the   Committee   of   Ministers   of   the   Council   of   Europe.   There   is   no   similar  
arrangement  in  the  African  or  Inter-­‐American  systems  or  in  the  United  Nations.  

A   High   Commissioner   for   Human   Rights   exists   within   the   United   Nations.   The   High  
Commissioner  has  promotional  and  protecting  functions.  The  Council  of  Europe  has  a  
Commissioner   on   Human   Rights   with   promotional   functions.   The   OSCE   has   a   High  
Commissioner  on  National  Minorities  and  a  Representative  on  Freedom  of  the  Media.  
The   UN   High   Commissioner   for   Human   Rights   has   regional   representatives   in   Africa,  
Asia  and  the  Pacific,  the  Arab  region,  Central  Africa,  Central  Asia  and  in  Latin  America.  

Fact-­‐finding  and  thematic  rapporteurs  and  groups  function  in  the  United  Nations  and  
in  the  African  and  Inter-­‐American  regional  systems.  
  

Targeted   approaches   have   been   used   for   dealing   with   the   situations   of   particular  
sectors  of  the  population.  The  rights  of  the  child  and  the  rights  of  women  are  cases  in  
point.  So  are  the  rights  of  minorities,  indigenous  populations  and  migrants.  An  Inter-­‐
American   Commission   of   Women   has   been   in   existence   since   1928.   Its   mission   is   to  
promote   and   protect   women's   rights,   advancing   equality   of   participation   by   women  
and  men  in  all  aspects  of  society.  

The   push   for   equality   and   non-­‐discrimination   has   been   a   consistent   strand   of   the  
efforts   of   the   United   Nations   ever   since   its   establishment   and   we   look   at   this   issue  
next.  
   
VII.  The  Struggle  for  Equality  and  Non-­‐Discrimination  

The   struggle   for   equality   and   non-­‐discrimination   has   been   a   hallmark   of   the   United  
Nations   human   rights   programme   ever   since   its   establishment.   The   Charter   included  
among  of  the  purposes  of  the  world  organization  to  develop  friendly  relations  among  
nations   based   on   respect   for   the   principle   of   equal   rights   and   self-­‐   determination   of  
peoples   and   to   promote   and   encourage   respect   for   human   rights   and   for   fundamental  
freedoms  for  all  without  distinction  as  to  race,  sex,  language,  or  religion.  

It   has   been   one   of   the   historic   achievements   of   the   United   Nations   that   it   led   the  
process   of   steering   dozens   of   former   colonies   and   dependent   territories   to  
independence.   The   principles   of   equality   and   self-­‐determination   breathed   life   into   this  
struggle.  The  United  Nations  fought  against  Apartheid  in  South  Africa  and  undoubtedly  
helped  bring  down  that  odious  regime.  

The  United  Nations  has  championed  the  equal  rights  of  women  from  the  earliest  days  
of   its   existence.   It   pioneered   studies   and   standards   on   the   nationality   and   political  
rights  of  women.  It  launched  decades  of  action  and  successive  world  conferences  on  
the  equal  rights  of  women.  It  promulgated  the  International  Convention  on  Elimination  
of   Discrimination   Against   Women   and   an   Optional   Protocol   to   that   convention  
providing   for   a   system   of   individual   petitions   where   women   consider   that   they   had  
failed  to  achieve  justice  within  their  own  countries.    

The   United   Nations   has   also   fought   for   racial   equality   through   mobilization   and  
standard-­‐setting.   The   International   Convention   on   the   Elimination   of   All   Forms   of  
Racial   Discrimination   calls   for   resolute   action   in   each   State   Party   to   stamp   out  
prejudice  and  racial  inequality.  The  United  Nations  has  launched  successive  decades  of  
action  against  racial  discrimination  and  has  held  successive  world  conferences  on  this  
topic,  the  last  having  been  held  at  Durban,  South  Africa,  in  2001.  

The   jurisprudence   of   the   Committee   on   the   Elimination   of   Racial   Discrimination   and   of  

the   Committee   on   the   Elimination   of   Discrimination   Against   Women   provide  
normative   and   policy   statements   of   enduring   value   in   the   continuing   struggle   for  
equality.    
The   United   Nations   has   also   championed   the   equal   rights   of   minorities,   indigenous  
populations  and  disadvantaged  groups.  It  has  placed  particular  emphasis  on  the  right  
to  development,  which  we  discuss  next.  
   
VIII.  The  Right  to  Development  and  the  Millennium  Development  Goals  

The   right   to   development   is   a   rallying   concept   that   calls   upon   the   international  
community   and   each   country   to   act   in   a   concerted   manner   to   advance   the  
development   aspirations   of   every   individual   and   all   nations.   It   is   a   concept   given  
varying  emphases  by  different  group  of  countries.  For  the  developing  countries,  they  
place   the   emphasis   on   transfers   of   resources   from   the   developed   countries.   For   the  
developed  countries  it  is  the  totality  of  human  rights,  requiring  efforts  to  implement  all  
human  rights,  civil  and  political  and  economic,  social  and  cultural.  

