Chairman of the 75 member U.S. delegation to the United Nations Seabed Committee March-April, 1973, and;

Supervised preparation and Congressional introduction of the joint StateJustice Departments bill on Sovereign Immunity.

Member of the U.S. Delegation to the U.N. General Assembly 1972-75. Sesquicentennial Associate of the University of Virginia Center for Advanced Studies 1971-72. Professor of Law and Director of the Graduate Program, the University of Virginia School of Law since 1965.

In that capacity: Specialized in national security issues particularly the IndoChina War, the Arab-Israeli Conflict, problems of intervention, the laws of war, the United Nations and the OAS, the role of law in the national security system, arms control issues, and constitutional aspects of foreign relations; testified extensively on the war powers and other constitutional issues concerning ExecutiveCongressional relations in the conduct of foreign affairs.

Consultant and Lecturer at the National War College, the Naval War College, the Army War College, the Foreign Service Institute, and the Judge Advocate General's School of the Army.

MEMBERSHIPS AND ASSOCIATIONS

Member, the Department of State Advisory Committee on the Law of the Sea The Council on Foreign Relations, the Council of the Section of International Law of the American Bar Association, Chairman of the Committee of the American Bar Association Section of International Law on Foreign Boycotts, the Board of Directors American Oceanic Organization, the Board of Editors of the Marine Technology Society Journal, the Board of Editors of the American Journal of International Law, the American Branch of the International Law Association, and the North American Council of the International Peace Academy.

Admitted to the Florida Bar (1962), the Illinois Bar (1963), the Virginia Bar (1969), the District of Columbia Bar (1974), and the Bar of the United States Supreme Court (1973).

Member of the Order of the Coif, Phi Beta Kappa, the Cosmos Club and the New York Yacht Club and recipient of the Phi Beta Kappa award for "Law and the Indo-China War" (1972 Princeton University Press), and the College Alumni Achievement Award in the Arts for 1976 from Drew University.

PERSONAL DATA

Born June 12, 1937, New York, N. Y. Married to the former Patricia Diane Morris, 1963.

A.B. 1959, Drew University (Economics). LL. B. 1962, The Duke Law School (with distinction). LL. M. 1965, The University of Illinois. Summer 1963, Fellow The University of California International Legal Studies Program. NIH Fellow, 1965-66, the Yale Law School.

PUBLICATIONS

Books: "Law and the Indo-China War" (Princeton University Press 1972). I-III "The Arab-Israeli Conflict" (Princeton University Press 1974) (One volume revised and abridged edition 1977). "Law and Civil War in the Modern World" (Johns Hopkins Press 1974). Numerous other articles on oceans policy, national security, and congressional-executive relations in foreign policy.

STATEMENT OF JOHN NORTON MOORE, UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA SCHOOL OF LAW, CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA., AND VICE CHAIRMAN, SECTION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION Mr. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, it is a particular pleasure to see you again and to be back testifying before this committee. I might add that it is a special honor this morning to be testifying on behalf of the American Bar Association in support of ratification of the four human rights treaties which are before the committee.

The American Bar Association strongly supports ratification of these four treaties with the reservations, understandings, and declarations that have been proposed by the administration, and with one additional understanding which I will briefly discuss in a moment.

With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to place my prepared remarks and the official resolutions of the House of Delegates on all four of these human rights treaties in the record of this hearing and to very briefly discuss four points.

Senator PELL. Without objection, the documents will be inserted in full in the record at the appropriate place.

Mr. MOORE. Thank you.

The points I would like briefly to discuss are these: Why the United States should ratify the four human rights treaties; why this ratification would be fully consistent with the Constitution of the United States, the Federal system and the laws of the United States; a brief comment on the right to life understanding, which is being offered as an additional understanding to those of the administration; and, finally, why we believe that no additional understanding is needed on the right to property question than is contained in the administration understanding on that issue.

Why should the United States ratify the four human rights treaties before the Senate?

Mr. Chairman, ratification of these treaties will be fully consistent with an important goal of the United States in promoting human rights in the world, and failure to ratify these treaties will be inconsistent with that important foreign policy goal.

I think it is important to achieve that goal for a number of reasons. First, we want to promote minimum standards embodied in international law and it is very important to develop these uniform standards in international law guaranteeing minimum human rights. As a vice chairman of the section of international law of the American Bar Association, I would like to emphasize the importance of the development of international law in this area.

Second, as a leader in the movement to promote human rights in the world, it certainly would be inconsistent for the United States not to adhere to these agreements and it will continue to undermine the effectiveness of the United States in achieving human rights goals in failing to adhere to these treaties.

As you know, the United States has taken an active role in the past in the negotiations leading to these agreements and certainly even in the charter of the United Nations in seeking to promote respect for human rights.

