UNITED NATIONS AND HUMAN RIGHTS
|
INTRODUCTION: The concept of human rights has come a long weary way, its history spreading over eight centuries since it found the first expression in the Magna Carta of 1215. Though this concept originated with the historical documents and revolutions, the United Nations proved to be a catalyst in the on-going struggle of mankind to universalise the promotion and protection of Human Rights. DEVELOPMENT OF THOUGHT: The concept of international protection of human rights is a relatively new idea. The guarantee and protection of human rights were considered to be the exclusive concern of individual states. Viewed against this backdrop, the UN Charter’s emphasis on the promotion of human rights which was to a great extent a reaction to Nazi atrocities constitutes a sharp break with tradition. However there are in-built limitations to the extent to which the UN can effectively check the conduct of individual nation-states, The nature of human right also varies from country to country with Western democracies, emphasizing political and civil rights, while Third World countries emphasise economic and social rights. Humanitarian Assistance is one UN activity which has been the least controversial and yet has had perhaps the most tangible and far-ranging impact on human rights. However, there are shortcomings as there is no effective machinery for examining complaints, even of the grossest violations by countries. At the recently held Vienna Conference on Human Rights, a demand was made for a UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. Finally, the question of finance is of crucial importance. Unless funds are forthcoming, the UN battle against human rights violations is bound to suffer. CONCLUSION: In short, the United Nations is the right machinery to safeguard adequately international human rights from gross violations and in ensuring a good and peaceful life to all the citizens of the world |
From times immemorial, the guarantee and protection of human rights were considered to be the exclusive concern of individual states. The concept of international protection of citizen’s rights is a relatively new idea and until World War II such protection was limited to special groups–primarily diplomatic representatives and aliens—whose status had to be protected in foreign states. From time to time, states have also undertaken treaty obligations with respect to their own nationals, as seen in the various European treaties from the 16th century onwards guaranteeing freedom of worship to religious minorities, or the 1890 treaty providing effective measures to end the slave trade.
 In the 20th century the victorious powers after World War I wanted the new states and the defeated countries of Eastern Europe to assume treaty guarantees of the linguistic, educational and other rights of ethnic minority groups incorporated within their territories. Viewed against this backdrop, the UN Charter’s emphasis on the promotion of human rights, which was to a great extent a reaction to Nazi atrocities, constitutes a sharp break with tradition. No less than seven references to human rights are found in the Charter—the Pre-amble, Article 1 (purposes and principles), Article 13 (responsibilities of the Assembly), Article 55 (objectives of economic and social cooperation), Article 62 (functions and powers of ECOSOC) Article 68 (a commission to promote human rights) Article 76 (objective of the trusteeship system). The new approach did not take the form of specific legal obligations, but it did assert an international interest in the promotion of individual human rights.
The UN record in dealing with human rights must be assessed in relation to the in-built limitations of international organizations to affect the conduct of states in this sensitive area. The difficulty is worsened by disagreement among states on the nature of the rights to be protected and on the priorities among them. Western democracies have emphasized political and civil rights, such as freedom of speech, religion and press and freedom from arbitrary arrest and imprisonment. Socialist and Third World states give priority to economic, social and cultural guarantees—the right to food, clothing, decent housing, humane working conditions and education. Some rights, for example, equal rights for women, may challenge old social customs and mores in various societies. Different societies have different values (democracy may be preferable to some while socialism to others), different priorities (the right to food may seem more important to poor states than the right to freedom of speech),different resources and organizational capacities (some states lack the institutional and resource capacity to guarantee certain rights). For these reasons, states guard their sovereign authority to define individual rights and decide what protection shall be given. The UN’s relevant activities over the years fall into three distinct categories: defining and clarifying the rights of individuals (standard setting: studying particular human rights or human rights in particular places, and recommending measures for their fuller realization, (promotional activities); providing assistance directly to victims of human rights violations (the humanitarian function); and protecting violations in specific cases (the implementation aspect).
The most celebrated statement in the field of human rights is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights approved by the General Assembly on December I0,1948, a statement of individual rights which it was felt signatory states should see protected within their own countries. Its 30 articles encompass a broad range of civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights and reflect the different aspirations and values that had to be reconciled in order to secure wide agreement for its adoption. The political and civil rights of the old liberal school are joined with the economic and social ideals of the new socialist school while all are hedged with the right of the sovereign state to limit individual rights and freedoms as necessary to meet the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society. Although the practical application of some of the enumerated economic and social rights might require more state control that is consistent with some of the political rights, and others depend on the availability of adequate economic resources, the Declaration as a whole is an admirable and appealing human rights document.
 Other human Rights Declarations since approved by the Assembly include the Declaration of the Rights of the Child (1959 and later 1991), the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (1960), the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1963), the Declaration on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (1967), the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Being Subjected to Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (1975), the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination based on Religion or Belief (1981), and the Declaration on the Right of All Peoples to Peace (1984).
 In addition to declarations which are formal statements of principles, the UN General Assembly every year adopts a number of resolutions dealing with some aspects of human rights. Many deals with economic and social conditions, but some are addressed to particular violations of civil and political rights. South Africa and Israel have been the most frequent targets in recent years, although Afghanistan, Chile, Kampuchea, El Salvador and other countries have also been nagged to observe better standards.
 The General Assembly reigns, of course, at the top of the UN pyramid. It has plenary authority to create subsidiary bodies for any purpose enumerated in the Charter —a power which, was used, for example, to establish the office of the UNHCR in 1951 and the successive committees on apartheid since 1962. The General Assembly is free to act either through the bodies created by it or directly on any human rights issue that engages the concern of its members. Within the institutional framework created by the Charter, the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) serves, subject to the ultimate authority of the Assembly, as the principal organ of the UN concerned with human rights.
