THE ROLE OF THE U.S. CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION

Regardless of how faithfully the above recommendations are carried out, there is still a need for an independent public voice of recognized competence to speak out on human rights as the occasion warrants.

In his testimony during the hearings, Rev. Theodore Hesburgh, president of Notre Dame University and former Chairman of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, recommended that the Commission's mandate be extended to include some responsibility regarding international human rights. The Commission's work is presently limited to domestic civil rights. Father Hesburgh said:

While I certainly would not object to any step that would intensify our Government's concern with international human rights questions, * * * I am concerned that a bureau within the Department of State might lack the independence and forcefulness that is needed in this area. It might be desirable, as an alternative to the Bureau of Humanitarian Affairs, to consider empowering an independent agency to undertake the functions. * * * Rather than establishing a new agency, I think it would be worthwhile to consider reconstituting the Commission on Civil Rights as a Commission on Human Rights * * * with the further responsibility of studying, reporting on, publicizing and making recommendations with respect to international human rights issues. Independence is of critical importance. I believe that the independence of the Commission on Civil Rights is the principal factor accounting for its effectiveness.1

The Commission is an independent agency whose views do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the administration. Accordingly, the Commission could view international situations independently, objectively, and solely in terms of the human rights dimension. In commenting on international issues, however, the Commission should address its observations to the U.S. Government, not foreign governments; the responsibility for communicating directly with foreign governments should remain in the Department of State, and the Commission should not be given any executive authority in foreign relations.

It is anticipated that it would be necessary for the Civil Rights Commission to augment its staff in order to carry out the new international responsibility.

Recommendation

7. The Congress should extend by law the functions of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission to include international human rights. The Commission would observe and comment upon the attention given to human rights by U.S. foreign policy, and comment on conditions in other countries.

If extending the Commission's mandate is not possible, a new agency with the same degree of independence from the executive branch should be created with the above-mentioned functions.

1 Hearings, Subcommittee on International Organizations and Movements, Oct. 11, 1973.

THE ROLE OF CONGRESS

Many of the objectives of the subcommittee's recommendations are not likely to be achieved without a persistent show of concern for human rights on the part of the Congress.

When serious violations of human rights are alleged to have occurred in a particular country, the relevant subcommittees of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee should conduct hearings to ascertain the facts. Representatives of nongovernmental organizations, persons familiar with the country concerned and government officials should be invited to testify. If the reports of serious violations of human rights are confirmed, the committee should recommend appropriate action.

Individual Representatives and Senators should not hesitate to speak out forthrightly in calling for action by the executive branch and their colleagues in defense of international standards of human rights when they are violated. Members of Congress have an additional responsibility to foster in their constituencies a deep and continuing concern for human rights throughout the world.

The worldwide effectiveness of members of national legislatures concerned about protection of human rights would be enhanced if there were a means whereby they could communicate and cooperate with the efforts of like-minded parliamentarians in other countries. At any given moment there are members of national legislatures in several countries urging their government to act in defense of international standards of human rights. Usually, however, they do so with little knowledge of similar efforts being made in other countries. What is needed is an international network of actively concerned parliamentarians which could facilitate consultation, exchange of information, and formulation of coordinated programs of action.

The network could be constituted as an organization open to any member of a national legislature who wished to join. There might be no need for meetings of the organization since its work could be carried on through written communications.

Recommendation

8. Members of parliaments in various countries should establish an informal network of parliamentarians to enable its members to consult, exchange information, and develop coordi nated action programs for the purpose of making their own governments and the international community more effective in the protection of human rights throughout the world.

(15)

PART II-PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS THROUGH INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

The charter of the United Nations states that one basic purpose of the organization is "promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion." Member states pledge themselves to take joint and separate action in cooperation with the United Nations to help achieve universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms. The charter assigns primary responsibility for promoting such respect and observance to the General Assembly, the Economic and Social Council, and the Commission on Human Rights.

