No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The U.N. and Human Rights Complaints: U Thant as Strict Constructionist
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 March 2017
Abstract
An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Editorial Comment
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Society of International Law 1970
References
1 Letter from Agha Abdul Hamid, Assistant Secretary General, Office of Public Information, to Directors of United Nations Information Centers, Oct. 28, 1969, reproduced in U.N. Note No. 3572, at 1 (Oct. 28, 1969) (hereinafter cited as U.N. Note No. 3572).
2 This petition has been published under the title “An Appeal to the UN Committee for Human Rights” in 13 N.Y. Review of Books, Aug. 21, 1969, at 37.
3 For the slow development of a formal right of petition, see J. Carey, UN Protection of Civil and Political Rights 84-94, 135-139, 143-153 (1970).
4 See Huston, , “Human Rights Enforcement Issues of the United Nations Conference on International Organization,” 53 Iowa Law Rev. 272 (1967)Google Scholar.
5 Parson, , “The Individual Right of Petition,” 13 Wayne Law Rev. 678, 689 (1967)Google Scholar, citing U.N. Charter, Art. 87, par. b.
6 See, e.g., H. Lauterpacht, International Law and Human Rights 244 (1950).
7 See text at notes 8-10 below. But see McDougal, and Bebr, , “Human Rights in the United Nations,” 58 A. J. I. L. 603, 640 (1964)Google Scholar, who argue that this practice “is not required by the provisions of the United Nations Charter but is even in contravention of such provisions.“
8 U.N. ECOSOC Res. 75 (V).
9 U.N. ECOSOC Res. 728 F (XXVIII).
10 U.N. ECOSOC Res. 1235 (XVII). See J. Carey, note 3 above, at 84-94.
11 General Assembly Res. 2106, U.N. General Assembly, 20th Sess., Official Records, Supp. 14, at 47 (U.N. Doc. A/6014 (1965)); reprinted in 60 A.J.I.L. 650 (1966).
12 General Assembly Res. 2200, U.N. General Assembly, 21st Sess., Official Records, Supp. 16, at 49 (U.N. Doc. A/6316 (1966)); reprinted in 61 A.J.I.L. 870 (1967).
13 Parson, note 5 above, at 695.
14 See J. Carey, note 3 above, at 137.
15 See ibid, at 146-151.
16 See, e.g., Montreal Statement of the Assembly for Human Rights XI (March 22-27, 1968), and Report of the Committee on Human Rights, The White House Conference on International Cooperation 14 (Nov. 28-Dec. 1, 1965). For some practical difficulties with the right of petition, see Bilder, , “Rethinking International Human Rights: Some Basic Questions,” 1969 Wis. Law Rev. 171, 210–212 Google Scholar.
17 “The right to petition should be considered a human right in itself and should be exercised by more than just individuals from … the oppressed indigenous population of colonized nations.” Parson, note 5 above, at 705. See J. Carey, note 3 above, at 143-153.
18 The International Conference on Human Rights held at Teheran in 1968, while acknowledging that “the United Nations has made substantial progress in defining standards for the enjoyment and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms,” pointedly observed that “much remains to be done in regard to the implementation of those rights and freedoms….” U.N. Doc. A/Conf. 32/41, at 4 (1968), reprinted in 63 A.J.I.L. 674, 675 (1969), and in International Protection of Human Rights, The Twelfth Hammarskjöld Forum 104, at 105 (J. Carey ed., 1968). See also McDougal and Bebr, note 7 above, at 629.
19 U.N. Press Release SG/SM 1200, at 5 (1969). But see text accompanying note 20 below.
20 Ibid, at 6. Actually, as explained by the Deputy Director of the Press and Publications Division of the U.N. Office of Public Information, Headquarters many years ago had issued instructions to guide the directors in the exercise of their discretion. “Over the years, Mr. Powell continued, the Centers had gotten into the practice of forwarding petitions to UN Headquarters. Sometimes these petitions were human rights petitions, sometimes general protests and sometimes the statements of individual ‘crackpots.’ Letters were also received at the Centers from schoolchildren. In response to a query from a Center Director in 1953, Mr. Powell … advised the Director (by letter) to open petitions addressed to UN officials and determine which ones should be forwarded to Headquarters. A Memorandum of December 1963 also directed Center Representatives to ‘use your own discretion’ in determining which petitions should be transmitted to UN Headquarters and which dealt with on the spot.” Conference of Non-Governmental Organizations in Consultative Status with the United Nations Economic and Social Council, Minutes of the Meeting of the Ad Hoc Committee on Human Rights (Oct. 27, 1969), at 2 (hereinafter cited as NGO Minutes).
21 U.N. Press Release SG/SM 1200, at 6 (1969).
22 Ibid.
23 ibid, at 7.
24 “The fact that the number of petitions received by Information Centers was small was not relevant to the basic issue involved. The few transmitted could be extremely important.” NGO Minutes 3.
25 See Bilder, note 16 above, at 211-212.
26 For instance, the presence of U.N. troops in the Middle East. See Lillich, , “The UN and the Middle East,” New Society (London), June 1, 1967, at 810 Google Scholar; and Garvey, , “United Nations Peacekeeping and Host State Consent,” 64 A.J.I.L. 241 (1970)Google Scholar.
27 See text accompanying note 20 above and at note 31 below.
28 U.N. Note No. 3572, at 3.
29 The Soviet representative to the Third Committee stated that “the existing procedures for the consideration of violations of human rights reflected current realities and were in keeping with the Principles and Purposes of the Charter and the requirements of contemporary international law. Her delegation was categorically opposed to attempts on the part of some States to change the procedures, because any changes would prejudice international co-operation and could lead only to friction and tension in international relations.” U.N. Doc. A/C.3/SR. 1703, at 9 (1969).
30 The Canadian representative to the Third Committee “deeply regretted that communications received from individuals whose fundamental rights had been violated could no longer be forwarded by the United Nations Information Centres.” Ibid, at 17.
31 NGO Minutes 3. It has been noted that “in the study of United Nations procedure it is more important to consider existing practice rather than statutory power since the former is more flexible.” Parson, note 5 above, at 689, citing Buergenthal, “The United Nations and the Development of Rules Relating to Human Rights,” 1965 Proceedings, American Society of International Law 132. A helpful parallel may be found in the development of common law pleading, where early writs “were penned to meet the particular circumstances of the particular cases without any studious respect for precedent.” F. Maitland, The Forms of Action at Common Law 21 (A. Chaytor & W. Whittaker eds., 1958).
32 NGO Minutes 4.
33 U.N. Press Release SG/SM 1200, at 7 (1969) (emphasis added).
34 See Bilder, , “The International Promotion of Human Rights: A Current Assessment,” 58 A.J.I.L. 728, 731 (1964)Google Scholar. This result is especially ironic when one recalls that Art. 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights specifically guarantees individuals the right “to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.” General Assembly Res. 217, U.N. Doc A/811 at 71 (1948); reprinted in 43 A.J.I.L.Supp. 127 (1949).
35 See generally J. Carey, note 3 above.