United Nations and Human Rights

American Jewish Committee
United Nations and Human Rights

Author(s): Sidney Liskofsky
Source: The American Jewish Year Book, Vol. 67 (1966), pp. 457-470
Published by: American Jewish Committee
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/23605025
Accessed: 14-09-2017 17:36 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
American Jewish Committee is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to The American Jewish Year Book
This content downloaded from 14.139.246.22 on Thu, 14 Sep 2017 17:36:30 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
United Nations and
Human Rights
o,
V^/ne of the principal purposes of the United Nations, as pro
claimed in the Charter, is to "achieve international cooperation ... in pro
moting and encouraging respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms
for all without discrimination as to race, sex, language, or religion" [Article 1
(3)]. The Charter directs the Economic and Social Council to establish a
commission on human rights (Article 68), and authorizes the Council and
the General Assembly to initiate studies and reports, make recommendations,
and draft conventions in keeping with this purpose (Articles 13 and 62).
At its first session in 1946 the Commission on Human Rights outlined a
threefold program: the adoption of a declaration of human rights, with mainly
moral status; a legally-binding covenant on human rights, and measures to
implement the covenant.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted by the General
Assembly on December 10, 1948, but the forging of a covenant to give it
legal force, which was to follow soon thereafter, proved exceedingly difficult
and has still not been completed. In 1951 the General Assembly divided the
rights, initially intended for inclusion in one overall covenant, into two cate
gories, each to be incorporated in a separate covenant with separate measures
of implementation: "civil and political rights," which are amenable to super
vision and legal enforcement, and "economic, social, and cultural rights,"
which can be more readily implemented by long-range planning and educa
tion than by immediate measures. Since 1955, the Assembly's Third Com
mittee, responsible for social, humanitarian, and cultural matters, has been
engaged in an article-by-article review of the drafts of the two covenants.
By 1963 it had reviewed and approved most of their substantive articles and
was set to begin the crucial task of achieving agreement on implementation.
However, it was compelled to defer this step, in 1964, because of the UN's
financial crisis and, in 1965, because priority had to be given to other projects.
In the meantime, the United Nations made considerable progress in the
development of principles or standards, by conventions and declarations, on
particular rights or categories of rights. These dealt with such matters as the
abolition of slavery, forced labor, and genocide; elimination of discrimina
tion in employment and occupation, and in education; political equality for
women; equal remuneration for men and women for work of equal value;
freedom of association.
The United Nations engaged in a range of other human-rights tasks, in
457
458 / AMERICAN JEWISH YEAR BOOK
eluding programs of study, reporting, and "advisory services,"

gional intergovernmental seminars and fellowships, and edu
grams. Among its concerns, in 1965, were drafting a Dec
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Religious Intole
question of the applicability of statutes of limitations to the p
war criminals and persons who committed crimes against human
implementation of human rights through a United Nations Hig
sioner for Human Rights or other appropriate international m
RACIAL DISCRIMINATION
Racial discrimination has been given attention by

General Assembly, the Economic and Social C
functional commissions, and the specialized agen
of studies, resolutions, reports, declarations, and
considered for years in relation to a situation in
apartheid apartheid in South Africa); as an aspect of a
of discrimination on various grounds in educatio
across-the-board, when ECOSOC, in July 1965,
sion on the Prevention of Discrimination and the Protection of Minorities to
make a special study of racial discrimination in the political, economic, social,
and cultural spheres, and, of course, when the General Assembly, on Decern
ber 7, 1962, had requested the Human Rights Commission to prepare a
declaration and convention on the elimination of racial discrimination.
Declaration Declaration and Convention on the Elimination of A11