In addition to that, the ratification of these four treaties would encourage the progressive development of a variety of institutional mechanisms which would seek to protect human rights around the world. In this connection I particularly would emphasize that if we become a treaty party to the Civil and Political Covenant, we would be entitled to participate in the Human Rights Committee, and we could file state-to-state complaints in the human rights area.

As a member of the American Convention on Human Rights, we would be able to participate in the nomination and election of judges and in the system for the new Inter-American Court on Human Rights. In the absence of that, Mr. Chairman, it has been rather interesting that an American citizen appointed to that court was nominated and appointed by a foreign nation. It certainly would seem appropriate for the United States to be a direct participant in the nomination and election of judges to the Inter-American Court on Human Rights,

I think these new institutions are important in promoting the progressive development of international law in this area, and we should do what we can to promote their realization in the world.

Mr. Chairman, the second point I briefly want to mention is that the American Bar Association believes that the ratification of these four treaties, with the understandings, reservations, and declarations recommended, would be fully consistent with the Constitution of the United States, would fully be consistent with the State-Federal system, and would be something that would be consistent with the overall domestic law of the United States.

From time to time arguments have been raised that perhaps we ought not adhere to these treaties because of some legalism or some supposed inconsistency with the U.S. Constitution, and, provided that there is a clear understanding and reservation in those areas where there may be inconsistency, we feel that certainly there is no valid reason whatsoever not to sign the treaties on that basis. I might add that this is an area where the American Bar Association can speak with particular authority that with these understandings and reservations it is our judgment that there is no inconsistency with the Constitution of the United States or the principle of federalism.

Mr. Chairman, third I would make just a brief comment on the one additional understanding offered by the American Bar Association to those of the administration. This is an understanding offered to article 6 of the Civil and Political Covenant, which would read: "The United States' adherence to article 6 concerning the right to life is subject to the Constitution and other laws of the United States."

Mr. Chairman, this simply would track the reservation already proposed by the administration to article 4 of the American Convention and simply would make abundantly clear, perhaps taking a cautious approach here, something which certainly is the intent of the administration. It would be perfectly consistent with what we are doing in the American Human Rights Convention.

I might add that this is not something that is an intervention on the merits of the subject matter itself, but rather is a provision that is designed to protect fully the constitutional guarantees offered under the American Constitution. It is completely consistent with what the administration has sought to do throughout the ratification process to make certain that we are consistent in reservations and understandings with the U.S. Constitution.

The last point I would like to discuss very briefly, Mr. Chairman, simply because I understand some questions already have been raised in this area, is that concerning the possible need for an amendment, reservation, or something going beyond the understanding offered by the administration with respect to the right of property.

The American Bar Association is recommending the ratification with the understandings, declarations, and reservations of the administration with only the one addition made, and this is the right-to-life clarifying amendment or understanding which I have just discussed. It is not supporting any additional understandings or amendments in this case.

Let me speak for a moment to the merits of that issue.

The question already is dealt with in the American Convention, specifically in article 21 of that convention, which protects the right of property. It is the interpretation of the United States, as expressed in an understanding of the administration, that the Economic, Social,

and Cultural Covenant also means that everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others. This is an expressed understanding recommended by the administration and concurred in by the American Bar Association which is based on an interpretation of paragraph 2 of article 2 and of article 25 of the Economic, Social, and Cultural Covenant. It is our opinion that this fully protects the right to own property, indeed as certainly is the intention of the State Department understanding on this important point.

I might add that any effort to amend a multilateral treaty is extremely difficult. There virtually is no possibility of anyone renegotiating these treaties on this point, given the number of adherents to all of these treaties-with the exception of the American Convention, which specifically deals with the point and protects it-which have already entered into force. An amendment simply would not be something that would be a viable way of dealing with this question. In any event, it is fully protected by the understanding and the administration position.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[Mr. Moore's prepared statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN NORTON MOORE

Mr. Chairman, it is a privilege and a pleasure to testify before the Committee on behalf of the American Bar Association in support of accession of the United States to the Human Rights Treaties. While the United States has taken a strong lead in the promotion and observance of international human rights, our delay in accepting the international human rights treaties has hampered our efforts. We need to confirm our lead in promoting internationally recognized human rights norms by ourselves espousing publicly the standards embodied in the five human rights treaties before the Senate and by articulating our commitment to human rights through accession to these international agreements. We commend the efforts of this Committee in taking this critical first step toward ratification.

