Together these four agreements constitute an International Bill of Rights, a worldwide definition of individual rights and responsibilities, developed over the last three decades by the United Nations and the Organization of American States. All four treaties incorporate ideals that are central to the American constitutional system. It follows that both because of its legal history of strong concern for individual rights, and its oft repeated commitment to the development of these rights worldwide, the United States can and should be playing a constructive role in these multilateral human rights structures. Given the deep American commitment and involvement in formulating these treaties, it has been both ironic and disappointing that the United States has had to relegate itself to a position of non-participation at a stage when critical development of these legal institutions is taking place.

What do these treaties provide? The Covention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination deals with an issue that has been repeatedly tested in United States courts and is the subject of comprehensive legislative civil rights reforms in the past 25 years. By ratifying this treaty the United States will simply be reinforcing its own commitments on this issue. The United States struggle against racial discrimination in the decades of the Sixties and Seventies is one of this nation's proudest chapters. The United States' vigorous and continuing commitment to non-discrimination needs to be affirmed on the international scene by ratification of this treaty.

The American Convention on Human Rights incorporates many of these same rights into a regional instrument. It establishes a reconstituted Hemispheric Commission on Human Rights and creates a new Inter-American Court on Human Rights. These bodies permit the United States to contribute to the development of a multilateral institution on a regional level and to take on a position of leadership in the hemisphere.

The International Covenant on Ĉivil and Political Rights, as we discuss shortly, embodies the rights already found in the United States Bill of Rights and strenthened over the years by the highest courts of this land.

The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights affirms a series of rights and goals that have been considered part and parcel of this nation's aspirations since at least the 1930's. This Covenant attempts to expand the government's concern for and involvement in the general well-being of its people by defining a set of standards in the economic, social and cultural spheres. The Covenant echoes Franklin Roosevelt's foresighted declaration to Congress in 1944:

"We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence . . . . People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made."

Mr. Chairman, during the course of these hearings, a number of eminently qualified experts and international law scholars have provided clear and, we believe, persuasive testimony, outlining various reasons for United States ratification of these treaties. The International League supports these statements and recommendations. But rather than reemphasizing these points, we wish to focus our testimony on the historical involvement of the United States in promoting Human Rights issues and concerns.

These treaties, Mr. Chairman, are not foreign to the United States. The United States' commitment to these international human rights reflects one of our oldest and most fundmental traditions as a nation. They involve, in short, the basic principles of liberty and equality that have been central to this country throughout its history.

Eleanor Roosevelt, the American representative who was so instrumental in drafting the international agreements understood the influence of the United States' model and the universality of the basic civil liberties issues. Speaking before the United Nations General Assembly on December 9, 1948, on the eve of the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, she declared:

"This declaration may well become the International Magna Carta of all men everywhere. We hope its proclamation by the General Assembly will be an event comparable to the proclamation of the Declaration of the Rights of Man by the French people in 1789, the adoption of the Bill of Rights by the people of the United States, and the adoption of comparable declarations at different times in other countries."

The early debates of the United Nations reflect extensive American involvement in the formulation of international laws and procedures on human rights. The incorporation of Franklin Roosevelt's Four Freedoms in the United Nations Charter is essentially the achievement of American representatives involved in that process.

Later, as the new United Nations Human Rights Commission undertook to establish an international Bill of Rights, the United States again took a leadership position. The International Bill of Rights was undertaken in three stages: (1) A Declaration voicing principles already recognized in many nations which became the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; (2) Covenants or treaties embodying these principles in legal form which evolved into the formulation of the two Covenants; and (3), Specific measures for implementation of these international pacts, a process which is just beginning to take place. The drafting sessions in the late 1940's for both the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights reflected the spirit and in many instances the letter of America's founding proclamations.

Eleanor Roosevelt's leadership role in the first phase of this process cannot be overstated. Completed in 1948, when 48 nations unanimously adopted the Universal Declaration, this document proclaims that "Recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of human family is the foundation of freedoms, justice and peace in the world." Consider how similar these words are to the words of an earlier Declaration:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights."

United States government representatives were supportive of the initial efforts to draft international human rights treaties. Addressing the General Assembly even before the Universal Declaration was completed, John Foster Dulles, the American Delegate, stated on September 29, 1948:

"I hope and believe this Assembly will endorse this Declaration of Human Rights. But we must not stop there. We must go on with the drafting of a covenant which will seek to translate human rights into law.

Meanwhile a United States draft proposal for a Convention on Human Rights had already been prepared. This draft, which was forwarded to Mrs. Roosevelt in 1947, served as the basis for the eventual development of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This Covenant derives in large part from the American civil liberties tradition found in the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights. It embodies not only broad principles but even specific language from the United States model, and consists of limitations upon the power of the State to impose its will on its citizens. It incorporates many of the ideals that were expressed by the founders of the American Republic, perhaps best expressed by Thomas Jefferson in his First Inaugural Address:

"Equal and exact justice to all men . .. freedom of religion; freedom of the press; freedom of persons under the protection of habeas corpus; and trial by juries impartially selected-these principles form the bright constellation which has gone before us."