Forms Forms of Racial Discrimination
A A draft declaration formulated by the Commission on Human Rights
was unanimously approved by the Assembly on November 20, 1963. En
compassing a wider field than its title indicated, it condemned discrimination
not only for reasons of race but also of color or ethnic origin, as an offense
to human dignity and a denial of the principles of the UN Charter. The
declaration provided that no state, institution, group, or individual "shall
make any discrimination on such grounds" and that preventive efforts shall
be undertaken, "especially in the fields of civil rights, access to citizenship,
education, religion, employment, occupation and housing," and in "teaching,
education and information." Condemning "all propaganda and organiza
tions" based on ideas or theories of racial or ethnic superiority, it provided
that "all incitement to or acts of violence, whether by individuals or organi
zations, against any race . . . shall be considered an offense against society
and punishable under law," and called upon all states to "outlaw organizations
which promote or incite to racial discrimination."
In January 1964 the Sub-Commission on Discrimination and Minorities
began to draft for the commission a convention giving legal force to the
principles of the declaration. It drew up a preamble and ten substantive arti
cles which the commission reviewed in detail at its session in spring 1965.
UNITED NATIONS AND HUMAN RIGHTS / 459
Following vigorous controversy over certain provisions, especially

prohibiting "organizations" and "organized propaganda activitie
"promote and incite" racial discrimination, the draft and revisions w
mitted to the General Assembly.
At the Assembly's 20th session in autumn 1965, the Third Co
amended and strengthened the commission's draft and, on Dece
1965, approved the entire convention comprising a preamble, seven
articles, and nine articles of implementationthe latter based on a
mise text sponsored by Ghana, Mauritania, and the Philippines. Th
tion was adopted by the Plenary on December 22 by a vote of 1
with 12 nations absent. It is to come into force after ratification by
Provisions Provisions of Convention
Article 1 defines "racial discrimination" as "any distinction, e

restriction or preference based on race, color, descent, or national o
origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing th
tion, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights a
mental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any o
of public life." At the same time it provides that special measures
porary nature, intended to raise disadvantaged racial or ethnic gro
level of equality, shall not be deemed racial discrimination.
Article 2 requires states parties to adopt policies aimed at elimina
cial discrimination, such as ensuring that no racial discrimination
ticed by any national and local public authorities and institutions; el
all laws and regulations which might create or perpetuate discrimin
prohibiting by law or otherwise discrimination by persons, groups
ganizations.
Article 3 condemns "racial segregation and apartheid" and calls fo
ures to prevent, prohibit, and eradicate all such practices in territor
the jurisdiction of states parties.
Article 4, more emphatic in language than the draft transmitted
commission, obligates the states parties to adopt immediate measure
"all incitement to, or acts of," racial discrimination and punish by
dissemination of ideas "based on racial superiority or hatred, incit
racial discrimination, as well as acts of violence, or incitement to su
and the financial or other support of racist activities. It obligates
"prohibit organizations, and also organized and all other propagand
ties, which promote and incite racial discrimination."
Article 5 lists among the rights all persons are to enjoy without
nation: equal treatment before courts and other legal tribunals; sec
person; political equality, including the right to vote and stand for
and all civil rights, such as freedom of movement and residence, r
nationality and to free choice of spouse, and freedom of thought, c
religion, and expression.
Article 6 provides for "protection and remedies through compet
tional tribunals and other state institutions against any acts of

crimination."
Article 7 requires the adoption of measures, "particularly in the fields of
teaching, education, culture and information," to combat prejudices which
lead to racial discrimination, and to promote "understanding, tolerance and
friendship" among nations and racial or ethnic groups.
Articles 8-16 provide for the creation of machinery to implement the
convention. This includes a committee of 18 experts, elected for four-year
terms from a list of persons nominated by the states parties, to which the
latter are required to submit periodic reports on any "legislative, judicial,
administrative, or other measures" they may have adopted to prevent viola
tion of the convention. The committee is empowered to "make suggestions
and general recommendations" on the basis of information received.
Any state party has the right to submit through the committee a complaint
against another state party, which if not satisfactorily adjusted within six
months, must be submitted to an ad hoc conciliation commission, appointed
by the committee chairman for further study and recommendations.
Perhaps the most important implementation provision of the convention
is one permitting states parties, by special declaration, to recognize the com
mittee's competence to receive complaints from individuals or groups of
individuals claiming to be victims of a convention violation. This procedure,
which becomes operative only after ten states have submitted such dclara
tions, may be applied only after the petitioner has first unsuccessfully sought
redress of grievances in his own country.
The convention provides also that all unresolved disputes over the inter
pretation or application of its provisions are to be referred for decision to
the International Court of Justice.
Debate Debate on Convention
The convention was adopted unanimously despite sharp differences on

