International Bill of Human Rights 

The International Bill of Human Rights is an informal name given to two international treaties and one
General Assembly resolution established by the United Nations. It consists of the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights (adopted in 1948), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966)
with its two Optional Protocols and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights (1966).1 The two covenants entered into force in 1976, after a sufficient number of countries
had ratified them.

In the beginning, different views were expressed about the form the bill of rights should take. In 1948,
General Assembly planned the bill to include UDHR, one Covenant and measures of implementation.
[1] The Drafting Committee decided to prepare two documents: one in the form of a declaration, which
would set forth general principles or standards of human rights; the other in the form of a convention,
which would define specific rights and their limitations. Accordingly, the Committee transmitted to the
Commission on Human Rights draft articles of an international declaration and an international
convention on human rights. At its second session, in December 1947, the Commission decided to
apply the term “International Bill of Human Rights” to the series of documents in preparation and
established three working groups: one on the declaration, one on the convention (which it renamed
“covenant”) and one on implementation. The Commission revised the draft declaration at its third
session, in May/June 1948, taking into consideration comments received from Governments. It did not
have time, however, to consider the covenant or the question of implementation. The declaration was
therefore submitted through the Economic and Social Council to the General Assembly, meeting in
Paris.

Universal Declaration Of Human Rights

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is a declaration adopted by the United Nations
General Assembly on December 10, 1948 at the Palais de Chaillot in Paris. The Declaration has been
translated into over 300 languages and dialects, making it the most widely translated document in the
world[1]. The Declaration arose directly from the experience of the Second World War and represents
the first global expression of rights to which all human beings are entitled. It consists of 30 articles
which have been elaborated in subsequent international treaties, regional human rights instruments,
national constitutions and laws. The International Bill of Human Rights consists of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and its two Optional Protocols. In 1966 the
General Assembly adopted the two detailed Covenants, which complete the International Bill of
Human Rights.

The morals and values of human rights can be traced through the history of religious beliefs and
cultures around the world. European philosophers of the Age of Enlightenment developed theories of
natural law and fail blog that influenced the adoption of documents such as the Bill of Rights of
England, the Bill of Rights in the United States, and the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the
Citizen in France.

National and International pressure for an international bill of rights had been building throughout
World War II, In his 1941 State of the Union address US president Franklin Roosevelt called for the
protection of what he termed the “essential” Four Freedoms: freedom of speech, freedom of
conscience, freedom from fear and freedom from want, as its basic war aims. This has been seen as part
of a movement of the 1940’s that sought to make human rights part of the conditions for peace at the
end of the war. The United Nations Charter “reaffirmed faith in fundamental human rights, and dignity
and worth of the human person” and committed all member states to promote “universal respect for,
and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex,
language or religion”.

When the atrocities committed by Nazi Germany became public knowledge around the world after
World War II, the consensus within the world community was that the United Nations Charter did not
sufficiently define the rights it referenced. A universal declaration that specified the rights of
individuals was necessary to give effect to the Charter’s provisions on human rights.

Canadian John Peters Humphrey was called upon by the United Nations Secretary-General to work on
the project and became the Declaration’s principal drafter. At the time Humphrey was newly appointed
as Director of the Division of Human Rights within the United Nations Secretariat. The Commission on
Human Rights, a standing body of the United Nations, was constituted to undertake the work of
preparing what was initially conceived as an International Bill of Rights. The membership of the
Commission was designed to be broadly representative of the global community with representatives of
the following countries serving: Australia, Belgium, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Chile,
China, Cuba, Egypt, France, India, Iran, Lebanon, Panama, Philippines, United Kingdom, United
States, Soviet Union, Uruguay and Yugoslavia.

The Universal Declaration was adopted by the General Assembly on 10 December 1948 by a vote of 48
in favor, 0 against, with 8 abstentions (all the Soviet Bloc states, Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Poland,
Ukraine, USSR, as well as Yugoslavia, South Africa and Saudi Arabia).

The following countries voted in favor of the Declaration: Afghanistan, Argentina, Australia, Belgium,
Bolivia, Brazil, Burma, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Denmark, the Dominican
Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, France, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Iceland, India,
Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Liberia, Luxembourg, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway,
Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Thailand, Sweden, Syria, Turkey, United Kingdom,
United States, Uruguay and Venezuela.

Despite the central role played by Canadian John Humphrey, the Canadian Government at first
abstained from voting on the Declaration’s draft, but later voted in favour of the final draft in the
General Assembly.

