IO Files
Position Paper Prepared in the Department of State for the United States Delegation to the Thirteenth Session of the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations
SD/E/561
Report of Seventh (1951) Session of Commission on Human Rights (Item 18)
problem
What action should the United States support in the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) in regard to the report of the Seventh (1951) Session of the Commission on Human Rights?
recommendations
The United States should support the view that:
1. ECOSOC should note and comment the report.
2. ECOSOC should not undertake a drafting revision of each of the provisions of the draft International Covenant on Human Rights. ECOSOC should instead discuss the provisions of the Covenant and forward such comments as are made at its 13th Session to the General Assembly. If majority sentiment in ECOSOC is against this view, the United States should urge as a second position that recommendations he formulated and forwarded to the General Assembly rather than an article-by-article revision of the provisions of the Covenant. Such recommendations should if possible be limited to the provisions of Parts III and V of the Covenant on economic, social and cultural rights and on reporting.
3. If there is a discussion of drafting changes in ECOSOC, the United States Delegation should be guided by Annex A and not propose or support changes except as set forth in Annex A.1
4. If general sentiment in ECOSOC favors the view that the provisions on economic, social and cultural rights should remain in the Covenant, the United States should support the retention of such provisions [Page 745] in the Covenant. The United States would prefer to have these provisions separated from the Covenant and provided for in a separate instrument, but it does not intend to attempt to oppose majority sentiment in ECOSOC on this question for reasons stated below in the discussion section of this paper. Accordingly, if general sentiment in ECOSOC favors the separation of these provisions, the United States should continue to support this view.
5. The United States should, during the consideration of the Covenant in ECOSOC, make a statement of understanding along the following lines with respect to the provisions on economic, social, and cultural rights:
“The United States desires to make clear for the record its understanding of the term ‘rights’ as used in the economic, social and cultural provisions in Part III of the Covenant in contrast to the use of the term ‘rights’ in the civil and political provisions in Part II. The civil and political rights are of such a nature as to be given legal effect promptly by the adoption of legislative or other measures as may be necessary. The economic, social and cultural rights, while spoken of as ‘rights’ are, however, to be treated as objectives towards which states adhering to the Covenant will within their resources undertake to strive by the creation of conditions which will be conducive to the exercise of private as well as public action for their progressive achievement.
“The United States wishes to reiterate in the Economic and Social Council, as its Representative repeatedly stated in the Commission on Human Rights, this understanding of the United States Government that the economic, social, and cultural rights in the Covenant are recognized as objectives to be achieved progressively, as provided in Article 19”.
In making this statement the United States Delegation may wish to point out to the Members of the Economic and Social Council the part that the United States is taking with other countries toward the attainment of improved economic, social and cultural conditions in the World. It is scarcely necessary to enumerate the many activities of the United States in this respect. The United States feels that all the Members of the United Nations should not only support the Covenant as a standard of action in economic, social and cultural matters hut should also actively participate in the many specialized agencies which are doing daily constructive work in these fields. It might also “be pointed out that the Soviet Union talks about achievements in these fields but contributes very little constructively to the improvement of economic, social and cultural conditions in other countries either through the specialized agencies or through the United Nations.
6. The United States favors the position that ECOSOC forward the draft Covenant to the 1951 Session of the General Assembly with no recommendation as to whether it be completed in that session of the General Assembly or be forwarded by the General Assembly to [Page 746] the Commission on Human Rights for further consideration. The United States should, however, go along with prevailing sentiment in ECOSOC oil this question. If prevailing sentiment favors recommending that the General Assembly complete the Covenant at its 1951 session, the United States should support this view. If prevailing sentiment favors recommending that the General Assembly forward the Covenant to the Commission on Human Rights for further consideration, the United States should go along with this view.
7. The United States should continue to oppose the inclusion of provisions in the Covenant to extend the right of complaint to individuals, groups or organizations. The United States should point out such provisions should be included in a separate protocol or protocols. The United States should also oppose the inclusion of a provision in the Covenant referring to other international instruments authorizing complaints to be filed by individuals, groups or organizations.
8. ECOSOC should take action with respect to the other sections of the report of the Commission on Human Rights as set forth in Parts C and D of the discussion below, except that with respect to the draft Declaration of the Rights of the Child, see separate position paper on this subject.
discussion
A. Work of the Commission in General
The Commission on Human Rights at its five-weeks 1951 session considered only the draft International Covenant on Human Rights and the confidential list of communications. It did not have time to consider any other matters on its agenda.