certain issues; both Western and Communist states yielded on particular
points in recognition of strong Afro-Asian commitment to it. There was
strong disagreement on measures to deal with racist propaganda and organi
zations (Article 4) : The United States and other Western states stressed the
importance of safeguarding freedom of speech, expression, and association,
against the insistence of the Communist and African states on language
banning "all dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred,"
as well as organizations and propaganda promoting and inciting racial dis
crimination. In the end the latter position prevailed but, after the adoption
of the convention as a whole, Ambassador Arthur J. Goldberg made a special
appearance to explain the understanding on which the United States voted
for the article. He noted that the introductory paragraph of Article 4 made
its provisions conditional on "due regard to the principles embodied in the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the rights expressly set forth
in Article 5 of this Convention," and that both the Universal Declaration
and Article 5 include guarantees of freedom of speech and association. Ac*

cordingly, he stated:
It is the view of the United States . . . that Article 4 does not obligate a state t
take action that would prohibit its citizens from freely and fully expressing their
views on any subject no matter how obnoxious they may be or whether they ar
in accordance with government policy or not. We believe that a governmen
should only act . . . if the dissemination of obnoxious ideas is accompanied by
or threatens imminently to promote the illegal act of racial discrimination. Un
der our system of government, moreover, there must be an imminent danger o
illegal action before speech becomes unlawful. ... It is our view that organiza
tions cannot be declared illegal if they merely attempt to win acceptance of their
belief by speech alone. However, if such organizations go beyond advocacy of
their views and engage, or attempt to engage, in the illegal act of racial discrim
nation itself, they come within the purview of the Convention.
Another sharp controversy arose over a United States-Brazilian proposal

to include in the convention a condemnation of antisemitism. This was a
continuation, in an exacerbated form, of a controversy that had started and
ended inconclusively in the Commission on Human Rights, in spring 1964.
In the commission, the United States delegate had proposed an amend
ment calling for adoption of the following article:
States Parties condemn antisemitism and shall take action as appropriate for its
speedy eradication in the territories subject to their jurisdiction.
The Soviet delegate, viewing the proposal as related to current charges of
antisemitic policies and practices in his country but finding it inconvenient
to oppose it as such, resorted to a ruse to compel the United States to with
draw its amendment. He introduced a sub-amendment which proposed to
condemn "Nazism, including all its new manifestations (neo-Nazism), geno
cide, antisemitism and other manifestations of atrocious racist ideas and
practices/' His assumption was that certain delegates, including the British,
French, and Austrian, who had earlier opposed mention in the convention's
preamble of a specific racist movement or ideology (i.e., Nazism), would
surely oppose the inclusion of the more ambiguous and controversial term
"neo-Nazism," and would therefore agree to eliminate all references to
specific ideologies or movements, including "antisemitism."
In the debate, which became very bitter at times, the Lebanese delegate
in what was, in effect, a threat that United States insistence on its amendment
would lead to a proposal by the Arab delegates in the Assembly of a specific
reference to Zionism"reserved the right to accept the insertion of other
examples (i.e., of discriminatory ideologies or movements) in the Third
Committee."
The commission declined to take a vote on either the United States or
Soviet proposal, and transmitted both without recommendation to the Assem
bly. In autumn 1965, in the Third Committee of the Assembly, the United
States, joined this time by Brazil, reintroduced its earlier amendment. There
upon the Soviet delegate, undoubtedly in consultation with representatives
of the Arab states, reintroduced his sub-amendment in a revised version, con
demning "antisemitism, Zionism, Nazism, neo-Nazism and all other forms