The American Bar Association in recent years has given strong support for efforts to define and give international legal status to codes and precepts of human rights. In the late sixties, the American Bar Association House of Delegates formally declared its commitment and support for United States promotion of "universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms." This commitment was demonstrated again in 1967 by American Bar Association endorsement for United States accession to the Supplemental Slavery Convention. And in 1976, the American Bar Association endorsed the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. The American Bar Association in 1978 extended formal support to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, and supported in 1979 the International Covenants on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and Civil and Political Rights. This past August the ABA voted to support ratification of the American Convention on Human Rights. All of these American Bar Association actions have been supplemented by related measures as well, such as the 1978 expression of support for the Helsinki Agreement's human rights provisions, and passing several formal resolutions condemning the actions of foreign countries which violated human rights.

Today the American Bar Association stands firm in its support for United States accession to the four international human rights treaties which President Carter transmitted to the Senate for its advise and consent. The American Bar Association urges the Senate to give its advise and consent to these treaties subject to the understandings, reservations and declarations proposed by the Administration.

The four American Bar Association resolutions pertaining to these treaties, which I would like to include in the record, each have recommended ratification subject to the understandings, reservations and declarations proposed by the Administration.1 In one instance, however, the American Bar Association recommendation proposes an additional understanding concerning the interpretation of

1 Copies of the relevant resolutions as approved by the House of Delegates of the ABA are attached.

"the right to life" within the Civil and Political Covenant merely to make abundantly clear that on this point nothing in our adherence to these treaties could in any way affect the guarantees provided by our Constitution.

The reservations proposed by the Administration are relatively few in number compared with the numerous articles in all four treaties and should answer any concerns about implementing legislation, federal/state powers or possible constitutional conflicts.

One fundamental question that has been raised is whether the protection of human rights is a proper subject for the treaty power, that is whether the shaping of civil, political, social and economic rights should be legislated by treaty.

This question can be answered in two ways. Close examination of the provisions of the treaties reveals that they are compatible with United States law. Thus, ratification merely affirms our own national policies. Secondly, in view of the fact that the treaties are generally on all fours with United States laws, non-self-executing declarations have been proposed for each treaty. Such declarations require further implementing legislation for domestic legal effect. In this instance, existing federal and state laws already implement the rights guaranteed under the treaties. Thus, there is no further need to bring the language of the treaties into the United States domestic legal system. While the courts will be free to examine the treaties in order to interpret other United States laws, the non-self-executing language eliminates the courts' burden of interpreting the additional language of international treaties which grants rights already found in state and federal laws. In such cases where human rights may receive fuller expression under the treaties, ratification simply commits the United States to enacting appropriate implementing legislation to ensure such rights. Indeed, provision is made within the treaties themselves for enacting legislation to ensure implementation of treaty provisions. Thus by adopting the non-self-executing declarations, the Senate is assured that the rights enjoyed by United States citizens continue to be the subject of United States legislative and judicial jurisdiction.

A second question concerning the scope of the treaties is the preservation of federal-state relations. Most of the rights protected by the treaties are those which fall within federal jurisdiction. For those situations which remain within the jurisdiction of the states, however, they are fully protected by the proposed reservations concerning federal/state jurisdiction.

A third area of concern is any substantive conflict between rights protected by the treaties and other rights guaranteed by the Constitution or those which the American tradition long has emphasized and respected. One possible area of conflict involves the right to life. Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provides a general protection of the right to life and limits the circumstances in which capital punishment may be imposed or carried out. Under Article 6(1) "every human being has the inherent right to life." Also under Article 16 "everyone" is recognized as a person before the law. There is, of course, no authority in the treaty-making power to contravene the United States Constitution. However, in order to avoid any confusion regarding the meaning of these terms, the American Bar Association recommends, in addition to the Administration's proposals, the following understanding:

"The United States adherence to Article 6 (concerning the 'right to life') is subject to the Constitution and other laws of the United States."

Again, in the Racial Discrimination Convention, Article 4 contains prohibitions on freedom of speech and assembly which directly conflicts with First Amendment freedoms. Thus, it is necessary to reserve rights guaranteed under the United States Constitution.

The American Bar Association's urging of ratification with the understandings, reservations and declarations proposed by the Administration, as well as one additional understanding discussed above, is based on sound legal opinions as well as on genuine concern for the success of the ratification effort.

It should be noted that many of our allies and friends-for example the United Kingdom, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Austria, the Federal Republic of Germany and Italy-all have ratified these treaties with substantial reservations. Rather than appearing to minimize our obligations, reserving with respect to certain provisions underscores the serious deliberation and commitment with which the United States views these international agreements. In contrast to states which wholly ratify international human rights treaties and neither implement them in practice nor observe them in spirit, the United States will be viewed as a serious, cautious but wholly committed participant.

Mr. Chairman, you will be presented during these four days of hearings with many reasons why the Senate should ratify these four human rights treaties.