Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 March 2017
The United Nations Sub-Commission on the Prevention of Discrimination and the Protection of Minorities has an interest which is belied by its subordinate position in the international hierarchy. Apart from the intrinsic interest of the work in which it is engaged—work at the very heart of some of the most hotly debated issues in the United Nations—the Sub-Commission, because of the manner of its composition, possesses certain characteristics which differentiate it significantly from most other United Nations organs. Like the now defunct Sub-Commission on Freedom of Information and of the Press which was created at the same time, it consists, in theory, at least, of experts acting in their individual capacity, an arrangement which—because it gave its members a degree of independence not possessed by representatives of governments—would, it was hoped, permit them to contribute to the solution of certain problems in ways not possible to the latter. How has this arrangement worked in practice, if at all? Does the Sub-Commission really act as a body of independent experts, or are its decisions motivated by the same kind of political considerations which motivate its superior bodies? Why has it so singularly failed to make any contribution towards the protection of minorities? “What have been its successes and what is its future?
1 Scholarly literature on the Sub-Commission is scant. Eeference may be made to the following: Professor Inis L. Claude's book, National Minorities (Cambridge, 1955), and his article, “The Nature and Status of the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities.” International Organization, May, 1951, pp. 300-312; a pamphlet, “The Quest for Equality,” International Conciliation, No. 507 (March, 1956), by Professor Max SØrensen; and the recent article by Professor Eichard Eiscocks, “The Work of the United Nations for the Prevention of Discrimination,“ Die moderne Demolcratie und ihr Becht 713-728(Tubingen, 1966). Both of the latter have been members of the Sub-Commission.
2 See 1947 U.N. Yearbook on Human Eights 420-426.
3 Art. 27 reads: “ I n those states in which ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities exist, persons belonging to such minorities shall not be denied the right, in community with the other members of their group, to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practice their own religion, or to use their own language.” Eeprinted in 61 A.J.I.L. 870 at 879 (1967).
4 1947 U.N. Yearbook on Human Rights 499, 503
5 1947 TJ.N. Yearbook on Human Eights 486.
6 U.N. Doc. A/C3/307/Bev. 2, and 1948-49 Yearbook of the United Nations 544.
7 U.N. General Assembly, 3rd Bess., Official Rceords, Pt. I, Resolutions, p. 77.
8 Cf 1950 U.N. Yearbook on Human Rights 489-495.
9 Ibid. 490.
10 Adopted by the General Assembly in 1966 as Art. 27 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Eights.
11 For the text of this elaborate draft, see 1950 U.N. Yearbook 491-492.
12 Cf. U.N. Commission on Human Rights, Report of Sixth Session, pp. 9-12, in ECOSOC, 5th Year, 11th Sess., Official Records, Supp. No. 5.
13 Green, J . F., The United Nations and Human Rights 89 (Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 1956).Google Scholar
14 Ibid.
15 The decision is reproduced in 1952 U.N. Yearbook 451
16 Study of Discrimination in Education, by Charles D. Ammoun, Special Rapporteur of the Subcommission … , U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/181/Eev. 1.
17 See 1955 U.N. Yearbook 172.
18 U.N. Docs. E/CN. 4/Sub. 2/221 and E/CN. 4/Sub. 2/214. The first listed and classified special protective measures of an international character for ethnic, religious, and linguistic groups, and the second was a compilation of the texts of international instruments providing for special protective measures.
19 Beport of the Seminar, U.N. Doc. ST/TAO/HE/23.
20 See Commission on Human Rights, Report of the Tenth Session, Feb. 23-April 16, 1954, ECOSOC, 18th Bess., Official Eecords, Supp. No. 7, pp. 44 ff.
21 I t will be remembered that the Sub-Commission had itself been largely responsible for defining these grounds.
22 In 1956 the Commission on Human Rights decided to limit the material and studies on discrimination to Members of the United Nations and of the specialized agencies. China, of course, is such a Member. The resolution, which was aimed at the Democratic People's Republic of China, is another example of the so often expressed confusion between membership and representation. The purpose of the decision was, of course, to prevent either the Sub-Commission or the Secretariat from corresponding with the government of Communist China.
23 The Secretariat has never been able to cover the total membership, but the country monographs have been sufficiently representative to form a basis of the studies.
24 They are, however, available in mimeographed form as “conference room documents“ in the languages in which they are prepared.
25 1.L.O. Convention (No. I l l ) Concerning Discrimination in Respect of Employment and Occupation, adopted June 25, 1958. 362 TJ.N. Treaty Series 31
26 Arcot Krishnaswami, Study of Discrimination in the Matter of Religious Eights and Practices (1960). TJ.N. Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/200/Rev. 1 (Pub. 60.XIV.2).
27 Hernan Santa Cruz, Study of Discrimination in the Matter of Political Rights (1962). U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/213/Bev.l (Pub.63.XIV.2).
28 Jose D. InglSs, Study of Discrimination in Respect to the Right of Everyone to Leave Any Country, Including His Own, and to Return to His Country (1963). TJ.N. Doe. E/CN.4/Sub.2/220/Rev.l (Pub.64.XIV.2).
29 U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/265.
30 See Hernan Santa Cruz, Special Study of Racial Discrimination in the Political, Economic, Social and Cultural Spheres, Nov. 17, 1966. IT.N. Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/267.
31 At its Ninth Session the General Assembly reaffirmed an earlier decision that no appointment of a person as a rapporteur of the United Nations organ should carry remuneration.
32 See pars. 19-35 of the preliminary report (Nov. 17, 1966) of the special rapporteur on racial discrimination in the political, economic, social, and cultural spheres (E/CN. 4/Sub. 2/267), where he makes a strong and convincing plea in favor of continuing the monographs.
33 UNESCO Convention against Discrimination in Education, Dec. 14, 1960. 429 U.N. Treaty Series 93.
34 The studies on discrimination in religions rights and practices, in political rights, on the right to leave one's own country or any other country and to return to one's country, and on children born out of wedlock, which was, however, only completed in 1966 and acted on by the Sub-Commission in 1967.
35 I t also decided that there would be a declaration on the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination. See below.
36 U.N. Human Eights Commission, Eeport of the 16th Sess. 21-24. ECOSOC, 30th Sess., Official Records, Supp. No. 8. See also Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/L.214. The resolution was directed against manifestations of anti-Semitism mainly in the Federal Republic of Germany, although that country was not actually mentioned in it.
37 Although the Federal Republic of Germany was not a Member of the United Nations, it did belong to some of the specialized agencies.
38 Convention on Elimination of Racial Discrimination, annexed to U.N'. General Assembly Res. 2106 (XX), reprinted in 60 A.J.I.L. 650 (1966).
39 ECOSOC Bes. 1074O (XXXIX).
40 See my report on human rights to the 53rd (Buenos Aires) Conference of the International Law Association.
41 U.N. Doc. E/CN. 4/Sub. 2/B. 1
42 U.N. Doc. E/CN. 4/L. 991.
43 U.N. Doc. B/CN. 4/L. 1004.
44 Eight members from African states, six from Asian, six from Latin America, eight from Western Europe “and other States,” and four from the “Socialist States of Eastern Europe.” See ECOSOC Ees. 1147 (XLI).