of the policy and ideology of colonialism, national and race hatred and ex
clusiveness," and calling for the speedy eradication of these "inhumane ideas
and practices."
In the debate that followed, though virtually none questioned the propriety
of singling out apartheid for specific mention (in Article 3), the genera
sentiment was against a special reference to antisemitism. The attitude of
some was based on ideological or political prejudice, while that of other
derived from a reluctance to support proposals to which influential or
powerful groups of states were hostile. Undoubtedly, a great many sincerely
believed that it was inadvisable to cite specific cases or examples in a general
convention, and preferred to overlook the inconsistency of endorsing the
article which singled out apartheid. Presumably this inconsistency derived
from the feeling that apartheid was a serious current problem, which anti
semitism was not; that it was the official policy of a government, which to
day, antisemitism was not, and from a general deference to African concerns
The controversy was finally settled by the adoption (by the overwhelming
vote of 80 for, 7 against, with 8 abstentions) of a Greco-Hungarian rsolu
tion calling for the elimination of all references to specific racist ideologies.
(The understanding was that this did not include apartheid.) In the exten
sive period of explanations of vote, in which most delegates were heard
those who supported the resolution justified their position on various grounds :
that specific references would promote inter-state conflict, and would lessen
the scope and timelessness of the document; that, since no listing could be
complete, it would be unfair to cite only antisemitism and not other racist
ideologies, and that "antisemitism" is a term without precise legal meaning
The Arab delegates used the opportunity to attack Zionism, charging that th
move to condemn antisemitism was politically motivated and designed to fan
the flames of the cold war, to promote sympathy for Israel, and to agitate
for the emigration of Jews from the Soviet Union to Israel.
The few supporters of the Brazil-United States amendment stated that the
singling out of antisemitism was warranted because of the long history an
special nature of this phenomenon. The Israeli and the United States dele
gates included in their statements charges 0 Soviet antisemitism, thus, inci
dentally, confirming in the minds of some delegates the suspicion that the
Soviet Union was the main target of the amendment.
Notwithstanding the amendments defeat, nearly all delegates affirmed
their countries' rejection of all discrimination, including antisemitism. Many
the Arabs among them, boasted of their countries' records of equal treat
* A condemnation of antisemitism, later included in the Draft Convention on

the Elimination of All Forms of Religious Intolerance, was adopted by the Com
mission on Human Rights in the spring of 1966. It remained to be seen whether
this action by the Western-oriented commission would be upheld in a review of
and vote on the document by the General Assembly, with its preponderantly Afr
Asian, Arab, and Communist membership.
ment of Jewish citizens. The Arab delegates stated that, while the
tries abhorred Zionism, they did not practice antisemitismwhich
Western-Christian phenomenon.
Several delegates stated for the record their view that the gener
of the convention, covering ethnic as well as racial discrimination,
passed all discriminatory ideologies and movements, including anti
The United States delegate placed special emphasis on this understa
while adding that specific mention of antisemitism would have stren
the condemnation implicit in the convention.
The convention's implementation measures, the most far-reaching
eluded in a UN human rights convention, reflected the influence of
Asian states. (The Communist states were traditionally reluctant to
meaningful implementation measures and, with some exceptions, t
ern states were conservative-minded on this issue.) Leadership was
by Ghana, which, having first introduced a modest proposal, stren
it to incorporate features of a more far-reaching Philippine propo
toric innovation was the recognition of the right of individuals or
groups to petition an international committee, although the right wa
scribed by certain restrictionsi.e., it can be exercised only if the
volved declare their willingness to accede to such petitioning; victi
violation must personally file petitions, and no third party may inte
their behalf.
DRAFT DECLARATION AND DRAFT CONVEN