Variations  of  emphasis  notwithstanding,  it  must  be  right  to  suggest  that  all  countries  
should  use  their  resources  so  as  to  advance  the  right  to  development  for  their  people  
in   an   equitable   manner   and   that   all   countries   should   cooperate   for   the   mutual  
achievement  of  the  right  to  development.  The  alternative  to  such  a  policy  framework  
is   a   Darwinian   world   of   market-­‐oriented   capitalism   with   no   social   or   human   rights  
safety  nets.  How  can  developing  countries  survive  in  such  a  world?    

The  Millennium  Development  Goals  are  closely  related  to  the  implementation  of  the  
right  to  development.  The  Millennium  Development  Goals  are  an  appeal  to  humanity.  
They  integrate  human  rights  and  look  to  human  rights  strategies  to  help  bring  about  
their   implementation.   The   core   human   rights   idea   is   one   that   centralises   human  
dignity   and   rights   within   strategies   of   governance.   Stated   simply,   it   calls   for  
governance   to   proceed   from   the   premise   that   everything   must   be   done   to   achieve  
human   dignity   and   fundamental   human   rights   for   everyone.   These   rights   were  
crystallised   in   the   International   Bill   of   Human   Rights,   which   consists   of   the   Universal  
Declaration,   the   International   Covenant   on   Civil   and   Political   Rights   and   the  
International  Covenant  on  Economic,  Social  and  Cultural  Rights.  

Historically,   the   human   rights   idea   has   contributed   to   development   goals   through  
norms  articulating  policy  goals  and  standards,  advocacy,  supervision,  studies  and  the  
activation   of   the   international   conscience.   The   question   that   arises   for   reflection   is  
how  the  human  rights  emphasis  might  help  in  the  implementation  of  the  Millennium  
Development  Goals  in  the  future.  
The   United   Nations   campaign   for   the   achievement   of   the   Millennium   Development  
Goals  places  emphasis  on  human  rights  in  broad  terms.  It  emphasizes  the  human  rights  
underpinning   of   the   Millennium   Goals   and   notes   that   injustice   and   discrimination   of  
one   kind   or   the   other   are   increasingly   seen   as   key   determinants   of   poverty,   and   that   it  
is  not  by  coincidence  that  the  very  same  determinants  account  for  most  human  rights  
abuses.  

The  Millennium  Development  Goals  Campaign  also  presses  the  point  that  the  human  
rights   approach   'implies   that   we   are   talking   not   of   welfare   or   charity,   but   of   rights   and  
entitlements.  This  means  that  taking  action  to  achieve  the  goals  is  an  obligation.  And  
the   approach   also   creates   a   framework   for   holding   various   actors,   including  
governments,   accountable.   Moreover   it   is   widely   acknowledged   that   sustainable  
development   requires   the   active   involvement   of   the   poor   and   civil   society.   Thus  
without   respect   and   fulfillment   of   human   rights   such   as   non-­‐discrimination,   right   to  
participation,   freedom   of   expression   and   assembly,   achieving   -­‐   and   even   more  
importantly  -­‐  sustaining  the  Millennium  Goals  will  not  be  possible.'  

How   can   practical   and   concrete   human   rights   approaches   contribute   to   the  
achievement   of   the   Millennium   Development   Goals.   We   would   advance   six  
suggestions.  The  first  relates  to  the  national  human  rights  protection  system  of  each  
country   and   how   it   covers   key   economic,   social   and   cultural   rights.   There   should   be  
human   rights   focal   points   in   key   Government   Ministries   such   as   Agriculture,   Health,  
and   Housing   devoted   to   advancing   a   human   rights   approach   and   watching   over   the  
principle  of  equality  and  non-­‐discrimination.  One  should  also  place  more  emphasis  on  
the  role  of  the  courts  in  protecting  key  economic,  social  and  cultural  rights.    

Second,   one   should   bring   to   the   fore   more   the   concept   of   preventable   poverty.  
Preventive   human   rights   strategies   are   not   given   the   attention   they   deserve.   They  
have   an   especial   role   to   play   when   it   comes   to   basic   economic,   social   and   cultural  
rights.   Preventable   poverty   is   something   that   one   could   also   focus   on   in   advocacy  
campaigns.  

Third,   there   is   an   important   role   for   the   principle   of   non-­‐discrimination.   When   the  
International   Covenant   on   Economic,   Social   and   Cultural   Rights   was   drafted   the  
obligation  not  to  discriminate  was  made  a  mandatory  obligation  on  States  Parties.  The  
issue   can   be   put   simply:   alongside   preventive   strategies,   a   society   must   be   watching  
out   for   pockets   of   the   population   that   are   facing   discrimination   with   regard   to   basic  
human  rights  and  act  urgently  to  ameliorate  this.  This  can  bring  about  tangible  relief.  

Fourth,  one  needs  to  place  the  spotlight  more  on  vulnerable  groups  of  the  population  
such   as   minorities,   indigenous   populations,   migrants,   and   historically   disadvantaged  
communities.  Placing  the  spotlight  on  them  brings  their  plight  to  the  fore  and  enables  
the  forging  of  a  national  consensus  to  act  for  their  relief  and  protection.  

