Indeed, it cannot be otherwise because under well settled legal doctrine no treaty can repeal the Constitution of the United States. Treaties must be compatible with the Constitution of the United States.

Senator JAVITS. What I had in mind was the possibility of a resolution of the Senate which, in essence, would read in connection with the Senate's ratification of the treaty, it makes the following declaration, colon and quotation marks. Then, as you said, we would include a carefully crafted statement.

Justice GOLDBERG. I think that would be a very good idea, and one, I repeat, though I hope not ad nauseam, in which all countries of the world who are participants in the negotiating process are put on notice that our country, in negotiating a treaty, cannot give away the Con-stitution of the United States, and that our conception of these great treaties and they are great treaties; I hope no negative inference will be gleaned from what I have said-simply as a matter of law, we, in executing any treaty, cannot in any way impair the constitutional safeguards which are applicable to our citizens and those who legally reside in our country.

Senator JAVITS. May we consult you about this?

Justice GOLDBERG. Certainly.

Senator JAVITS. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator PELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

NATIONALIZATION OF AMERICAN PROPERTY ABROAD

Mr. Justice, isn't there a difference between application in the United States and application abroad? While not presuming to speak for Senator Helms, I think the problem he is trying to face is the nationalization of American property in other countries.

Do you believe that these treaties have any bearing on that matter? My personal view is that they do not, that they have a bearing on what we do within our own borders.

Justice GOLDBERG. You are entirely correct, Senator. This is why I said it should be confined to what happens here.

All of these treaties contemplate implementing legislation. Implementing legislation means that we legislate in reference to activities in our own country.

Senator PELL. To be specific, the nationalization of American property, if it occurred, would it be covered by this treaty? Say, for example, that Italy became a Communist state and nationalized American property there. Is that covered?

Justice GOLDBERG. No, it would not be.

Senator PELL. That is what I thought.

Justice GOLDBERG. It is subject, however, to rules of international law. We have made this clear at the United Nations. We stated we were opposed to expropriation of foreign owned property. But any country exercising the right of eminent domain, as we exercise that right in our own country, is subject to the rule of payment of prompt, adequate, and fair compensation. We made that clear at the United Nations.

This has been the position of our country, and not only the position of the United States. It is the accepted rule of international law that. this, indeed, is so.

POLITICIZATION OF BODIES SET UP BY TREATIES

Senator PELL. The United Nations Commission on Human Rights is subject to much the same politicization as is the General Assembly, or at least that has been our experience so far. Do you think that the bodies set up under these treaties also will be subject to the same politicization?

Justice GOLDBERG. There is no way of defending ourselves against inappropriate and irresponsible rhetoric. This we cannot safeguard against, but we can make clear that the United States, in ratifying these treaties, proudly takes the position that we are foremost in the human rights area and in the protection of social and economic rights of people. That is our position. Other people may argue, as they always do, at the United Nations and in the Commission on Human Rights, that this is not the case, but they are wrong.

Senator Pell, you will recall what you said and what I said at Belgrade. Our record is not perfect, but it is far better than the record of virtually every other country in the world.

Senator PELL. Amen.

IMPACT OF TREATIES ON LESSENING REPRESSION IN EAST EUROPE

In terms of East-West relations, do you think these treaties will have any impact upon lessening the repression that exists in Eastern Europe?

Justice GOLDBERG. Yes, I do. I think that is their great value. I think the symbolism of the Congress of the United States in ratifying these treaties will emphasize our commitment to the basic ideals of protecting human rights and fundamental freedoms. I think this has a great impact.

Senator PELL. I thank you very, very much, indeed. It is a great honor to have you with us, Mr. Justice.

Justice GOLDBERG. It has been a great pleasure for me.

Senator PELL. I hope to see you again soon, personally and officially. Thank you.

Our next witness is the Honorable Warren Christopher, the Deputy Secretary of State. I believe he will be accompanied by Ms. Patricia Derian, Assistant Secretary of the Bureau of Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs of the Department of State and the Honorable Roberts Owen, Legal Adviser of the Department of State.