T I O NT I O N ON THE ELIMINATION OF ALL FORMS
OF RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE
Declaration Declaration
When, on December 7, 1962, the Human Righ

quested by the General Assembly to prepare inst
nation, it was also given the mandate to draft a D
on the Elimination of All Forms of Religious Into
a working group, designated by the commission, p
a draft declaration prepared earlier by the Sub-C
tion and Minorities. This group approved the firs
commission's text and transmitted to the commission without recommenda
tion (due to lack of time) other draft articles proposed by various of its
members.
One of the disputed questions concerned the definition of "religion or be
lief" in the declaration. The working group agreed that the individual's right
to adhere to any religion as well as to any nonreligious belief should be
protected. However, several members felt it was not sufficiently clear that
"religion or belief" encompassed also nonreligious beliefs, particularly "athe
ism," and proposed that the declaration make this explicit. Since others felt
that the meaning of these words was well understood and required no further
elucidation, the working group could not resolve this question a

mitted to the commission several alternative definitions, suggested by
the Ukrainian SSR, and the United Kingdom.
The working group, however, did agree in the main on the term
following articles:
Article Article 1, guaranteeing to everyone the "right of freedom of thou
science and religion," including "freedom to adhere or not to adher
religion or belief and to change his religion . . . without coercion."
Article Article 2, condemning discrimination on the ground of religion
as a violation of the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, and as an obstacle to friendly and peaceful relations among nations.
Article Article 3, proscribing discrimination by any "State, institution, group or
individual" against any individual or group in the enjoyment of human
rights and fundamental freedoms, and establishing "the right to effective
remedial relief by the competent national tribunals" for violation of the
rights set forth in the Declaration.
Article Article 4, requesting all states to take effective measures for the prevention
and elimination of discrimination based on religion or belief, "in all fields
of civil, political, economic, social and cultural life."
Article Article 5, recognizing the right of parents or legal guardians to decide the
religion or belief in which their children should be reared. The working
group suggested certain alternative language applicable to children without
parents.
Article Article 6, guaranteeing the equal right of all individuals and groups to
manifest their religion, publicly and privately, by worship and assembly; by
teaching and learning; by establishing and maintaining institutions for wor
ship and assembly, education and social welfare, and by observing the rites
and customs of their religion or belief.
Among the other articles proposed to the working group, which it was
unable to discuss but noted in its report, was one submitted by the Ukrainian
SSR, affirming the principle of the separation of the church from the state
and "the school from the Church" and one, by the Soviet Union, suggesting
the insertion in the preamble of words affirming "that freedom of atheistic
belief is of the utmost importance to those who profess them." A third pro
posai, by the United States, intended, in part, to deal with the situation in
Communist countries, contained four new articles guaranteeing the right to
observe ritual, dietary, and other practices; produce or import all articles
necessary for these practices; observe holy days; receive legal protection for
places of worship and burial places; "organize and maintain local, regional,
national and international associations," and communicate with or visit other
individuals or groups of the same faith at home and abroad.
Convention Convention
The completion of the declaration, scheduled for the commission's 1965

session, was temporarily set aside when it received from the sub-commission
a preliminary draft of a convention on the subject, including pro