Fifth,   the   concept   of   a   consistent   pattern   of   gross   violation   of   economic,   social   and  
cultural  rights  could  be  put  into  practice.  In  1975  the  United  Nations  Commission  on  
Human   Rights   adopted   a   decision   that   I   would   henceforth   pay   attention   to   gross  
violations   of   economic,   social   and   cultural   rights   alongside   civil   and   political   rights.  
There   has   been   little   follow-­‐up   to   this   decision.   However,   nationally,   regionally,   and  
internationally,  one  should  place  the  spotlight  in  the  future  on  situations  where  there  
is   a   consistent   patter   of   gross   violation   of   economic,   social   and   cultural   rights  
attributable  to  the  policies  of  Governments  or  other  actors,  such  as  corporations.  This  
would  give  expression  to  the  principle  of  protection  on  the  ground.  

Sixth,  there  is  a  case  for  the  periodic  publication  of  a  World  Report  on  Economic,  Social  
and  Cultural  Rights.  Such  a  report  would  help  show,  through  human  rights  lens,  what  
could  be  done  to  prevent  and  reduce  poverty  and  act  for  the  relief  of  the  vulnerable  
and  the  poor.  

We   have   thus   far   discussed   the   quest   for   implementation   and   protection   and   also  
looked  at  the  issue  of  taking  forward  the  implementation  of  the  right  to  development  
and   of   the   Millennium   Development   Goals.   We   return   to   the   quest   for   stronger  
protection   of   human   rights   by   looking   next   at   the   Office   of   High   Commissioner   for  
Human   Rights,   an   institution   recommended   by   the   World   Conference   for   Human  
Rights  in  1993  and  established  by  the  General  Assembly  that  same  year.  
   
IX.  The  Office  of  High  Commissioner  for  Human  Rights  

The   Office   of   High   Commissioner   was   recommended   by   the   World   Conference   on  

Human  Rights  that  met  in  Vienna  in  1993  and  was  established  by  the  United  Nations  
General   Assembly   later   that   year.   At   the   time   there   was   in   existence   a   human   rights  
part  of  the  United  Nations  Secretariat,  the  Centre  for  Human  Rights  and  the  Office  of  
High  Commissioner  and  the  Centre  for  Human  Rights  were  consolidated  in  1998.  That  
meant   that   the   High   Commissioner   was   called   upon   to   fulfill   different   roles:   moral  
leadership,   political   sensitivity,   and   bureaucratic-­‐managerial   duties.   These   roles   are  
contradictory  and  this  has  been  felt  in  practice.    

The   major   contributions   of   the   position   of   High   Commissioner   to   the   quest   for  
measures  of  implementation  and  protection  have  been  to  provide  a  voice  for  victims,  
to  exercise  initiative  in  launching  investigations  into  gross  violations  of  human  rights,  
and  to  exercise  a  spearhead  function  for  the  human  rights  movement,  interacting  with  
bodies  such  as  the  Security  Council  and  the  International  Criminal  Court.  Some  gains  
have   been   made   on   these   fronts.   But   the   Office   of   High   Commissioner   is   still   in   the  
early   stages   of   its   establishment.   It   receives   meager   allocations   from   the   regular  
budget   of   the   United   Nations   and   spends   two-­‐thirds   more   from   voluntary  
contributions.  This  reflects  adversely  on  its  staffing  structure  and  on  its  ability  to  plan  
and  act  independently.  As  of  the  time  of  writing,  the  High  Commissioner  has  proposed  
a  plan  of  action  to  double  the  resources  of  the  Office  from  the  regular  budget  in  five  
years  and  one  hopes  that  the  United  Nations  membership  will  follow-­‐through  on  this.  

Unfortunately,   the   High   Commissioner   has   been   squeezed   on   the   budgetary   front   in  
the  past  on  account  of  initiatives  taken  for  the  protection  of  human  rights  and  at  the  
present  time,  the  debate  is  still  going  on  as  to  whether,  and  how,  the  United  Nations  
should   deal   with   gross   violations   of   human   rights.   When   this   writer   occupied   the  
functions   of   High   Commissioner   and   condemned   the   Government   of   Sudan   for   gross  
violations   of   human   rights   in   Darfur,   the   Permanent   Representative   of   Sudan  
circulated   to   the   General   Assemby   a   formal   complaint   that   international   officials  
should  not  make  pronouncements  on  the  behaviour  of  governments!  The  discharge  of  
the  responsibility  to  protect  is  thus  a  matter  of  great  importance  to  the  future,  and  we  
turn  next  to  this  issue.    
X.  The  Responsibility  to  Protect  

The   Heads   of   State   and   Government   gathered   at   United   Nations   Headquarters   from  
14-­‐16   September.   2005   acknowledged   that   each   individual   State   has   the   responsibility  
to   protect   its   populations   from   genocide,   war   crimes,   ethnic   cleansing   and   crimes  
against   humanity.   This   responsibility,   they   acknowledged,   entailed   the   prevention   of  
such   crimes,   including   their   incitement,   through   appropriate   and   necessary   means.  
They   accepted   that   responsibility   and   pledged   to   act   in   accordance   with   it.   They   called  
upon   the   international   community,   as   appropriate,   to   encourage   and   help   States   to  
exercise   this   responsibility   and   to   support   the   United   Nations   to   establish   an   early  
warning  capability.    