B. Draft International Covenant on Human Rights
1. General
The Commission on Human Rights drafted two new parts on economic, social and cultural rights and revised the implementation machinery with respect to civil and political rights. The Commission did not have time to review the other parts of the Covenant. Part III of the Covenant now sets forth the economic, social and cultural rights. Part V sets forth the new reporting requirements and Part IV sets forth the implementation machinery with respect to civil and political rights. Parts I and II on civil and political rights remain unchanged. Part VI which contains drafts of the federal state article, the territories article and procedural articles was not considered except to include the territories article which was approved by the General Assembly at its Fifth (1950) Session.
2. Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
It is provided in recommendation 4 above that if general sentiment in ECOSOC favors the view that the provisions on economic, social and cultural rights should remain in the Covenant, the United States [Page 747] should support the retention of such provisions in the Covenant. The United States would prefer to have these provisions separated from the Covenant and provided for in a separate instrument, but it does not intend to attempt to oppose majority sentiment in ECOSOC on this question. Accordingly, if general sentiment in ECOSOC favors the separation of these provisions, the United States should continue to support this view. The United States intends to follow a similar position in the General Assembly, i.e., that of going along with general sentiment on this question.
The United States expects that there will be majority sentiment in the General Assembly favoring the retention of the provisions on economic, social and cultural rights in the Covenant and any effort on the part of the United States to press for the separation of these provisions will not be successful and will rebound unfavorably with respect to the general political position of the United States vis-à-vis other countries, particularly the many underdeveloped countries urging the inclusion of these provisions in the Covenant.
After a careful consideration of the factors involved in the drive by other countries for the inclusion of these provisions in the Covenant, both at the 1950 session of the General Assembly and the 1951 session of the Commission on Human Rights, the United States realizes that the inclusion of these provisions in the Covenant constitutes a symbol of the needs and aspirations of these countries. They look to these articles as a lever which may help to raise them out of their present depressed condition. They do not understand the preference of the United States that these provisions not be included in the first Covenant. They do not understand, and in fact resent, the reluctance of the United States to state these provisions in terms of rights. They insist on the use of the term “rights”—many of these provisions are already stated in terms of rights in their Constitutions. In general they regard these provisions as goals or objectives, not as immediate obligations. In particular, the individuals representing governments in the Commission and in the General Assembly feel that they need such provisions in the Covenant as a standard with which to challenge and prod their own governments and leaders in their countries to greater effort in the direction of attaining economic and social improvement.
It is also necessary to consider this question in connection with the propaganda problem it presents, vis-à-vis the Soviet Government and its unscrupulous propaganda tactics.
Since it appears that even an intensive diplomatic campaign to separate the economic, social and cultural provisions would not be successful and would only create a great deal of ill-will against the United States, it is the recommendation of this paper that the United States simply go along with the majority on this question, without pressing for one side or the other in this matter.
[Page 748]At the same time, however, the United States should make it clear, as appropriate, that the economic, social and cultural provisions are obviously different in a number of respects from the civil and political provisions of the Covenant. These differences Avere recognized by the Commission on Human Rights and are acknowledged in the draft Covenant.
See Annex A for changes which should be proposed or supported by the United States with respect to the economic, social and cultural provisions in the present text of the draft Covenant. If appropriate changes are not made in the present text of the draft Covenant, the United States contemplates making reservations as necessary at the time of signature or ratification.
3. Reporting on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
The Commission initially drafted a new Part V in the Covenant to provide that States ratifying the Covenant would submit reports concerning progress made by them in achieving the observance of economic, social and cultural rights. At the same time, the Commission provided in Article 60 that these reports would be submitted in conformity with the recommendations of ECOSOC and the General Assembly in the exercise of their general responsibility calling upon all Members of the United Nations to provide such reports. The United States should support Article 60 as set forth in the draft Covenant.
There was strong sentiment in the Commission that all Members of the United Nations should be called upon to submit these reports, whether or not they ratified the Covenant on Human Rights. It was recognized of course that only States ratifying the Covenant could be obligated under the Covenant to furnish these reports, and that other Members of the United Nations would not be under a similar obligation to do so. It was felt, however, that since it was being provided in the Covenant that the reports would be considered by the United Nations, all Members of the United Nations should be requested to submit the reports by the adoption of recommendations to this effect by the Economic and Social Council and the General Assembly.
The United States should support the provisions on reporting except as set forth in Annex A.
4. Implementation of Civil and Political Rights
The Commission revised Part IV of the draft Covenant on the implementation of the civil and political rights. The United States should support the revised text of these provisions. See, however, the change proposed in Article 33 (in Annex A).
The United States should oppose the application of the implementation procedure set forth in Part IV in the economic, social and cultural rights. There was no sentiment at the 1951 session of the Commission for the application of this procedure to economic, social and cultural [Page 749] rights. It was practically the unanimous view in the Commission that this complaint procedure would not be appropriate for the economic, social and cultural rights. These rights are to be achieved progressively and the obligations of States with respect to these rights are not as precise as with respect to the civil and political rights. The Commission felt it was important to stress the assistance to be accorded to States to achieve economic, social and cultural progress rather than to stimulate complaints against States. The Commission felt that the gradual character of the economic, social and cultural program envisaged was not conducive to an effective complaint procedure.