"additional measures of implementation."
The sub-commission had begun its consideration of the convent
basis of three texts, proposed respectively by the British (Peter C
United States (Morris B. Abram), and Indian (Arcot Krishnas
bers. A fourth text was submitted later by the Soviet member.
In the opening debate on these texts, the members expounded
eral philosophies on the subject, and, in doing so, indicated the po
were likely to take on particular issues. The Indian, for example,
the use of the term "intolerance" rather than "discrimination" in the conven
tion title as intended to prevent not only unequal treatment of religions, but
also hostile action directed equally against all. He also felt that the practice
of religious tolerance did not require formal separation of church and state.
The Polish member, in contrast, urged that the convention incorporate, as
universally applicable, the principle of separation of church and state. He
also advocated that, in view of the diversity of existing religions and cul
tures, the convention avoid detail and restrict itself to statements of broad
principle.
The Italian denied that economic, social, or other differences among na
tions constituted impenetrable barriers against developing international stand
ards with regard to religious tolerance. The need for an adequate "limitations"
provision, recognizing the right of the state to restrict religious freedom in
the interest of public order, health or morals, was stressed by the Soviet
member. The Philippine membr proposed that the measures of implemen
tation include the right of individual petition. Following the general debate,
the authors of the several drafts met informally and prepared a joint text.
During the debate on the joint text the Mexican members suggestion that
the term "discrimination on the ground of religion or belief," be limited to
apply only to rights guaranteed by national constitutions and legislation rather
than by international instruments, was rejected on the ground that conven
tions would be unnecessary if their only purpose was to ensure respect for
national constitutions.
The sharply disputed question of the right of parents in relation to the
religion or belief of their children, especially in cases of deceased or missing
parents, was resolved by a tentative compromise article, which many of the
members found unsatisfactory and which was likely to be revised by the
commission. It recognized the prior right of parents to choose the religion
or belief of their children. In the case of children without parents, the lat
ter's "expressed or presumed wishes shall be duly taken into account" or,
if the child has reached a sufficient degree of understanding, his wishes shall
be taken into account. In both cases "the best interests of the child, as deter
mined by the competent authorities, shall be the guiding principle."
At issue in the drafting of this article were divergent attitudes on whether
emphasis should be placed on the right of parents to determine their chil
dren's religious upbringing or on the right of the children to make their own
decision, especially in cases of children without parents. Back of

were conflicting views on the role of the state authorities in su
even in cases of living parents who allegedly imposed harmful re
or practices on their children.
Perhaps most significant was the reaction to the article relating
dom to manifest" one's religion or belief. The proposal of the Sov
and Mexican members that the article be limited to "simply a g
ment of the fundamental principles of freedom of conscience and
was rejected by the majority, which preferred a detailed specific
right.
The sub-commission approved (with no negative vote, but with the absten
tion of the United States member) a provision requiring states to prohibit
"any incitement to hatred or acts of violence against any religion or belief
or its adherents. . . ."
On the question of implementation, the sub-commission followed the prec
edent established in the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Racial Discrimination. It approved an article requiring states parties to submit
reports on legislative and other measures adopted by them to give effect to
the convention. However, owing to the lack of time, it adopted no recom
mendation concerning "additional measures of implementation," but trans
mitted to the commission as an expression of its "general views," the text
of a preliminary draft of such measures.
The commission, at its 1965 session, reviewed the draft convention (ap
proved in the sub-commission by a vote of seven in favor, none against,
with the Mexican, Soviet, and Polish members abstaining), but found time to
approve only the preamble and three of the thirteen articles. Of the adopted
provisions,
Article Article 1 defined "religion or belief" to include "theistic, non-theistic and
atheistic beliefs," and "discrimination on the ground of religion or belief" to
mean any discrimination which has "the purpose or effect" of impairing the
enjoyment "on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms
in the political, economic, social, cultural, or any other field of public life."
It stipulated further that neither the "establishment of a religion" nor the
"separation of Church from State" shall "by itself" be considered religious
intolerance or discrimination.
Article Article 2 recognized the individual's religion or belief to be "a matter for
his own conscience" and obligated states parties to "promote and implement
policies which are designed to protect freedom of thought, conscience, reli
gion or belief, to secure religious tolerance and to eliminate all discrimina
tion on the ground of religion or belief."
Article Article 3 defined "the right of freedom of thought, conscience, religion or
belief," to include: equality in the freedom "to adhere or not to adhere to"
or "to change" one's religion or belief; to manifest one's religion or belief
"either alone or in community with others, and in public or in private," and
"to express opinions on questions concerning a religion or belie