The United Nations functions and powers in the human rights field (as well as the economic and social fields) are limited to initiating studies and reports, making recommendations, adopting conventions and calling international conferences. The charter provides special powers, including enforcement measures, to the Security Council for situations endangering international peace and security. The Security Council could invoke these powers (and has, for instance, in Cyprus) for situations involving gross violations of human rights which threaten international peace and security.

The founders of the United Nations recognized that the primary purpose of the organization-the maintenance of international peace and security-could not be achieved unless human rights were respected. At the San Francisco conference in 1945 the U.S. delegation, especially cognizant of the relationship between peace and human rights, helped lead the drive to include in the charter a provision that the promotion of human rights would be a basic function of the organization. President Harry S. Truman, in the closing address to the conference, declared that:

The Charter is dedicated to the achievement and observance of human rights and freedoms, and unless we can attain these freedoms for all men and women everywhere without regard to race, language or religion, we cannot have permanent peace and security.

United Nations authority to promote human rights is subject to article 2 (7) of the charter which states that:

Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter ***.

This provision does not apply to the Security Council's authority (under chapter VII of the charter) to take enforcement action with respect to threats to the peace, breaches of the peace and acts of aggression.

The United Nations has recognized that many human rights questions are not essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of states. The organization has often taken special measures with respect to situations of gross violations of human rights. It has condemned and sought to eliminate the practice of apartheid in South Africa-a member state of the organization. It has also dealt extensively with the denial of self-determination and other human rights in Namibia (South-West Africa), the Portuguese African territories and Southern Rhodesia. Situations in numerous other countries have been considered and acted upon by United Nations organs and agencies. Egon Schwelb, Professor Emeritus of Yale Law School and former Deputy Director of the Division of Human Rights of the United Nations, in his testimony stated that:

In the actual practice of the various organs of the United Nations and of Member Governments over the past 27 years, neither the claimed vagueness and generality of the human rights clauses of the Charter, nor the domestic jurisdiction clause of its Article 2(7) have been an obstacle to the United Nations' considering, investigating, and judging concrete human rights situations which were brought before them by Governments, provided there was a majority strong enough and wishing strongly enough to attempt to influence a particular development. There is, therefore, no doubt that if a Government were to take the initiative and a majority were willing to go along, some of the cases of alleged massacres, political oppression and torture could be brought before the United Nations in a similar way. Whether such a step is advisable and whether it would lead to an improvement depends on the circumstances of each individual case.1

United Nations measures to prevent human rights violations have been directed principally against racism and colonialism in southern Africa. In 1966, however, the General Assembly requested the Economic and Social Council and the Commission on Human Rights to give urgent consideration to ways and means to improving the capacity of the United Nations to put a stop to violations of human rights wherever they may occur.2 In 1967 and 1970, the Economic and Social Council approved procedures for reviewing complaints (communications) from individuals and groups which allege violations of human rights. The Council authorized its subsidiary bodies to investigate and make recommendations concerning situations which appear to reveal a consistent pattern of human rights violations.3

Clearly, the United Nations has determined that article 2(7) is not a legal obstacle in situations involving gross violations of human rights. Whether the United Nations will give serious consideration to a situation, however, often depends on many factors. Most states are willing to criticize the practices of other states only when it is consistent with the general pattern of relations with the state concerned. They often criticize only states with whom they have unfriendly-or distant relations, or when the victims of oppression are of the same ethnic, religious or racial background as their own people. Consequently, the United Nations has directed its attention toward a few Countries-mainly in southern Africa-and given only sporadic and often ineffectual attention to other situations.

1 Hearing, Subcommittee on International Organizations and Movements, Oct. 10, 1973. 2 General Assembly Resolution 2144A (XXI).

3 A more detailed description of these procedures appear in a later section of this report entitled "U.N. Procedures for Action on Human Rights Violations," pp. 27-29.