Mr. Secretary, thank you very much for being with us today and for your patience and understanding.

Mr. CHRISTOPHER. Good morning, Mr. Chairman.

Senator PELL. We are delighted to welcome you and your associates. to the committee today.

STATEMENT OF HON. WARREN CHRISTOPHER, DEPUTY SECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WASHINGTON, D.C.

Mr. CHRISTOPHER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to have your permission to shorten an already short statement so as to conserve the time of the committee.

With your concurrence, I would ask that my full statement be made a part of the record."

Senator PELL. Your statement will be inserted in full.

Mr. CHRISTOPHER. Mr. Chairman, I am particularly grateful for this opportunity to appear before the committee in support of the four multilateral treaties on human rights, which were transmitted by President Carter to the Senate last year.

If I might say a personal word to you, Mr. Chairman, I am particularly grateful for your leadership in holding these hearings. It seems to me that it is essential that the United States and the U.S. Senate proceed to a consideration of them. I think without your leadership and willingness to commit time at a very busy period, we would have had still further delays. So I want to express my personal gratitude to you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. I appreciate those kind remarks. I think we all just want to do the best for our country, and that means getting along with these treaties.

Mr. CHRISTOPHER. That certainly is true.

I think I would be remiss if I did not call attention to the fifth human rights treaty, the Genocide Convention, which already has gone through this committee and, for that reason, is not before us today. However, it is a pervasive force that stands in the world, unratified by the United States. I want to emphasize that ratification remains one of the most important goals of this administration's human rights policy.

Senator PELL. I regret to say that it has not passed this committtee. In 1971 and 1976, we held hearings on it. I completely agree with you about its importance and regret, along with you, that, for domestic political reasons, we seem unable to move ahead with it. But I am glad you mentioned it at this time.

Mr. CHRISTOPHER. Mr. Chairman, would further action by this committee be necessary for it to be considered on the floor? I had understood not.

Senator PELL. I believe it would, but I would ask one of our parliamentarians on the staff.

[Pause.]

Senator PELL. I am told that I am correct. Unless it was taken from the desk-which would be extremely unlikely, and I don't think this ever has occurred with a treaty-it would have to come through the committee again.

Mr. CHRISTOPHER. Mr. Chairman, this is a matter I am glad to have clarified. I am hoping that before this Congress ends, there will be an opportunity to consider that treaty. I would like to be able to consider with you and the chairman of the committee whether some steps ought to be taken to insure that it is ready for consideration, if that window comes.

Senator PELL. I think we have a pretty full platter, but I completely share your hopes in that regard and will do my best to help.

Mr. CHRISTOPHER. Mr. Chairman, in addressing the United Nations about the treaties before you today, President Carter noted that "the basic thrust of human affairs points toward a more universal demand for fundamental human rights." These treaties which are before the committee today, all of which have been signed by a large number of countries and already have entered into force, are a reflection of that basic thrust of which President Carter spoke.

Our history and our vital national interests require that the United States be a full and active part of this thrust.

In my brief remarks this morning, I will concentrate on the compelling interests, both foreign and domestic, which call for U.S. adherence to these treaties.

On my right is Roberts Owen, the Legal Adviser of the State Department, who, together with our colleagues from the Department of Justice, will discuss and detail the legal dimensions of the treaties, as well as the reservations which we have recommended.

Patt Derian, on my left, is the Assistant Secretary for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs. She will address, more fully than I, the relationship between the treaties and other aspects of our human rights policy.

The committee is so fully familiar with the treaties that I shall not impose on your time and patience by reviewing their content or substance, but simply shall go to the reasons why the administration urges their approval.

We do so, Mr. Chairman, because in our view approval is so clearly in our national interest. Concern for human rights is one of the foundations of the greatness of our Nation. Our observance of human rights contributes profoundly to our leadership in the international com-munity as a whole. To preserve and enhance that leadership role, we must demonstrate our willingness to make human rights a matter of international commitment and policy and not solely a matter of domestic law.