The   Heads   of   State   and   Government   declared   that   the   international   community,  
through  the  United  Nations,  also  has  the  responsibility  to  use  appropriate  diplomatic,  
humanitarian   and   other   peaceful   means,   in   accordance   with   Chapter   VI   and   Chapter  
VIII   of   the   Charter,   to   help   protect   populations   from   genocide,   war   crimes,   ethnic  
cleansing   and   crimes   against   humanity.   In   this   context,   they   declared   their  
preparedness   to   take   collective   action,   in   a   timely   and   decisive   manner,   through   the  
Security   Council,   in   accordance   with   the   United   Nations   Charter,   including   Chapter   VII,  
on   a   case   by   case   basis   and   in   cooperation   with   relevant   regional   organizations   as  
appropriate,  should  peaceful  means  he  inadequate  and  national  authorities  manifestly  
failing   to   protect   their   population   from   genocide,   war   crimes,   ethnic   cleansing   and  
crimes  against  humanity.  

The   Heads   of   State   and   Government   stressed   the   need   for   the   General   Assembly   to  
continue  consideration  of  the  responsibility  to  protect  populations  from  genocide,  war  
crimes,  ethnic  cleansing,  and  crimes  against  humanity  and  its  implications,  bearing  in  
mind   the   principles   of   the   Charter   and   international   law.   They   also   expressed   their  
intention   to   commit   themselves,   as   necessary   and   appropriate,   to   help   states   build  
capacity   to   protect   their   populations   from   genocide,   ar   crimes,   ethnic   cleansing   and  
crimes  against  humanity  and  to  assist  those  which  are  under  stress  before  crises  and  
conflicts  break  out.  
   
XI.  Reforms:  Towards  a  Human  Rights  Council  

The   United   Nations   Summit   of   world   leaders,   meeting   to   mark   the   sixtieth   anniversary  
of  the  Organization,  resolved  to  create  a  Human  Rights  Council  to  take  over  from  the  
Human  Rights  Commission,  which  has  done  invaluable  work  over  the  past  six  decades  
but   which   has   now   fallen   into   disrepute   because   some   countries   accused   of   gross  
violations   of   human   rights   have   been   successful   in   getting   themselves   elected  
members   of   the   Commission   and   thereby   engaging   in   vote-­‐trading   for   their   self-­‐
protection.  

Human   rights   are   at   the   centre   of   the   contemporary   world   order   and   must   be   the  
driving   force   of   nation   building,   equity   and   justice   in   all   countries.   Like   the   original  
Human   Rights   Commission,   the   new   Human   Rights   Council   must   take   forward   the  
challenges   of   building   a   world   on   the   foundations   of   justice.   That   will   be   its   historic  
mission.  The  peoples  of  the  world  expect  positive  results  from  this  reform.  

The   world   leaders   have   set   for   the   new   Council   the   responsibility   of   promoting  
universal   respect   for   the   protection   of   all   human   rights   and   fundamental   freedoms   for  
all,  without  distinction  of  any  kind  and  in  a  fair  and  equal  manner.  The  Council  should  
address   situations   of   violations   of   human   rights,   including   gross   and   systematic  
violations   and   make   recommendations   thereon.   It   should   also   promote   effective  
coordination   and   the   mainstreaming   of   human   rights   within   the   UN   system.   At   the  
time   of   writing,   negotiations   are   underway   on   a   resolution   of   the   General   Assembly  
establishing  the  Council.  

Negotiations   on   the   establishment   of   the   new   Council   present   an   opportunity   to  

modernize   the   roles   of   the   principal   UN   human   rights   body   and   thus   can   be   to   the  
common   good   if   the   results   come   out   right.   The   role   of   the   new   Council   should  
influence   its   composition   and   working   methods.   In   addressing   the   roles   of   the   new  
body   it   needs   to   be   kept   in   mind   that   other   organs   will   continue   to   play   their   part,  
including   the   Security   Council,   the   General   Assembly,   and   the   human   rights   treaty  
bodies  established  under  the  seven  main  human  rights  treaties  drafted  at  the  United  
Nations.   One   is   therefore   looking   to   a   leadership   and   spearheading   orientation   for   the  
new  Council,  as  well  as  protection  and  coordination  roles.  
The   emphasis   of   the   international   community   is   rightly   placed   these   days   more   and  
more  on  preventive  actions  and  one  should  therefore  expect  the  Human  Rights  Council  
to   use   its   best   endeavours   for   the   prevention   of   gross   violations   of   human   rights.   A  
preventive   orientation   should   therefore   characterize   the   Council.   By   prevention   we  
mean  detecting  potential  gross  violations  before  they  occur  and  acting  to  head  them  
off,  in  cooperation  with  regional  and  other  partners.  The  prevention  of  genocide  is  a  
case  in  point.  