The Commission at its 1951 session again rejected the inclusion of a provision in the Covenant to extend the right of complaint to individuals, groups and organizations. This proposal was rejected by a vote of 7 to 10 with one abstention. The seven countries voting in favor of this proposal were Chile, Egypt, Guatemala, India, Lebanon, Sweden, and Uruguay. The ten countries voting against this proposal were Australia, China, France, Greece, Pakistan, Ukraine, USSR, United Kingdom, United States and Yugoslavia. Denmark abstained.
Guatemala proposed that a provision be included in the Covenant referring to other international instruments authorizing complaints: to be filed by individuals, groups and organizations. This proposal was also rejected by the Commission by a vote of 7 to 9 (US) with 1 abstention.
The United States should Continue to oppose the inclusion of provisions in the Covenant to extend the right of complaint to individuals groups or organizations. The United States should point out that such provisions should if they are to be set forth, be included in a separate protocol or protocols. The United States should also oppose the inclusion of a provision in the Covenant stich as that proposed by Guatemala to refer in the Covenant to other international instruments authorizing complaints to be filed by individuals, groups and organizations.
5. Federal State Article
The United States should make entirely clear its view that a federal state article should be included in the Covenant on Human Rights and should be applicable to economic, social and cultural provisions as well as to the civil and political provisions in the Covenant. See Article 71 in Annex A for the text of the federal state article supported by the United States for inclusion in the Covenant.
This new Article 71 is designed to meet the proposal of India to the 5th (1949) session of the Commission on Human Rights, the proposals: of the United Kingdom at the 5th (1949) and 6th (1950) sessions of the Commission on reporting and the proposal of Denmark at the 1951 session of the Commission to phrase this article in terms of an approved reservation.
[Page 750]This proposal should help to meet the criticism expressed at the 1950 session of the General Assembly with respect to the earlier language submitted by the United States for a federal state article. In order to secure the support of other delegations to authorize the Commission on Human Rights at its 7th (1951) session to study the inclusion of a federal state article in the Covenant, the United States indicated in the 1950 session of the General Assembly that it would be willing to take the views of other delegations into account as much as possible in a revision of the federal state article.
Three principal points were made in the discussion in 1950 session of the General Assembly: (1) there was objection to the use of the word “appropriate” in the United States proposal; (2) there was a general preference for the Indian proposal rather than the United States proposal, a number of delegations feeling that the Indian proposal was stated in a more objective sense than the United States proposal; and (3) considerable support developed for the United Kingdom proposal that a reporting requirement should be included in the federal state article.
The language proposed for Article 71 in Annex A undertakes to meet these three principal objections to the previous United States proposal for a federal state article as well as the proposal of Denmark, made in the Commission on Human Rights at its 1951 session, to call for a reservation on this matter by a federal state. The new language also states with added clarity and emphasis the limited character of the obligation a federal state assumes with respect to its constituent units.
At the same time, it is proposed in this paper that a reporting requirement also be included in the Covenant with respect to all States adhering to the Covenant. If a reporting requirement is included in the federal state article requiring a federal state to submit information received from constituent units to the Secretary General of the United Nations, each unitary state should also be required to report with respect to the manner in which provisions of the Covenant are being given effect in that state. In this way, there will be less stress given to the reports of federal states, and unitary states will not be in as strong a position to criticize the reports of federal states. The noncompliance of a unitary state with provisions of the Covenant, as reflected in its reports, will be open for close scrutiny.
6. Territories Article
It was decided in the 1951 session of the Commission on Human Rights that the territories article approved by the General Assembly at its 1950 session should be included in the Covenant as Article 72. The United States should not oppose the inclusion of this article in the Covenant.
[Page 751]7. Other Articles of Covenant
The United States should support the articles in Parts I and II and Articles 70 and 73 in Part VI of the Covenant except as set forth in Annex A.
C. Confidential List of Communications
The only agenda item considered by the Commission at its 1951 session other than the draft Covenant was the confidential list of communications. At a brief meeting the Commission received the confidential list of communications and observations from governments concerning human rights prepared by the Secretary General. The Commission simply noted these communications and called the attention of ECOSOC, in its consideration of the question of petitions to the fact that the Commission has been receiving communications concerning human rights since its establishment. No action on the part of ECOSOC is necessary on this point.
D. Right of Peoples and Nations to Self-Determination
The Commission did not reach the consideration of the right of peoples and nations to self-determination as requested by the 1950 session of the General Assembly. If this question is raised at ECOSOC, the United States should support its consideration at the Eighth (1952) Session of the Commission.
- Not printed.↩