From the outset, the United States Department of State was unwavering in its support of the Covenants. The discussion accompanying the United States Draft of the treaty reiterated the American commitment to the formulation of international human rights treaties:

"The present draft convention has accordingly been prepared with a view to taking from the Declaration those rights which are for the most part contained in the United States Bill of Rights and represent a minimum which the United States could offer as its contribution to this highly important part of the United Nations Program."

In the specific drafting sessions on the Covenant, American representatives made frequent comparisons between that treaty and the specific provisions of the United States Constitution. Thus, where the Covenant ignored a protection provided in the United States Constitution, a State Department letter of instruction to Mrs. Roosevelt emphasized the importance of maintaining consistency with American standards. It noted:

"Mrs. Roosevelt likewise thought that it would seem strange for the American Delegation, in view of the guarantees in our own Constitution, to fail to support a movement for incorporating such language in the Draft Convention that its omission (Article 15) would create serious embarrassment for her as U.S. Representative."

On May 19, 1950, the State Department again stressed the importance of the Covenants in furthering a strong United States human rights foreign policy:

"One of the major aspects of United States foreign policy is to continue its support for improving the conditions of freedom everywhere through the organs of the United Nations and through all other available means. The United States Representative at the Economic and Social Council which meets in Geneva in

July will seek transmittal of the Covenant to the General Assembly in accordance with the program agreed upon by the Human Rights Commission at its last session."

As extensive as the Covenants seem to be in recognizing fundamental human freedoms, they are actually less inclusive of the rights outlined in the original statement of the Univeral Declaration. Recognizing this, the American Delegation involved in drafting the two Covenants ultimately took the position that the final version of the Civil and Political Covenant was not broad enough. Patricia Harris, the United States Alternate Representative to the 3rd Committee of the United Nations General Assembly in 1954 expressed this concern:

"To summarize the position of my delegation, I would say simply that, in each instance where we question these instruments, our concern is that they do not go far enough in protecting the rights of all individuals. ✶ ✶✶

"My delegation is convinced that we face a new day in which no government and no people can be free of a sense of obligation to meet the demands of the standards of human freedoms enumerated in these covenants. The United States has from its inception imposed the highest standards and we welcome the opportunity both to test and enhance that standard in the contract of the promulgation of the human rights covenants." (Emphasis added)

President Kennedy, too, emphasized the responsibility that the United States bears: "***the fact that our Constitution already assures us of these rights does not entitle us to stand aloof from documents which project our own heritage on an international scale. *** The United States cannot afford to renounce responsibility for support of the very fundamentals which distinguish our concept of government from all forms of tyranny."

President Carter took the highly significant forward step of signing these Covenants in 1977. In doing so, President Carter called for loyalty to our deepest traditions as a nation.

"It would be idle to pretend that these two Covenants themselves reflect the world as it is. But to those who believe that instruments that are of this kind are futile, I would suggest that there are powerful lessons to be learned in the history of my country.

"Our Declaration of Independence and The Bill of Rights expressed a lofty standard of liberty and equality. Some of these hopes were 200 years in being realized. But, ultimately because the basis was there and the documents signed at the origins of our country, peoples' discouragements and disappointments were overcome and ultimately these dreams have prevailed."

As a leading champion of human rights, the United States has a particular responsibility to other countries and to itself to demonstrate legal adherence internationally to the fundamental concepts which have motivated this nation since its birth and which have led it to play a pre-eminent role in the development of international promotion and protection of human rights. The United States was one of the earliest and strongest advocates of the codification of human rights principles. It is unfortunate that this interest and support temporarily waned and needed momentum behind these international conventions flagged. However, the Senate is now in a position to take action to renew this nation's longstanding commitment to fundamental human freedoms by ratification of these treaties. Other witnesses have given compelling reasons for United States ratification of these international Conventions. I wish to re-emphasize one: international credibility for the United States role as a human rights advocate. Ratification would give a clear affirmation of United States renewed concern for human rights at home and abroad. Acceptance of the Covenants and other international treaties will enhance the ability of the United States to pursue a persuasive and constructive human rights policy. Our experience over the past several years has shown the practical desirability of international mechanisms for human rights. Multilateral appeals in this area have the potential for great effectiveness, which will serve to reinforce bilateral initiatives.

Expansion of United States international obligations in the area of human rights will surely serve to confirm the leadership role of this nation in human rights. It is a role, Mr. Chairman, which will reflect high credit on the United States among the peoples of the world.

It cannot be overlooked that the Covenants are as important to human rights in the United States as elsewhere. The United States should welcome the opportunity both to set an example and to undergo serious self-evaluation. To the extent the Covenants set goals for United States human rights progress, they should be welcome. To the extent they provide a fresh commitment to the ideals upon which this nation was founded, they should be embraced.

