Obrázky stránek
PDF
ePub

At the outset, however, I would like to describe very briefly the contents of the four treaties.

The Racial Discrimination Convention was signed by the United States in 1966. Its purpose is to define racial discrimination, to condemn and prohibit the practice of racial discrimination by governments, and to encourage the removal of institutional obstacles to the ending of racial discrimination.

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, signed by the United States in 1977, is a more comprehensive document. It commits participating States to respect many of the rights enshrined in our own Constitution: freedom of speech, religion, association, and movement; the right to vote in secret elections; the right to stand equal before the law; the right to self-determination and to non-discrimination; the presumption of innocence for those accused of a crime; the right against self-incrimination; and the protections of due process of law. Unlike the other UN treaties, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which was signed by the U.S. in 1977, looks to the future. It commits States to take steps toward the future realization of certain economic, social and cultural goals for the individual. These goals are ones to which the United States has long been committed, including the right to work, to social security, to physical and mental health, to education and to freedom from hunger.

The one non-UN treaty being considered here-the American Convention on Human Rights was adopted by the Organization of American States in 1969 and signed by the United States in 1977. It seeks to guarantee for the peoples of this hemisphere rights similar to those guaranteed by the Civil and Political Covenant.

All four of the treaties before you today also contain reporting procedures and provide for review by independent experts of progress in achieving the treaties' goals.

As I suggested earlier, Mr. Chairman, the Administration urges Senate approval of these treaties because adherence to them is so clearly in our national interest. Concern for human rights is one of the foundations of our greatness as a nation. Our observance of human rights contributes profoundly to our leadership in the international community. But to preserve and enhance that leadership role, wẹ 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 his letter to the Senate transmitting the treaties, the United States is one of the few important nations in the world that has not yet become a party to the UN treaties. In the eyes of the world, our failure to do so reflects adversely upon our own impressive accomplishments in the human rights field. Even more importantly, our non-adherence to the treaties prejudices United States participation in the development of the international law of human rights.

This is not only unfortunate-it is also unnecessary. In essence, the treaties create an international commitment to the same basic human rights that are already 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 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' drafting 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 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.

Moreover, ratification of the treaties will remove a troubling complication from our diplomacy. Governments with whom we raise human rights concerns will no longer be able to blunt the force of our approaches or question the seriousness of our commitment by pointing to our failure to ratify. I have personally observed that quiet person-to-person diplomacy provides the primary, and in many instances, the best means to obtain improvements in human rights. But I have also observed personally that our effectiveness can be compromised by our own failure to ratify these treaties.

Ratification also gives the United States an additional international forum in which to pursue the advancement of human rights, and to challenge other states to meet the high standards set by this nation. 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 have long enjoyed.

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

It is towards this goal-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.

Mr. Chairman, United States adherence to these treaties would unquestionably promote the international recognition of fundamental human rights. But it would also unquestionably advance the national interests of the United States. As President Carter suggested on the 13th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the two are inextricably linked. As he said on that occasion:

"(H)uman rights are not peripheral to the foreign policy of the United States ***. Our pursuit of human rights is part of a broad effort to use our great power an our tremendous influence in the service of creating a better world-a world in which human beings can live in peace, in freedom, and with their basic needs adequately met.”

For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I respectfully urge that advice and consent given to the ratification of these human rights treaties.

Mr. CHRISTOPHER. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Vance has gone to New York this morning on short notice. Although I normally would like to stay for the presentations of my colleagues, I think with the current situation as it is in Iran, I ought to get back to the Department.

I would ask you if you might address any questions you have for me at this time, before hearing from my colleagues, so that I could return. I hope that would not be inconvenient for the committee. Senator PELL. Certainly. I understand.

VIOLATION OF TREATIES BY IRAN

Speaking of Iran makes me wonder. Iran signed and ratified the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.

As we see its actions in the last few weeks, particularly the last few days vis-a-vis our own diplomatic people who are there, do you believe there is a violation of these treaties on their part? If so, are there any sanctions in these treaties?