The   new   Human   Rights   Council   should   play   a   leading   role   in   the   formulation   of  
strategies   and   programmes   to   combat   discrimination.   The   founders   of   the   United  
Nations  made  the  principle  of  non-­‐discrimination  a  foundation  tenet  of  the  world  body  
and  there  remains  a  great  deal  of  discrimination  on  grounds  of  race,  gender,  language,  
religion   and   other   grounds.   A   world   of   widespread   discrimination   is   not   a   world   of  
human  rights.  

Human   rights   education   has   a   key   role   to   play   in   combating   discrimination   and   in  
advancing   universal   values   of   respect   and   tolerance.   The   Human   Rights   Council   should  
take   the   lead   in   encouraging   human   rights   education   in   the   schools,   universities   and  
other  educational  institutions  of  every  country,  in  local  languages.  This  is  an  immense  
task   that   has   hardly   begun.   Working   together   with   UNESCO   and   UNICEF,   the   Human  
Rights  Council  should  make  this  a  priority  issue  for  consideration.  

The  Human  Rights  Council  is  expected  to  act  on  the  basis  of  the  human  rights  norms  in  
the  Charter,  the  Universal  Declaration,  and  the  United  Nations  human  rights  treaties.  It  
would   be   expected   to   work   to   advance   the   implementation   of   these   treaties,   in  
cooperation   with   the   human   rights   treaty   bodies,   which   should   have   appropriate  
participation  in  the  membership  of  the  Council.  

A   central   concept   of   recent   human   rights   reforms   at   the   UN   has   been   the  
strengthening   of   national   protection   systems.   This   looks   to   constitutions   and   laws   that  
are  reflective  of  international  human  rights  norms,  to  their  application  by  national  and  
local   courts,   to   human   rights   education   and   institutions   like   human   rights  
commissions,   and   to   early-­‐warning   and   urgent-­‐response   arrangements   where   needed,  
particularly   in   multi-­‐ethnic   societies.   The   Human   Rights   Council   must   make   it   a   central  
part   of   its   work   to   contribute   to   the   strengthening   of   national   protection   systems   in  
every   country.   It   is   on   this   issue   of   national   protection   systems   that   a   Peer   Review  
Process  can  have  an  important  role  in  the  new  Council.  The  national  protection  system  
should   be   expected   to   take   the   lead   in   preventive   strategies,   supported   by   regional  
and  international  bodies.  

The   world   leaders   have   rightly   called   for   the   new   Human   Rights   Council   to   address  
situations   of   gross   violations   of   human   rights.   This   should   cover   economic   and   social  
rights   as   well   as   civil   and   political   rights.   We   argued   above   for   an   emphasis   on  
prevention.  The  new  Human  Rights  Council  must  take  forward  and  improve  upon  the  
system   of   special   procedures   -­‐   rapporteurs   and   working   groups   working   against  
torture,   arbitrary   executions,   disappearances,   arbitrary   detention,   violence   against  
women  and  children,  and  other  blots  on  our  civilization.  

The   new   Human   Rights   Council   must   work   in   close   partnership   with   civil   society   and  
assure   optimal   participation   for   human   rights   NGOs.   It   should   enhance   the  
parliamentary  role  of  the  Human  Rights  Commission.  

The   Council   should   also   work   in   closer   partnership   than   did   the   Human   Rights  
Commission   in   recent   years   with   regional   human   rights   bodies   such   as   the   African  
Commission   on   Human   Rights,   the   European   Court   of   Human   Rights   and   the   Inter-­‐
American  Commission  and  Court  of  Human  Rights.  

The   principal   specialized   agencies   of   the   UN   will   continue   to   have   a   valuable  

contribution   to   make   to   the   human   rights   work   of   the   UN   in   its   principal   human   rights  
body.   This   cooperation   should   be   institutionalized   in   the   Human   Rights   Council.  
Related  to  this,  the  mainstreaming  of  human  rights  in  all  parts  of  the  UN  system  should  
be   the   avenue   for   cooperation   with   the   principal   programmes   of   the   UN   and  
particularly  with  the  IMF,  the  World  Bank  and  the  IMF.  

Mainstreaming  can  help  greatly  in  taking  forward  the  implementation  of  the  right  to  
development,  which  will  undoubtedly  be  given  pride  of  place  in  the  new  Human  Rights  
Council.   The   right   to   development   englobes   civil   and   political   rights   and   economic,  
social  and  cultural  rights  and  provides  a  rallying  banner  for  the  peoples  of  the  earth,  
especially   those   stricken   by   extreme   poverty   -­‐   the   wretched   of   the   earth,   to   use   a  
famous  expression.  
XII.  Preventive  Strategies  

The   situation   of   human   rights   in   a   country   must   be   a   central   dimension   of   risk   analysis  
pertaining   to   that   country   -­‐   whether   it   be   for   the   purposes   of   the   prevention   of  
conflict,  assessment  of  the  stability  of  the  country,  or  assessment  of  opportunities  for  
business.   In   the   literature   on   risk   assessment,   one   sees   discussion   of   the   meaning   of  
risk,  examination  of  political  or  investment  risks,  but  one  finds  very  little  consideration  
of  the  relevance  of  human  rights  to  risk  assessment.  Risk  assessment  of  a  country  must  
start  with  consideration  of  its  human  rights  infrastructure,  record,  and  problems.  