International Covenant On Civil And Political Rights

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) is a multilateral treaty adopted by the
United Nations General Assembly on December 16, 1966, and in force from March 23, 1976. It
commits its parties to respect the civil and political rights of individuals, including the right to life,
freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, electoral rights and rights to due process
and a fair trial. As of October 2009, the Covenant had 72 signatories and 165 parties.
The ICCPR is part of the International Bill of Human Rights, along with the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
(ICESCR).

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is monitored by the Human Rights Committee
(a separate body to the Human Rights Council which replaced the Commission on Human Rights,
under the UN Charter in 2006) with permanent standing, to consider periodic reports submitted by
member States on their compliance with the treaty. Members of the Human Rights Committee are
elected by member states, but do not represent any State.

The ICCPR has its roots in the same process that led to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. A
“Declaration on the Essential Rights of Man” had been proposed at the 1945 San Francisco Conference
which led to the founding of the United Nations, and the Economic and Social Council was given the
task of drafting it. Early on in the process, the document was split into a declaration setting forth
general principles of human rights, and a convention or covenant containing binding commitments. The
former evolved into the UDHR and was adopted on December 10, 1948.

Drafting continued on the convention, but there remained significant differences between UN members
on the relative importance of negative Civil and Political versus positive Economic, Social and Cultural
rights. These eventually caused the convention to be split into two separate covenants, “one to contain
civil and political rights and the other to contain economic, social and cultural rights.” The two
covenants were to contain as many similar provisions as possible, and be opened for signature
simultaneously. Each would also contain an article on the right of all peoples to self-determination.

The first document became the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the second the
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The drafts were presented to the UN
General Assembly for discussion in 1954, and adopted in 1966

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by a General Assembly resolution in 1966,
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) entered into force 10 years later in 1976.

The ICCPR is a legally binding treaty. This means that states which ratify the treaty are legally bound by
it, while states that do not are neither bound by the treaty obligations or entitled to invoke those
obligations against other state parties.

Comprehensive implementation measures, which themselves contain legal obligations, are contained in
the second article which includes the adoption of “legislative or other measures as may be necessary to
give effect to the rights recognised in the present Covenant” (paragraph 2 of article 2, ICCPR).
The reporting procedure for state parties to the ICCPR is laid out in article 40 of the covenant. Although
a legally binding instrument, the system does has its limitations in terms of effectively enforcing
implementation of the covenant.

As discussed by Ineke Boerefijn in Human Rights Quarterly, the initial stage of implementation is at the
behest of the state, which must first ratify the ICCPR. Then, once a party to the covenant, the system
requires a minimum level of voluntary cooperation by the state. In Boerefjin’s opinion, there are no
effective sanctions for noncompliance with the obligations state parties have accepted.

So although the ICCPR does have legal status in International Law, this does not necessarily make it
wholly effective. As Louis Henkin comments: “States have not yet wholly assimilated the fact that they
have an international obligation to respect the rights of their citizens, that an act of torture or other
inhuman treatment, for example, is a violation of international law.”

The only steps the Human Rights Committee, which is responsible for monitoring the ICCPR, can take in
the case of a state party failing to submit its report is to mention this failure in the Committee’s Annual
Report to the General Assembly. The sheer number of state parties that have failed to report on time,
with this and all other human rights treaties, shows that states do not regard this to be of major
significance.

Indeed it is thought that were the state parties to the various covenants to submit their reports on time
it would throw the human rights treaty reporting system into crisis. In its 1999 Annual report the Human
Rights Committee noted that 138 initial and periodic reports were overdue and the Human Rights
Committee has a capacity to deal with five to six state reports in each of three annual sessions. In a
sense then, the UN benefits from states’ late reporting which is hardly a motivation for harsher clamp-
downs

In terms of their legal status, the rights in the ICCPR are generally to be applied by states with immediate
effect. In other words, civil and political rights are directly applicable and judicially enforceable.

Boerefijn poses an interesting question when he asks if a reporting system that requires states to
comment on progress in the domestic implementation of the Covenant is compatible with the concept
of its direct, immediate applicability. This highlights the interesting tension created between human
rights instruments having international legal status and the culture of “constructive dialogue” which
underpins their implementation.

ReportingCycle

From the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR)
However, in its defense, the approach of constructive dialogue does reap rewards including influencing
national legal texts and regulations, the practice of national legal norms and the involvement of the vast
majority of the international community which in itself creates pressure for rogue states to conform.