obligated states parties to ensure for all under their jurisdiction:
(a) freedom to worship, to hold assemblies . . . and to establish and
places of worship or assembly ... ;
(b) freedom to teach, to disseminate and to learn his religion or belief
sacred languages or traditions, to write, print and publish religious bo
texts, and to train personnel intending to devote themselves to its pr
observances;
(c) freedom to practice his religion or belief by establishing and maintaining
charitable and educational institutions and by expressing in public life the im
plications of religion or belief;
(d) freedom to observe the rituals, dietary and other practices of his religion
or belief and to produce, or if necessary import, the objects, foods, and other
articles and facilities customarily used in its observance and practices;
(e) freedom to make pilgrimages and other journeys in connection with his
religion or belief, whether inside or outside his country;
(f) equal legal protection for the places of worship or assembly, the rites, cere
monies and activities, and the places of disposal of the dead associated with
his religion or belief;
(g) freedom to organize and maintain local, regional, national, and interna
tional associations in connection with his religion or belief, to participate in
their activities, and to communicate with his co-religionists and co-believers;
(h) freedom from compulsion to take an oath of a religious nature.
On approving these articles, the commission resolved to give absolute
priority at its next session to the task of completing the convention.
WAR CRIMES, CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY,

GENOCIDE
On the initiative of Poland, the "question of the pun

and persons who have committed crimes against h
the agenda of the Commission on Human Right
Poland was motivated by the international controve
the reported intention of the Federal Republic of
tion of Nazi criminals. It submitted a draft resolu
that, "in accordance with the laws of some countrie
on the prosecution of the gravest Nazi crimes may
future" even though "a great number of Nazi war
yet been discovered and justly punished by compe
resolution urged all states to continue their efforts
those "guilty of war crimes and crimes against hum
the Second World War" and to enact "measures to p
legal prosecution of these crimes." The resolution
the commission prepare an international conventio
cation of a statute of limitations to crimes of this nature.
The members agreed that the commission was competent to consider

question. In explaining their views, they cited relevant international d
rations and instruments, including the charters of the international mil
tribunals of Nuremberg and Tokyo, the Genocide Convention, and the
General Assembly resolution on the "extradition and punishment of
criminals." Alluding to West Germany, the Polish, Soviet, and Ukra
members urged the commission to call attention to the failure of some c
tries to prosecute war criminals despite the demand of world opinion a
the requirements of international law. However, other members, while r
nizing the importance of the issue, urged that the discussion be free f
political propaganda. They agreed that, while the failure of states t
should be pointed out, note should also be taken of positive efforts.
Some members stressed the need for international cooperation to ens
the detection as well as the extradition of war criminals, and criticized
missals of cases and the unjustifiably light sentences and acquittals, oft
based on the dubious argument that the crimes were committed under
pulsion of superior orders. Others, however, defended the sincere inten
the prosecuting authorities who were at times impeded by insufficient
dence. In this connection the United States member urged governments
Nazi records in their possession to make them available to the prosecut
authorities of other countries, and pointed to the failure of certain unna
states (a reference to the Soviet Union) to do so, even upon request.
While several members thought that the question had lost its urgenc
view of the recent abolition of the period of limitations in some count
(i.e., Austria and France) and the imminent extension of the period of
tations in another (i.e., West Germany), most wanted the commissio
consider the total problem of the moral and legal validity of such statu
Accordingly, on April 9, 1965, the commission adopted a resolution
pressing concern lest anyone guilty of war crimes or crimes against huma
"wherever he may be detected," escape justice. It noted that further st
were necessary to make prosecution of these crimes possible, and assert
that the United Nations must study "possible ways and means of establis
the principle that there is no period of limitation for such crimes in int
tional law." The resolution requested further that ECOSOC urge all s
to continue their efforts in tracing, apprehending and punishing the crimin
"in particular, by making available any documents in their possession rel
to such crimes," and that the secretary-general of the United Nations p
pare a "study of the problems raised in international law by war crimes
crimes against humanity, and by priority, a study of legal procedures
sure that no period of limitation shall apply to such crimes."
UN HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR

HUMAN RIGHTS
A proposal for the appointment of a UN High Com

Rights to increase the effectiveness of the human righ
United Nations Charter received a great deal of public
during the period under review. It had been publicly p
States by Jacob Blaustein in a Dag Hammarskjold Mem
cember 4, 1963. Mr. Blaustein recommended that the
powered to advise and assist states and UN bodies c
rights; review reports on human rights, and make av
in human rights disputes. The proposal received wide
tional nongovernmental organizations concerned with
Following a tentative effort in the Commission on Hu
1965, the proposal was introduced in the General Asse
After a brief exchange of views in the General Assemb
in which the United States, the United Kingdom, and
supporting statements, a resolution was adopted on D
a vote of 67-0 with 10 abstentions), requesting the Hu
sion, at its coming session, to study all aspects of the
back to the General Assembly.
UNITED STATES AND HUMAN RIGHTS

CONVENTIONS
American policy in the human rights field had been

State John Foster Dulles's declaration in 1953 that the United States would
not become a party to any convention in the human-rights field, but rather
favored an approach of non-binding declarations and educational methods.
A move to bring about a modification of this policy was initiated by President
John F. Kennedy in July 1963, when he recommended to the Senate the
ratification of three conventions: the UN Supplementary Convention on the
Abolition of Slavery, the UN Convention on the Political Rights of Women,
and the International Labor Organization Convention on the Abolition of
Forced Labor, which had already been ratified by a large number of other
nations.
Although the President did not refer to the Genocide Convention, it had
remained on the agenda of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee since
1949, when President Harry S. Truman had originally transmitted it with
his recommendation for ratification. In more recent years leading members
of both the Kennedy and Johnson administrations made public statements
supporting ratification of this convention, but there was no new formal re
quest for such action.
By the end of 1965, the Senate had shown no indication of intending to
move on any of the human rights conventions pending before iteven though
sentiment in support of ratification had increased since President Kennedy'

recommendation.
An impressive and widely-attended White House Conference on Interna
tional Cooperation was held from November 28 to December 1, 1965, as
the culminating event in United States observance of International Coopra
tion Year. The panel on human rights, one of thirty in different areas of
international cooperation which met at the conference under the aegis of
the National Citizens' Commission for International Cooperation, endorsed
the recommendation by the commission's Human Rights Committee that the
United States promptly ratify the four human rights conventions now pend
ing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, as well as three others
in the field of discrimination.
The panel also endorsed recommendations that the United States exercise
leadership in the preparation and adoption of conventions and declarations
on human rights in process; that it support proposals for the establishment
of appropriate United Nations machinery for the international protection of
human rights, as for example, a United Nations High Commissioner for Hu
man Rights, and that it broaden its participation in regional efforts (e.g., of
the Organization of American States) to increase protection of human rights.
Sidney Liskofsky

United Nations and Human Rights

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

United Nations and Human Rights

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

United Nations and Human Rights

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

American Jewish Committee

United Nations and Human Rights

eluding programs of study, reporting, and "advisory services,"

Racial discrimination has been given attention by

Declaration Declaration and Convention on the Elimination of A11

Following vigorous controversy over certain provisions, especially

Provisions Provisions of Convention

Article 1 defines "racial discrimination" as "any distinction, e

tional tribunals and other state institutions against any acts of

Debate Debate on Convention

The convention was adopted unanimously despite sharp differences on

and Article 5 include guarantees of freedom of speech and association. Ac*

Another sharp controversy arose over a United States-Brazilian proposal

demning "antisemitism, Zionism, Nazism, neo-Nazism and all other forms

* A condemnation of antisemitism, later included in the Draft Convention on

DRAFT DECLARATION AND DRAFT CONVEN

When, on December 7, 1962, the Human Righ

elucidation, the working group could not resolve this question a

The completion of the declaration, scheduled for the commission's 1965

a preliminary draft of a convention on the subject, including pro

decision, especially in cases of children without parents. Back of

"to express opinions on questions concerning a religion or belie

WAR CRIMES, CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY,

On the initiative of Poland, the "question of the pun

The members agreed that the commission was competent to consider

UN HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR

A proposal for the appointment of a UN High Com

UNITED STATES AND HUMAN RIGHTS

American policy in the human rights field had been

sentiment in support of ratification had increased since President Kennedy'

You might also like