A.  The  Adequacy  of  the  National  Protection  System  

In  the  human  rights  strategies  of  the  United  Nations  these  days,  increasing  emphasis  is  
placed  on  the  concept  of  the  national  protection  system.  By  this  concept  is  meant  that  
one  should  look  at  the  constitution,  laws  and  courts  of  a  country  to  see  the  extent  to  
which   they   are   reflective   of   the   international   human   rights   norms.   One   must   also   look  
to  see  whether  the  country  has  specialized  human  rights  institutions  such  as  a  national  
human  rights  commission  or  an  ombudsman,  whether  the  country  is  providing  for  the  
teaching  of  human  rights  in  primary  and  secondary  schools  in  particular,  and  whether  
the  country  has  monitoring  arrangements  to  detect  grievances  on  the  part  of  a  group  
or  groups  of  the  population  with  a  view  to  heading  off  those  grievances.  

If  significant  parts  of  the  national  protection  system  of  a  country  are  missing,  then  one  
can  conclude  that  the  country  is  likely  to  be  shaky  and  unstable  and,  depending  on  its  
configuration,  could  easily  erupt  into  violence.  

B.  The  Degree  of  Acceptance  of  the  Core  International  Human  Rights  Conventions  

The   role   of   the   Universal   Declaration   of   Human   Rights   and   of   the   core   international  
human   rights   conventions   is   to   require   States   to   live   up   to   international   minimum  
standards  of  human  rights  protection  in  key  areas,  such  as  respect  for  civil  and  political  
rights;   the   prohibition   of   torture;   the   prohibition   of   racism   and   racial   discrimination;  
the  prohibition  of  discrimination  against  women;  protection  of  the  rights  of  the  child;  
protection  against  torture;  and  protection  of  the  rights  of  migrants.  These  are  all  the  
subjects  of  major  international  human  rights  conventions.  
The   national   protection   system   of   a   country   should   be   built   on   the   Universal  
Declaration  of  Human  Rights  and  on  these  core  human  rights  conventions.  If  a  country  
has   not   ratified   the   key   conventions,   then   it   is   already   an   indicator   that   the   national  
consensus  within  the  country  might  be  shaky  because  the  country  has  not  yet  begun  
to   internalize   what   the   international   community   has   distilled   as   the   key   values   that  
should   guide   nation-­‐building   and   that   should   arbitrate   relations   between   the  
Government  and  its  subjects  or  between  the  subjects  themselves.  

That  a  country  has  not  ratified  one  or  more  of  these  conventions  may  not  necessarily  
indicate   potential   instability.   The   United   States   of   America,   for   example,   largely  
because  of  the  relations  between  the  Federal  and  State  governments,  has  ratified  very  
few  international  conventions.  Even  in  such  instances,  however,  it  would  be  fair  to  say  
that  by  staying  outside  of  the  conventions,  a  country  is  denying  itself  the  opportunity  
of   engaging   in   a   dialogue   with   the   international   community   on   how   key   values   are  
faring  within  the  country.  

C.  The  State  of  Governance  in  the  Country  

If   a   country   is   democratically   governed   under   the   rule   of   law,   the   chances   are   that   the  
state  of  respect  for  human  rights  might  be  better  -­‐  although  even  this  is  not  assured,  
depending   on   the   country   in   question   and   its   political   maturity.   Nevertheless   a   good  
indicator  in  risk  assessment  of  a  country  is  whether  it  has  genuine  periodic  elections  
and  whether  the  courts  operate  freely  and  independently  of  the  Government.  If  either  
of  these  conditions  is  absent,  one  can  be  pretty  certain  that  the  level  of  grievances  in  
the   country   will   be   high   and   the   risk   of   instability   and   even   conflict   serious.   Political  
corruption  and  inefficient  courts  foment  dissatisfaction  and  grievances  and  invariably  
lead  to  a  weak  social  fabric.  

D.  The  National  Vision  

It   is   a   good   indicator   of   the   health   of   a   country   to   ask   whether   one   can   point   to   a  
unifying  vision  embracing  all  parts  of  the  population  -­‐  whether  they  be  from  different  
political,   economic,   social,   racial,   ethnic   or   religious   backgrounds.   In   today's  
multicultural   world,   it   is   fundamentally   important   that   each   country   project   a   national  
vision  that  can  give  all  parts  of  the  population  a  feeling  that  they  have  a  stake  in  the  
future   of   the   country.   In   countries   where   there   is   the   danger   of   ethnic   or   religious  
conflict,  such  a  unifying  national  vision  is  vital  and  can  only  be  constructed  on  the  basis  
of   the   international   human   rights   norms   guaranteeing   the   principles   of   the   rule   of   law  
and   non-­‐discrimination   and   respect   for   the   rights   of   minorities,   indigenous  
populations,  migrants  and  other  such  groups.  

