INTERNATIONAL ADJUDICATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

The subcommittee recognizes the importance of the International Court of Justice in developing and strengthening international law. Already, for example, we have cited its 1971 Namibia opinion, which not only had a significant impact in southern Africa but held that the human rights clauses of the U.N. Charter bind nations directly. Unless and until individuals and groups have standing before the Court, however, it probably will not play a central role in the international protection of human rights. Such a development is not likely in the foreseeable future.

At the present time international adjudication of human rights issues exists mostly on the regional level. As this report has already indicated, the European Court of Human Rights is in operation; the American Convention on Human Rights, which is not yet in force, provides for an Inter-American Court of Human Rights. States who ratify the American Convention and accept the Court's jurisdiction would be legally bound to respect the Court's decisions.

The International Court of Justice does have two functions which are relevant to the human rights field. The General Assembly, the Security Council, and other organs and agencies of the U.N. can ask for advisory opinions from the Court. The Court's decision terminating the South African mandate over Namibia was an advisory opinion. Also, under a number of human rights conventions, the states parties can ask the Court for an interpretation of the convention.

The subcommittee did hear testimony concerning the establishment of an international criminal court which would be authorized to try and convict persons who have violated the rights of others.1 The Genocide Convention, for instance, provides for the possibility of establishing an international penal tribunal to try those who are charged with committing genocide. (The convention does provide that were such a tribunal to be created, it would only apply to those states parties which have accepted its jurisdiction).

1 See discussion by Prof. Robert Woetsel, hearings, Subcommittee on International Organizations and Movements, Sept. 19, 1973.

(49)

PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS THROUGH INTERNA

TIONAL NONGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS

The international nongovernmental organizations are a vital contributor to the international protection of human rights. Their vitality arises principally from their independence from governments-both financial and otherwise which enables them to view objectively human rights situations in various countries without regard to political considerations. These traits of objectivity and political independence make it possible for nongovernmental organizations to speak out against human rights violations when governments and international organizations are often silent.

The nongovernmental organizations contribute to the work of international organizations in the human rights field. The United Nations and its specialized agencies have procedures for granting international, nongovernmental organizations consultative status, entitling the organizations to submit written statements and to testify orally before many of the human rights organs. The nongovernmental organizations have used these privileges to make general suggestions for strengthening the U.N. system for protecting human rights and for bringing to the U.N.'s attention particularly serious violations of human rights. Besides these formal activities, international nongovernmental organizations consult informally with delegations and Secretariat officials and are often the source for U.N. programs and resolutions.

International nongovernmental organizations also work outside international organizations to protect human rights. When they are apprised of human rights violations, their first action is to consult privately with the government concerned. They may, if the consent of the government is obtained, send a visiting mission to the country to investigate the charges or to observe a trial which is in progress. If satisfaction is not obtained, they may issue a press release detailing the charges involved. The coverage they receive in the international media determines to a large extent the influence of nongovernmental organizations.

Amnesty International, which is concerned exclusively with political prisoners and prisoners of conscience, uses another technique as well. Individual members of Amnesty form small groups who are assigned prisoners from several countries (excluding their own). They write to government officials concerning these particular prisoners, attempt to visit the prisoners, and render other assistance. These efforts by individuals are often effective. Perhaps because of Amnesty's emphasis on initiatives by individual members, Amnesty International is the largest international human rights organization both in terms of membership and staff.

The subcommittee heard testimony from three international nongovernmental organizations which are exclusively concerned with human rights: Amnesty International (with headquarters in Lon

don); the International Commission of Jurists (with headquarters in Geneva); and the International League for the Rights of Man (with headquarters in New York).

The subcommittee commends the Department of State for its efforts to maintain and strengthen the role of nongovernmental organizations in the United Nations, particularly in the human rights field.

The Department has also provided limited funding through the Mutual Educational Exchange Act to international nongovernmental organizations active in the human rights and law fields.1

Recommendation

29. The Department of State should continue U.S. Government funding for international nongovernmental organizations in the human rights field provided

(a) the funds are publicly acknowledged;

(b) the organization fully accounts for the use made of the funds;

(c) the funds do not account for a major part of the organization's budget;

(d) the organization has a significant number of duespaying members in the United States;

(e) the Department does not introduce political considerations in deciding what organizations are to receive funds; and (f) the Department does not seek to undermine the objectivity of the organizations.2

1 Letter from Stanton D. Anderson, Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Congres sional Relations, to Congressman Fraser, Aug. 28, 1973. The letter appears in the record of the hearings.

2 Regarding point f, it should be noted that some nongovernmental organizations are not interested in any government funding because they believe it inevitably compromises their independence.

OPPOSING VIEWS OF HON. L. H. FOUNTAIN

I fully support the utmost protection of all basic human rights and fundamental freedoms. It is with deep regret, therefore, that I find myself in opposition to a report with such an appealing title as that which is affixed to this document. However, I must express strong dissent because the net effect of the subcommittee recommendations, if carried out, would be to damage cherished human rights and freedoms. I am particularly concerned that we not impair the rights and liberties of Americans.

The hearings on which the subcommittee purports to base its recommendations had not been published as of the time of completion of this report. As pointed out in the preface of the report, 15 hearings were held with more than 40 witnesses including present and former U.S. Government officials, Members of Congress, lawyers, scholars, and representatives of nongovernmental organizations. I understand the published hearings will total some 1,000 pages, of which about 550 pages actually relate to testimony from witnesses.

It is difficult to conceive how such wide-ranging recommendations as are contained in the report could be fully and adequately supported by findings from the hearings. The report's recommendations range across a very broad spectrum of human affairs, with its suggestions to sovereign governments, the United Nations and its specialized agencies, the Congress of the United States, regional organizations, international nongovernmental organizations, and specific agencies of the United States Government. The report presumes to have the answer for the prevention of nearly every form of human rights violation in the world today.

Fortunately, the authors of the report did agree to revisions deleting some of their earlier draft provisions which would have called for the use of force in South Africa, recognition of the Guinea-Bissau movement as a sovereign government and an embargo of arms to the Portuguese territories. Yet the remaining recommendations are still too sweeping and too vague. To point out a few examples:

1. The report recommends that the Senate "should consent to the ratification" of several human rights conventions pending before the Senate. But it fails to cite the very good reasons why the Senate has not ratified these agreements over the years. A case in point is the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, which is listed first in the recommendations to the Senate and which has been ratified by 78 nations including some of the world's most oppressive governments. One reason why the Senate has not consented to this convention since its drafting in 1948, as a number of Senators have made clear, is concern that the convention could cause arrest and trial of American citizens outside the United States without the protection of due process as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.