Mr. CHRISTOPHER. I do not believe there are sanctions within the treaties. But naturally, in preparing to come here today, I reflected on the events in Iran as they relate to the treaties. I think we must recognize that even universally respected international legal principles sometimes can be violated. But the extraordinarily broad international support which we have received for our demand that the hostages be released, demonstrates again the power of these important principles. I think it also shows the rarity of violations of international law.

It is our hope that these treaties and the rights they protect will enjoy the same sort of international respect that the sanctity of diplomats has all over the world. The international outpouring of support for the United States position in Iran I think is one of the reassuring aspects of this episode. The entire world is standing with us in the demand that the hostages be released.

So, rather than seeing these events as demonstrating the futility of treaties of this sort, I see these events as underscoring and confirming the importance of our establishing international norms so that

when they are violated, the entire civilized community comes to the support of those who are subject to the violations.

Senator PELL. I appreciate that.

Incidentally-and this is way off the subject and only for my own edification-am I correct in assuming that all of the Americans in that compound being held hostage are there on diplomatic passports or have a diplomatic function?

Mr. CHRISTOPHER. Yes, all of the Americans who are there. There are some Foreign Service nationals who also are there, Iranians who are serving in one way or another. They, of course, are not there under diplomatic passport.

Senator PELL. But how many of the 62 or 65 persons would be bearers of diplomatic passports?

Mr. CHRISTOPHER. I believe they all have diplomatic status.

Senator PELL. But Foreign Service nationals would not have diplomatic status.

Mr. CHRISTOPHER. They would not. Mr. Chairman, they are in addition to the 62 or 65 Americans.

Senator PELL. I see. That 62 or 65 number are all Americans, and there are some additional persons?

Mr. CHRISTOPHER. That is correct.

Senator PELL. Thank you.

Incidentally, I will ask that the record of this hearing be kept open in order to insert a precise statement of the status of the Genocide Treaty. I may have spoken too quickly, but my understanding is it would have to come out of this committee unless it is taken from the desk.

Mr. CHRISTOPHER. I am glad that came up because I think we both would like to know the exact status of the matter.

Senator PELL. Good.

[The information referred to follows:]

STATUS OF THE GENOCIDE TREATY IN THE SENATE

The U.N. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide was transmitted to the Senate by the President on June 16, 1949. Since that time the Foreign Relations Committee has held public hearings on four different occasions-1950, 1970, 1971, and 1977. Similarly, it has favorably reported the treaty to the Senate in 1970, 1971, 1973, and 1976.

The treaty has twice been debated inconclusively on the floor of the Senateduring the 92nd Congress, on October 5, 1972; and during the 93rd Congress, on December 19, 1973 and January 28, 29, 30, February 1, 4, 5, and 6, 1974. At the adjournment of each Congress, it was automatically rereferred to the Committee under paragraph 2 of Rule XXXVII of the Standing Rules of the Senate. According to this Rule,

2. Treaties transmitted by the President to the Senate for ratification shall be resumed at the second or any subsequent session of the same Congress at the stage in which they were left at the final adjournment of the session in which they were transmitted; but all proceedings on treaties shall terminate with the Congress, and they shall be resumed at the commencement of the next Congress as if no proceedings had previously been had thereon.

When the Genocide Convention was last considered (1977), it was pending before the Foreign Relations Committee; hearings were held, but the treaty was not reported. That was during the 95th Congress; it is still pending before that Committee.

There are two procedures under which this treaty might be brought out of Committee. The first, and the method normally utilized, is by Committee action in reporting the treaty. Reporting the treaty could include additional public hearings prior to a vote or a decision by the committee to vote without further hearings. Once the treaty has been reported from Committee, it is placed on the

24

Executive Calendar. It can be taken up either by motion or by unani sent to consider it as executive business in executive session. The seco method rarely used for treaties, is an action of the Senate in voting to the Committee from further consideration of the treaty.

Senator PELL. Thank you very much, indeed, Mr. Secreta I look forward to hearing from your associates.

Mr. CHRISTOPHER. Mr. Chairman, it is always a pleasure to before you and your committee.

Senator PELL. Thank you.

Now, Ms. Derian or Mr. Owen, who would like to go first? MS. DERIAN. I would defer to Mr. Owen.

Senator PELL. Very well.

Before you begin, might we ask Mr. Jack Goldklang to com witness table also. In this way you three, who represent ministration, might appear as a panel.