E.  The  National  Security  Doctrine  

The  national  security  doctrine  of  a  government  can  often  provide  an  indicator  of  how  
stable   or   equitable   the   country   is.   In   the   contemporary   world,   a   national   security  
doctrine  must  be  grounded  in  international  human  rights  norms  and  must  give  priority  
to   upholding   human   rights   nationally,   regionally   and   internationally.   In   a   world   of  
terrorist  threats  and  global  mobilization  against  terrorism,  it  is  particularly  important  
that  there  be  safeguards  against  the  risks  of  trampling  upon  human  rights  in  protecting  
national  security  or  of  countering  terrorism.  

F.  The  State  of  Freedom  of  Expression  and  Freedom  of  Religion  or  Belief  

If   freedom   of   expression   is   being   stifled   and   freedom   of   religion   or   belief   is   not  

respected  it  would  be  fairly  safe  to  say  that  there  would  be  grievances  lurking  beneath  
the   surface   in   the   country   that   could   erupt   at   any   time.   If   people   cannot   practice   their  
religion   or   give   expression   to   their   beliefs   they   are   often   ready   to   fight   for   it,   and,   if  
necessary  to  die.  

G.  Findings  of  International  Treaty  Bodies  

Under   the   principal   human   rights   conventions,   States   are   required   to   submit   reports  
on   their   actions   to   implement   the   conventions   and   these   reports   are   considered   by  
treaty   monitoring   bodies,   such   as   the   Human   Rights   Committee,   the   Committee  
against  Torture,  the  Committee  on  the  Elimination  of  Discrimination  against  Women,  
and   the   Committee   on   the   Elimination   of   Racism   and   Racial   Discrimination.   The  
comments,   conclusions   and   recommendations   of   these   treaty   monitoring   bodies   can  
often   be   quite   telling   about   the   state   of   protection   of   human   rights   in   the   country   and  
about  whether  there  are  seething  problems  or  problems  beneath  the  surface  waiting  
to   erupt.   Those   engaged   in   risk   analysis   must   therefore   have   in   view   for   every   country  
what  the  international  human  rights  treaty  bodies  are  saying  about  the  state  of  human  
rights  within  the  country.  

H.  Findings  of  United  Nations  Human  Rights  Investigations  

In   the   United   Nations   these   days,   there   are   thematic   human   rights   rapporteurs   and  
working   groups   producing   reports   once   or   twice   a   year   on   problems   such   as:  
extrajudicial   executions,   torture,   enforced   disappearances,   arbitrary   detention,  
violence  against  women,  religious  freedom,  the  right  to  food,  the  right  to  education,  
the   right   to   health,   and   on   housing   issues.   These   thematic   special   procedures   of   the  
United  Nations  Commission  on  Human  Rights,  in  their  annual  reports,  cover  a  range  of  
some   60-­‐70   countries   per   year.   In   2003,   the   Special   Rapporteur   on   Violence   against  
Women   did   a   survey   on   this   problem   for   every   country   of   the   world.   The   reports   of  
these   thematic   special   procedures   can   give   a   pretty   good   indication   of   whether   or   not  
there   are   serious   problems   within   a   country.   Evidence   of   extrajudicial   executions,  
torture,   enforced   disappearances   or   arbitrary   detention   can   tell   one   straightaway   that  
the  storm  clouds  are  over  the  country  and  are  about  to  burst  if  they  have  not  already  
done  so.  

I.  States  of  Emergency  

If   a   country   has   a   de   facto   or   de   jure   state   of   emergency,   then   that   would   tell   that  
there  are  particular  reasons  to  look  closer  at  the  country.  If  a  country  is  democratically  
governed   under   the   rule   of   law,   a   state   of   emergency   might   not   necessarily   indicate  
instability.  

Under  article  4  of  the  International  Covenant  on  Civil  and  Political  Rights  

"In  time  of  public  emergency  which  threatens  the  life  of  the  nation  and  the  existence  
of  which  is  officially  proclaimed,  the  States  Parties  to  the  present  Covenant  may  take  
measures  derogating  from  their  obligations  under  the  present  Covenant  to  the  extent  
strictly   required   by   the   exigencies   of   the   situation,   provided   that   such   measures   are  
not   inconsistent   with   their   other   obligations   under   international   law   and   do   not  
involve   discrimination   solely   on   the   ground   of   race,   colour,   sex,   language,   religion   or  
social  origin."  

 
J.  Early  Warning  and  Prevention  

Especially  in  today's  world  where  people  are  moving  across  frontiers  and  cultures  are  
intermingling,  it  would  be  advisable  for  each  country  to  have  arrangements  to  detect  
and  head  off  grievances  that  could  erupt  in  a  strife  or  conflict.  One  way  of  achieving  
this   might   be   for   a   national   commission   on   human   rights   to   provide   an   annual  
assessment   of   the   state   for   respect   for   human   rights   within   the   country.   Risk  
assessment   of   a   country   could   look   at   whether   such   arrangements   for   early   warning  
and  prevention  exist  within  the  country.  