The International Human Rights Covenants represent an ideal that may never be realized in a world of imperfect states and imperfect human beings. Yet, they have encouraged and continue to encourage progress of human rights goals. Many nations tend to look to the community of nations for help in developing their own advances in human rights. In countries where a strong tradition of human rights is lacking, these international conventions provide meaningful standards and a target for future progress. The International Human Rights Covenants and their forerunner, the Universal Declaration, not only exert an influence on many national constitutions and on municipal legislation, but engender human rights initiatives both within and outside the United Nations. The pace is slow but every step forward is a victory for human dignity.

The United States holds human rights in the highest regard. But those who claim rights must also accept responsibilities. As Thomas Paine said long ago:

"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."

Senator ZORINSKY. Thank you, Mr. Shestack.

STRENGTHENING ENFORCEMENT MECHANISMS

Professor Lillich, what steps would you encourage after ratification of the covenants to strengthen the enforcement mechanisms and institutions set up by these treaties, or do you believe that they are sufficiently strong as presently written?

Mr. LILLICH. No, I do not.

As I indicated in my opening remarks, I think they are relatively weak. At the end of the road, whether you are talking about reporting procedure or about state-to-state complaints or individual tions, you have problems of enforcement, problems that need an American input, as Judge Buergenthal mentioned as well.

peti

I think, as Mr. Hargrove pointed out, however, that one could not get either the procedure or the substance of these conventions_rewritten at this particular stage of the game. I doubt very much if we would be able to get a supplementary protocol, particularly in light of the fact that the President has not even asked the Senate to give its advice and consent to the optional protocol.

I would suggest, first of all, that we get aboard with the optional protocol. I made that point in my opening remarks.

Second, we are in the enviable position, in the context of the American Commission, to have a member-Professor Farer. The American Commission is so arranged that a state not party to the convention may have a member. We do have a member that is very capable, very well informed, and very effective, if I may say so.

Unfortunately, we do not have a member on the Human Rights Committee under the Civil and Political Covenant, nor are we allowed to have a member on the Racial Discrimination Committee under the Racial Discrimination Convention. This is not unusual. It is rare to have what we have in the American context, namely participation in an international body by a person from a state that has not even submitted itself to the jurisdiction of that body via the treaty-making

route.

I suppose, then, that my principal recommendation would be, as I suggested in my opening remarks, to get aboard with respect to all of these four treaties, to get a member of the Human Rights Committee and the Racial Discrimination Committee, and to ratify the optional protocol to the Civil and Political Covenant to make it more effective. Then we will see how these conventions emerge, how the substantive standards are clarified in the future years, and

how the procedural devices work out in action. Some of them, of course, only have been in operation for 1 or 3 years, depending upon whether we are talking about the American Convention or the Civil and Political Covenant.

Perhaps later we can make additional suggestions, but I think we now would be ill-advised as well as in a poor position to suggest new practical steps for enforcing these treaties, as we are not aboard right at this particular stage of the game.

Senator ZORINSKY. Thank you.

Senator Javits?

Senator JAVITS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Lillich, I have one question to ask you, but I would like to make a brief statement first.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask unanimous consent that I may introduce a man whom I consider to be one of our most distinguished Americans. Similarly, I would make the same request with another witness.

I consider these hearings extremely important and am very grateful to the witnesses who are giving us their expert views.

These covenants are of the same genre, really, and run parallel to the concerns regarding human rights expressed in the Genocide Convention which, for so many years and for the last few years with absolutely no reason, has remained pending on the Senate calendar only because we cannot produce in writing a two-thirds vote of the Senate to assure the leadership that it will be ratified. I think we are completely ready to ratify the Genocide Convention now.

I would like to express my full agreement with the many witnesses who have said that it clearly is shameful that we, who have tried to do so much for human rights in our laws, hesitate, like some great jumper at the barrier and refuse to make the jump. I hope very much that the body of testimony on these four treaties may get us over that hurdle and put the United States out in the forefront where its enormous moral power, as well as economic and political power, may be used in the interest of what should be universal human rights.

Again, I express my gratitude to the distinguished men and women who have testified and who are testifying today. I promise them that there are members of the Senate who will fight very hard to realize these assurances for the individual, whoever he may be, and wherever he may be, including individuals in Communist countries who are institutionally denied these rights, so that they may be truly universal. We may not live to see it, but I know our work will continue and will be successful.

Now, Mr. Chairman, as to the individuals at today's hearing. Roger Baldwin, listed on our agenda as founder and first executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, is now in his 96th year. In our city he is considered one of the most exciting personalities of our time.

Mr. Chairman, I know his testimony will be most valuable and enlightening to the committee. He himself is literally a statue of human rights, representing values much like the Statue of Liberty. He represents the complete history of the struggle in our time in this particular field.

Another witness I would like to introduce to the committee is Sidney Liskofsky, of the American Jewish Committee and the National Jewish Community Relations Advisory Council, because of