As President Carter noted in transmitting the treaties to the Senate, the United States is one of the few important nations in the world that has not yet become a party to these treaties. In the eyes. of the world, our failure to do so reflects adversely on our own impressive accomplishments in the human rights field. Even more importantly, our nonadherence to the treaties prejudices our participa-tion in the development of international law with respect to human rights.

This not only is unfortunate, Mr. Chairman, it also is unnecessary.. In essence, the treaties create an international commitment to the same basic human rights that already are guaranteed to citizens of the United States by our own laws and Constitution.

U.S. ratification would not endanger any rights that we currently enjoy. On the contrary, ratification would encourage the extension of rights already enjoyed by our citizens to the citizens of other nations, and, very significantly, it would allow the United States to participate in this process.

The fundamental rights enjoyed in this country are a product not only of our Founding Fathers' magnificent drafting of the Constitu-tion, but also of two centuries of practice and interpretation. Similarly, the rights enunciated in these treaties will be molded by the actions of the states which are party to them in future years. Unless the United States is a party to the treaties, we will be unable to contribute fully to this evolving international law of human rights.

Mr. Chairman, I would want to stress that ratification of these treaties would remove a troubling complication from our diplomacy. Governments with which we raise human rights concerns, if the treaties. are ratified, no longer will be able to blunt the force of our approaches or question our seriousness by pointing out our failure to ratify.

I personally have observed in the time I have been in Government that quiet, person-to-person diplomacy provides the primary, and in many instances the best, means to obtain improvements in human rights. But I also have observed, somewhat to my embarrassment, Mr. Chairman, that our effectiveness can be compromised in that important private diplomacy by the failure of the United States yet to ratify these treaties.

Ratification also would give the United States an additional international forum in which to pursue the advancement of human rights. It would enable us to challenge other nations to meet the high standards set by the United States. We should not deny ourselves this opportunity to help shape the developing international standards for human rights and to encourage the extension to others of the rights we long have enjoyed.

While the treaties are not subject to legally binding sanctions, they certainly do increase the political costs attached to violations of human rights. The committees established to review compliance with the treaties would provide a mechanism through which human rights practices throughout the world would be evaluated, compared, and publicized. These committees will develop a sort of human rights case law, a body of precedent that can give shape and substance to the basic standards enunciated in the treaties.

It is toward this goal, Mr. Chairman, the operation of the rule of law in the international human rights field, that we should strive. Ratification of these four treaties would be an important step to that end. For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I respectfully urge that advice and consent be given to the ratification of these human rights treaties.

That completes my statement, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Mr. Christopher follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. WARREN CHRISTOPHER

Mr. Chairman, I am grateful for this opportunity to appear before the Committee in support of the four multilateral treaties on human rights transmitted to the Senate by President Carter in 1978: the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination; the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; and the American Convention on Human Rights.

A fifth human rights treaty, the Genocide Convention, has already undergone extensive hearings before this Committee and is therefore not before you today. I want to emphasize, however, that ratification of that Convention remains one of the most important goals of this Administration's human rights policy. As President Carter said in a message to the Senate, the Genocide Convention "protects the most fundamental of all human rights-the right to live." And as this Committee well knows, its ratification is very long overdue.

In addressing the United Nations about the treaties before you today, President Carter noted that "the basic thrust of human affairs points toward a more universal demand for fundamental human rights." The treaties-all of which have been signed by large numbers of countries and have already entered into force are a reflection of that "basic thrust." Our history, and our vital national interests, require that we be a full and active part of it.

In my remarks this morning, I will concentrate on the compelling interestsboth foreign and domestic-that call for U.S. adherence to the treaties. Later today Bob Owen, the Legal Adviser of the Department of State, and our colleagues from the Department of Justice will discuss in detail the legal dimensions of the treaties, as well as the reservations to them that we recommend. Patt Derian, the Assistant Secretary for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs, will address the relationship between the treaties and other aspects of our human rights policy.