Mr. Goldklang is the Attorney Adviser of the Office o Counsel of the Department of Justice.

Mr. Owen, we are delighted to hear from you.

STATEMENT OF ROBERTS B. OWEN, LEGAL ADVISER,, D MENT OF STATE, ACCOMPANIED BY ARTHUR ROVINE, ASS LEGAL ADVISER

Mr. OWEN. Mr. Chairman, my name is Roberts Owen. I relatively new Legal Adviser of the Department of State.

It is a privilege for me to appear before your committee tod I have transmitted a prepared statement to the committee, would hope might be included in the record.

Senator PELL. It will be inserted in full.

Mr. OWEN. In the few minutes allowed for my oral presen I want to address three specific aspects of the treaties which ha been discussed by Deputy Secretary Christopher.

I want to comment briefly on the consistency between the reflected in these treaties and those embodied in U.S. domest I will then refer to the treaty enforcement mechanisms in or clarify their probable impact within the international comm Finally, I will deal very briefly with some of the criticisms tha been voiced against these treaties in terms of what they will a not accomplish.

Let me begin by emphasizing that the substantive provisi these four treaties do not conflict in any way with basic U.S. policy.

Let me illustrate the point by making brief reference to the Discrimination Convention. As its title indicates, the treaty upon the states parties to undertake to eliminate all forms crimination based on race, color, or ethnic origin in order to p equality before the law in terms of the enjoyment of specified, sul tive rights.

In a sense, these undertakings seem to import into interna law the legal progress made in this country in the past 100 through the adoption of the 14th amendment and the civil

acts.

Similarly, two others of these treaties, the Civil and Political I Covenant and the American Convention on Human Rights, ro

correspond, in terms of international law, to the Bill of Rights, which is so firmly entrenched in our Constitution.

The treaty rights include the right to vote, the right to free expression, the right to freedom of religion and association, the right to freedom of movement, and a whole series of procedural rights relating to fair trial, representation by counsel, and other fundamental rights so familiar to Americans.

The fourth of the proposed treaties is somewhat different in that it looks not to the recognition of present rights, but to the future. The Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights Covenant commits states to take steps toward the future realization of certain economic, social, and cultural goals for the individual, and calls for their progressive achievement over time. Again, the goals involved are familiar to American citizens. They look toward the realization of such rights as the right to work under just and fair conditions, the right to social security and adequate standards of living and health, the right to the protection of family and children, the right to primary education.

The treaty is so written that no ratifying party thereby commits itself to present implementation of such rights, but the stated goals nevertheless are completely in keeping with policies pursued in this country for many years.

We believe none of the four treaties runs counter in any way at all to the major thrust of U.S. law and policy.

As Deputy Secretary Christopher has indicated, from the point of view of the United States, one principal goal of these treaties is to bring about a modification in the behavior of other governments in ways that directly affect our own national interest. Although the rights described in these four treaties already are generally recognized and applied in the United States, that is not true in many other countries, and the disregard of human rights abroad may, in some cases, constitute a threat to our own peace and prosperity.

This being so, it is fair to ask whether, if these four treaties were widely ratified, they would be likely to bring about changes in governmental conduct abroad, and that question, in turn, depends to some extent on whether there would be effective enforcement of these treaties.

In fact, the mechanisms of international law have not developed to the point where treaties of this kind can be enforced as rigorously as states enforce their own domestic laws. This is not to say that there will be no enforcement. On the contrary, these treaties contemplate enforcement principally in the form of holding up to international scrutiny and review any conduct on the part of the state party which falls below the standard set forth in the treaty.

To summarize the enforcement picture very briefly, all four of these treaties require states parties to submit compliance reports to specified international committees. Two such committees already have begun to demonstrate their effectiveness through a process of analyzing the reports, calling in representatives of states parties to elicit addit onal information as to their human rights record and, in some cases, letting a particular state know that it has failed to comply with its treaty obligation.

Although it is too early to say with certainty that such techniques will bring about major changes in conduct, experience has shown that such international scrutiny and criticism do, in fact, tend to raise the standards of behavior in the field of international human rights.

« PředchozíPokračovat »