No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 26 October 2009
Geoffrey Best's article ‘Whatever Happened to Human Rights9 in the January 1990 issue of the Review touches upon many important questions which are well known to human rights scholars. These include such political, legal and philosophical difficulties as defining the concept of self-determination, the prospects for implementing certain economic and social rights and the role of international law in improving human right standards. By examining the work of René Cassin in his role as a member of the Commission for Human Rights during the early years of the United Nations, Best points to these difficulties while attempting to achieve two further objectives. The first is to provide an appreciation of Cassin's personal qualities, and the second, to demonstrate that had Cassin's views been more closely adhered to human rights would in some way be healthier today. Although Best's article is the edited text of a lecture, and is consequently not the tightly argued piece we might expect from a more considered paper prepared especially for publication, several of his claims are either questionable or mistaken.
The author is indebted to Moorhead Wright for his comments on an earlier draft of this paper.
1 The working group that prepared the early drafts of the Declaration was set up by the Commission on Human Rights which was itself responsible to the Economic and Social Council. In turn, the Council was responsible to the General Assembly. Assembly practice was to delegate responsibility for agenda items on human rights to its Third Committee for full consideration. Documents were passed up and down this bureaucratic ladder throughout the two years that it took to finalize the Declaration, involving many others.
2 René Cassin, ‘How the Charter on Human Rights was Born’, UNESCO Courier, 21 (January 1968), pp. 4–6 and Best, p. 12, n. 6.
3 UN Doc. E/CN.4/AC/1/3/add.1.
4 Summary Records of the Commission on Human Rights, 12th meeting, 3 February, 1947. UN Doc. E/CN.4/SR.12.
5 For recollections of this meeting, see Roosevelt, Eleanor, The Autobiography of Eleanor Roosevelt (London, 1962) p. 248Google Scholar, and Humphrey, John, Human Rights and the United Nations: A Great Adventure (Dobbs Ferry, 1984), p. 29.Google Scholar
6 I mean by this an approach that recognizes cultural differences in viewing human rights and looks to positive law in providing solutions.
7 Humphrey, , A Great Adventure, p. 29.Google Scholar
8 In contrast to the positive-pluralist approach, this approach begins by recognizing the universal nature of humankind and attempts to define rights common to all humankind as a species.
9 At this time no decision had been taken as to the form of the Bill. The Declaration is only one facet, the other two being the legally binding Covenants and methods of implementation.
10 These suggestions had been discussed by the Commission earlier but had been rejected because it was thought too important a task to be divorced from the Commission members. See, Summary Records, n.4.
11 These included drafts received from Ivin A. Isaacs, Rev. Wilfred Parsons, Rollin McNitt, Viscount Shanky, Hersh Lauterpacht, H. G. Wells and the American Law Society.
12 These texts were in Spanish and submitted by Alejendro Alvares and Gustavo Gutieriz.
13 Roosevelt had no authority to take such action. According to Humphrey it was a ‘dubious legal act’ (A Great Adventure, p. 29–30).Google Scholar
14 Reprinted in Yearbook on Human Rights for 1947, p. 484.Google Scholar
15 Humphrey's instructions to prepare a draft had been confirmed by the Economic and Social Council at the same time as agreeing to Mrs Roosevelt's new Drafting Committee of eight.
16 Cassin is also confused about the date on which he presented his draft. He suggests that this was on 3 June but the records show that his instructions were not given to him until 13 June. See, Yearbook on Human Rights—1947, Drafting Committee of the Commission on Human Rights, 9 to 25 June 1947.
17 Humphrey, , A Great Adventure, p. 42.Google Scholar
18 Humphrey donated these and other documents to McGill University in 1966, soon after his retirement from the UN.
19 Hobbins, A. J., ‘René Cassin and the Daughters of Time: The First Draft of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights’, Fontanus, 2 (1989).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20 Humphrey, , The Great Adventure, p. 43.Google Scholar
21 Humphrey has said, ‘I would say that Chang and Charles Malik were the two principle architects of the Declaration. It wasn't Cassin, in spite of the myths that have grown up in Paris’, interview, McGill University, Montreal, 2 October, 1989.Google Scholar
22 Chang was perhaps at an advantage. His country was in a state of civil war and his government had few representatives at the UN to coordinate policy.
23 Cassin's view was that Article 2: 7 of the Charter was not applicable to human rights issues. See, for example, his speech, General Assembly Official Records [GAOR], 3rd session, 3rd Committee, 92nd meeting.
24 Yearbook of the United Nations—1951 (New York), p. 485.Google Scholar
25 See, for an example of this view, GAOR(VI), 3rd Comm., 401st meeting, UK. representative.
26 Representative of Pakistan, GAOR(VII), 3rd Comm., 448th meeting.
27 The UK, representative refers to self-determination as having ‘strong moral force’ in this context. See, GAOR(X), 3rd Comm., 642nd meeting.
28 Luard, Evan, A History of the United Nations: The Age of Decolonization (Basingstoke, 1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Luard argues that from 1955 the UN role did in fact shift from that of peace-keeper to one of actively bringing about change.
29 This distinction is used by Lauren, P. G., Power and Prejudice: The Politics and Diplomacy of Race Discrimination (Boulder, 1988)Google Scholar, ch. 6; and Cassese, Antonio, ‘The Self-Determination of Peoples’ in Louis Henkin, The International Bill of Rights (New York, 1981) pp. 92–113.Google Scholar
30 GAOR(V), 3rd Comm, 309th meeting.
31 Representative of Pakistan, GAOR(V), 3rd Comm., 291st meeting.
32 Representative of Saudi Arabia, GAOR(V), 3rd Comm., 296th meeting.
33 Vincent, John, Human Rights and International Relations (Cambridge, 1986), p. 80.Google Scholar
34 Representative of Chile, GAOR(X), 3rd Comm., 645th meeting.
35 Cassin was frequently called to task by Arab members over the relationship that France had with North-West African countries. See, for example, GAOR(VI), 3rd Comm., 400th and 401st meetings.
36 Yearbook on Human Rights for 1947, p. 482–3Google Scholar. The procedure of adopting a non-binding Declaration of general principles followed by a Covenant was, in part, to avoid such confusion.
37 From 1949 the Yearbook on Human Rights listed examples of international treaties and constitutions that cited the Declaration, giving an indication that it was rapidly receiving recognition as a source of law.
38 GAOR(III), 3rd Comm, 92nd meeting.
39 Shue, Henry, Human Rights: Substance, Affluence and US Foreign Policy (New Jersey, 1980)Google Scholar.
40 Allott, Philip, ‘The International Protection of Human Rights: A Stocktaking’, paper given at the British International Studies Association annual conference, 1977Google Scholar.
41 Raphael, D. D., ‘Human Rights, Old and New’, in Raphael, D. D. (ed.), Political Theory and the Rights of Man (London, 1967), pp. 54–67.Google Scholar
42 See, for example, GAOR(V), 3rd Comm., speech by representative of the USSR.
43 Hobbins, , Rene Cassin.Google Scholar
44 Humphrey, interview, n. 21.