K.  Civilian  Control  of  the  Police  and  the  Military  

An  important  question  to  ask  in  risk  assessment  of  a  country  is  whether  the  police  and  
the  military  are  under  civilian  control.  If  this  is  not  the  case,  as  night  follows  day,  one  
can  expect  that  the  police  and  the  military  will  be  engaging  in  excesses  on  the  civilian  
population  leading  to  potentially  explosive  situations.  Even  if  there  is  civilian  control  of  
the   police   and   military,   it   would   be   important   to   ask   if   there   is   abuse   of   power   by  
either.  Abuse  by  the  police  or  the  military  will  certainly  foment  discontent  and  possibly  
strife  and  conflict.  

L.  Prevention  of  Genocide,  Ethnic  Cleansing  or  Mass  Killings  

In   a   recent   initiative,   the   Secretary-­‐General   of   the   United   Nations,   Kofi   Annan,  

informed   the   Commission   on   Human   Rights   on   7   April   2004   that   he   intended   to  
designate  a  Special  Adviser  on  the  prevention  of  genocide,  ethnic  cleansing  and  mass  
killings.  This  is  a  major  innovation  which  leads  to  the  thought  that  in  risk  assessment  of  
a  country,  it  would  be  necessary  to  ask  about  the  danger  of  genocide,  ethnic  cleansing  
or   mass   killing.   A   related   indicator   is   whether   there   is   torture   or   arbitrary   detention   or  
enforced   disappearances   in   the   country.   If   any   evidence   exists   that   such   pernicious  
practices   are   taking   place   then   it   can   be   safely   concluded   that   the   country   presents  
major  risks  of  instability  and  possibly  strife  or  conflict.  
   
Conclusion  

This  presentation  of  the  evolution  of  human  rights  norms  and  machinery  has  sought  to  
trace  the  intellectual  and  policy  journey  of  the  human  rights  programme  of  the  United  
Nations  since  its  establishment  in  1945  with  a  view  to  assessing  where  we  have  come  
from   and   what   are   the   challenges   that   lie   ahead.   It   has,   we   hope,   brought   out   the  
quest   to   take   forward   the   protection   of   human   rights   in   a   world   of   mass   poverty,  
conflicts,   terrorism,   inequality,   state   violence   and   bad   governance   all   of   which   present  
daunting   challenges   for   the   vindication   of   the   human   rights   idea.   It   is   fair,   we   think,   to  
say  that  the  normative  and  institutional  foundations  have  been  laid,  even  if  the  latter  
will  require  modernization  in  the  period  ahead.    

The   responsibility   to   protect   will   remain   a   central   concept,   albeit   broader   than   in   its  
definition   by   the   summit   of   world   leaders   in   2005.   The   broader   concept   is   to   be   found  
in   a   resolution   adopted   by   the   United   Nations   General   Assembly   at   its   thirty-­‐fourth  
session,  dealing  with  mass  and  flagrant  violations  of  human  rights.  There,  the  General  
Assembly  declared  that...  

The  United  Nations  will  continue  to  have  delicate  balances  to  strike  in  the  protection  
of  human  rights.  In  the  first  place,  a  world  organization  that  is  not  seen  as  faithful  to  
the  protection  of  human  rights  will  lose  the  public  trust  and  its  legitimacy.  At  the  same  
time,  it  must  operate  on  the  basis  of  the  principles  of  respect,  confidence-­‐  building  and  
protection.   United   Nations   organs   must   show   respect   for   their   interlocutors,   whatever  
one   thinks   of   them.   United   Nations   organs   must   seek   to   build   confidence   in   the  
membership   and   among   the   peoples   of   the   United   Nations   in   the   methods   and  
approaches   used.   And   the   United   Nations   must   be   faithful   to   the   principle   of  
protection  which  has  national,  regional,  and  international  dimensions.    

There  must  be  on-­‐going  diplomacy  at  the  United  Nations  to  foster  understanding  of,  
and  trust  in,  these  three  principles.  Lecturing  the  world  will  not  serve  to  advance  these  
principles.   Patient   and   persistent   work   will.   While   working   at   these   principles,   the  
United  Nations  must  increasingly  place  emphasis  on  universal  human  rights  education,  
the   strengthening   of   national   protection   systems   in   each   country,   and   the  
implementation   of   the   principal   human   rights   treaties.   The   human   rights   treaty   bodies  
provide   an   invaluable   service   through   their   human   rights   expertise.   One   must   build   on  
their   work,   using   the   international   conventions   as   normative   platforms   on   which   to  
build  strong  national  protection  systems.  Policies  and  strategies  will  be  called  for  on  a  
wide  front.  This  is  as  it  should  be  for  a  world  of  infinite  variety  and  complexity.  

Markkula   Center   Fellow   Bertrand   G.   Ramcharan   is   Former   United   Nations   High  

Commissioner  for  Human  Rights.  

January  2006