The Secretary of State requests the United States Representative to
the United Nations, if he perceives no objection, to discuss with
the British, French, Canadian and Australian Delegations to the
United Nations the attitude of the United States with respect to the
consideration of the draft International Covenant on Human Rights in
the sixth (1951) session of the General Assembly as set forth in the
attached statement and at the same time to hand a copy of this
statement to these delegations and to request a statement of the
views of their Governments on these issues.
There is enclosed for the information of the United States
Representative three copies of the position paper concerning the
draft Covenant on Human Rights at the sixth session of the General
Assembly which has been finally approved as the position of the
United States.1
[Annex]
Draft International Covenant on Human
Rights
1. The United States would prefer to have the provisions on
economic, social and cultural rights separated from the present
draft Covenant on Human Rights and provided for in a separate
instrument. [Page 761] The United
States accordingly proposes to take the following course of
action at this session of the General Assembly:
- (a)
- The United States will support the drafting of two
instruments instead of the present single instrument on
human rights, provided that there is majority sentiment
in the General Assembly favorable to this position. One
instrument would contain civil and political rights and
the other instrument would contain economic, social and
cultural rights.
- (b)
- If it appears majority sentiment in the General
Assembly is unfavorable to position (a) and the General Assembly decides to refer
the draft Covenant to the Commission on Human Rights for
its further consideration, the United States intends, if
it is likely to obtain majority support in the Assembly,
to support the position that the General Assembly defer
its decision and request the Commission to prepare three
instruments for the consideration of the Assembly at its
1952 session—the first instrument would contain civil,
political, economic, social and cultural rights; the
second instrument would contain only civil and political
rights; and the third instrument would contain only
economic, social and cultural rights. The Assembly would
at its 1952 session then decide whether all these rights
should be in one or two instruments, accepting either
the pattern of the first instrument or the pattern of
the second and third instruments.
2. If majority sentiment in the General Assembly appears
unfavorable to these recommendations and favorable to the
inclusion of economic, social and cultural provisions in a
single Covenant with civil and political rights, the United
States does not intend to oppose the inclusion of economic,
social and cultural provisions in a single Covenant.
3. The United States Delegation intends, during the consideration
of the Covenant in the General Assembly, 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; i.e., that the
economic, social and cultural rights, while spoken of as
“rights” are, however, to be treated as objectives which States
adhering to the Covenant will within their resources undertake
to achieve progressively by private as well as public
action.
4. The United States intends to go along with prevailing
sentiment in the General Assembly for the completion of the
Covenant in this session or its reference to the Commission on
Human Rights for further consideration. The United States
intends to explain that it is prepared to participate in the
completion of the Covenant at this session if it is possible to
do so and if other delegations are also prepared to do so.
5. The United States intends to continue to oppose the inclusion
of provisions in the Covenant to extend the right of complaint
to individuals, groups or organizations. The United States
intends to point [Page 762] out
such provisions should, if they are to be provided, be included
in a separate protocol or protocols.
6. The United States will urge the inclusion of a federal state
article in the Covenant on Human Rights. This article should be
applicable to the economic, social and cultural provisions as
well as the civil and political provisions of the Covenant.
The United States would appreciate receiving the views and
support of the British, French, Canadian and Australian
delegations with respect to the following draft of a federal
state article for Article 71 of the Covenant:
“A Federal State may at the time of signature or ratification
of, or accession to, this Covenant make a Declaration
stating that the provisions of the Covenant are not
entirely, under the Constitution of the Federal State,
within the jurisdiction of its federal authority but are in
part within the jurisdiction of its constituent states,
provinces or cantons. In the event such a Declaration is
made, the obligations of the Federal State shall be:
“(1) In respect of provisions of the Covenant that in the
absence of this Covenant would come within the jurisdiction
of the federal authority the obligations of the Federal
State shall to this extent be the same as those of Parties
not filing such a Declaration.
“(2) In respect of provisions of the Covenant that come
within the jurisdiction of its constituent states, provinces
or cantons, which are not under the constitutional system of
the federation bound to take legislative action, the
obligations of the Federal State shall to this extent be
(a) to bring these provisions
with favorable recommendation to the notice of the
appropriate authorities of the constituent units at the
earliest possible moment, and (b) to
request such authorities to inform the Federal Government as
to the status of the law of the constituent units when
compared with these provisions of the Covenant. The Federal
Government shall transmit such information received from
constituent units to the Secretary General of the United
Nations.
“The Secretary General of the United Nations shall inform
other States Parties to the Covenant of such
Declaration.”
This new Article 71 undertakes to incorporate language proposed
by 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 and to
reflect the federal state article included in the Convention
Relating to the Status of Refugees adopted by the Conference of
Plenipotentiaries on the Status of Refugees and Stateless
Persons at Geneva on July 25, 1951.
This article should 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 [Page 763] Rights at its 7th (1951) session to study
the inclusion of a federal state article in the Covenant, the
United States Delegation 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 the 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 meets 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. A Declaration
rather than a reservation seems preferable to the United States
to avoid the many complexities involved with respect to
reservations. It has also seemed useful to use some of the
language of the federal state article approved for the Refugee
Convention.