 Articles 62-63 of the UN Charter authorize ECOSOC to “make recommendations for the purpose of promoting respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedom for all”, to prepare draft conventions for submission to the General Assembly, to call international conferences, to coordinate the activities of the specialized agencies, and to obtain reports both from them and from member-states. ECOSOC is essentially a political body, whose 54 members are elected by the General Assembly on the basis of adequate geographical distribution. Equally political in its form, as in its functions, is the Commission on Human Rights established by ECOSOC in 1946 to serve as the UN’s principal focus for human rights activists, of whatever kind it might be. The Commission has since grown to 43 state representatives, elected on the basis of an “adequate geographical basis”.
Humanitarian Assistance is the UN activity which has had perhaps the most tangible and far-ranging impact on human rights, yet it is the least controversial. The two most indisputably effective and important instruments of direct assistance have been the United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF) and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). Both these organizations have concentrated their resources, to begin with, on enabling the most desperate and vulnerable sectors of Third World populations to survive in severe crises and threats to their very existence. Although UNHCR’s original mandate contemplated a short-term protective mission for rather limited numbers of people pending negotiation of conditions for their safe return to the countries of their origin, the vast numbers actually displaced by civil war and persecution, and the often indefinite prolongation of exile, have required the High Commissioner and his staff to marshal! Resources for maintaining, and in some cases, integrating, the displaced populations into new lands. Recently the UNHCR has been involved in repatriating Rohingya Muslims from Bangladesh to Burma
Following the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, began on the drafting of two International Covenants on Human Rights economic, social and cultural rights and the other on civil and political rights.
The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Optional protocol to the latter covenants were adopted unanimously by the General Assembly on December 16, 1966
Although the covenants are based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the rights covered by then are not identical. The most important right regulated in both covenants but not contained in the declaration is the right of peoples to self-determination, including the right of peoples freely to dispose of their natural wealth and resources.
The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights entered into force on January 3, 1976. By 30 June 1989. 92 states had acceded to or ratified it
The covenant deals with conditions of work, trade unions, social security protection of the family, standards of living and health, education and cultural life. It provides for the progressive realization of these rights without discrimination.
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Optional Protocol entered into force on March 23, 1976. By June 30, 1979, 87 states had acceded to or ratified the International Covenant and 45 states had acceded or ratified the Optional Protocol.
 The covenant deals with such rights as freedom of movement, equality before the law. Presumption of innocence, freedom of conscience and religion, freedom of opinion and expression, peaceful assembly, freedom of association, participation in public affairs and elections, and minority rights. It prohibits arbitrary deprivation of life; torture, cruel or degrading treatment or punishment; slavery and forced labour; arbitrary arrest or detention and arbitrary interference with privacy; war propaganda, and advocacy of racial or religious hatred that constitutes an incitement to discrimination or violence.
 However, there are many shortcomings. There is no effective machinery for examining complaints, even of the grossest violations by countries which have not ratified the two Human Rights Covenants, nor of violations in fields not specified in them. For this reason, it has long been felt that there is a need for some procedure by which the complaints of individuals (or groups) can be looked at and seriously examined.
Despite stiff resistance by many nations, it was eventually agreed that the complaints should be looked at by a special working group which would consider how far they revealed evidence of “a systematic pattern of gross violation” of human rights. This so-called 1503 procedure (named after the resolution by which it was established) came into effect from 1973 onwards. However, the procedure was long and cumbersome The only occasions when detailed investigations of situations within individual states were taken up were in such cases as those of Chile and South Africa.
Thus, the main weakness of the UN’s work in the field of human rights is that it rarely looks into concrete cases. Thus there has been a demand for new measures such as the setting up of a UN Commissioner for Human Rights. There is a long-standing proposal for the appointment of a UN Commissioner for Human Rights who should be empowered to look into individual cases that are sent for his attention and issue reports to the commission. This would certainly make for a more efficient system. Since some of the most effective bodies acting in the human rights field have been regional ones such as the European and Latin American Commissions on Human Rights the UN should consider taking steps to promote the establishment of similar bodies in other regions of the world. Many non-governmental organizations have also actively supplemented and supported UN efforts. These include the Amnesty International, the International ‘ Commission of Jurists, the International Federation for Human Rights. Amnesty International, established in London in 1961, is widely respected for its persistent efforts in mobilizing public opinion and encouraging government action to vindicate fundamental human rights.
 The recently concluded conference on Human Rights in Vienna in June 1993 has made the demand for a UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.
An increasing number of people around the world see the human rights issue being used as an instrument of intervention in domestic situations and not necessarily for human concerns. Several Western countries seem to have consigned their own human rights record—in terms of their backing of tyrannical regimes or their treatments of aborigines, minorities. Blacks or the immigrants—to the attic. That the human rights concerns in recent times have been raised somewhat selectively, made the Vienna conference rather controversial.
But now that the Vienna declaration has been adopted. What needs to be seen is how well it will be implemented. UN Secretary-General Boutros Ghali feared that the human rights conference could become futile is resolutions remained on paper only. Unless finances were forthcoming the Human Rights Declaration would go the same way as Agenda 21—adopted at the Earth Summit and yet to be implemented because of financial constraints. Last year the UN created a coordinator for humanitarian assistance with a special budget of $50 million, Yet even this modest sum took eight months to be collected. The need for increased financial resources to battle human rights violation is doubtfully a priority with only one per cent of the UN’s regular budget and about 0 75% of Personnel earmarked for the purpose. However, while there was unanimity among the delegates on the need for increased funds, there was a division of opinion over how this money should be raised. Be that as it may, no civilized society can eschew human rights and the challenge for the UN after Vienna is to make the international commitment to human rights a lot more credible than it currently is.
