IO Files
Minutes of Ninth Meeting of the United States Delegation to the General Assembly, Paris, November 12, 1951 1
US/A/M(Chr)/196
[Here follow list of persons (49) present and discussion of two prior agenda items.]
3. Mr. Green noted that the other principal items in Committee 3—freedom of information and refugees—would be taken up with the Delegation at a later date. He gave a brief account of the attempts at drafting the Human Rights Covenant, by which the principles of the Human Rights Declaration would be embodied in a treaty. The Human Rights Commission had wanted, at its last session, to add to the Human Rights Covenant certain portions on economic, social, and cultural rights in addition to those on civil and political rights.
[Page 764]There would be two major questions for Committee 3. The first was whether or not to sustain the latest ECOSOC recommendation that the Covenant should be returned to the HRComm for further consideration. The proposed position was that we should be prepared to draft the Covenant at any time that was practicable, i.e. either in C.3 or in the HRComm. This would depend entirely on which way the majority tended. We would follow the majority, recognizing that the drafting of the HRC wherever done would be a big job. Ambassador Austin interrupted to ask if our decision on procedure might be affected by our position on the substance. Mr. Green said we would have to have an argument on the substance at some point, and it did not too much matter where it came.
Mr. Cohen said there was a difference in not opposing the majority and supporting it. His view was that we must not act with undue haste on this matter. His substantive views had been made apparent at meetings of the Delegation during other sessions of the GA.
Mr. Green explained that the second major question was whether to include economic and social rights in a single covenant, or to insist on two separate covenants, as had been our position in the past. We had taken our previous position from a feeling that a separate covenant on civil and political rights would receive the largest number of ratifications. Supported by the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and occasionally India, we had argued that economic and social rights were of a different character from civil and political rights. The majority did not support us in this position, or at least favored a single covenant. The Latin Americans, Near Easterners, and Far Easterners took a different view, since they were not concerned by the fact that their governments would become a party to obligations which they could not fulfill at the present. They felt that the inclusion of such rights would act as a lever in raising their economic and social status. The general emotionalism of the underdeveloped countries lay behind the majority feeling in C.3. They also felt that, if there were two covenants, one would be considered more important than the other, and many states might not adhere to the lesser one regarding economic and social rights. ECOSOC had, by an 11–5 vote, supported our position of separate covenants.
The general US position was not to risk all of the ill will we had obtained last year by opposing the majority. It would be better to have a flexible position, thereby being able to take the leadership away from the Soviets. Thus, if the majority should favor drawing up two covenants, we would agree. In the event that the majority wanted a single covenant and also was willing to let the drafting take place in the HRComm, we would take the position that the Commission should draw up two sets of covenants: one would be the single covenant, the other would contain two covenants, one on civil and political rights, [Page 765] the other concerning economic and social matters. In this way we could offer for full consideration the two alternatives, in a side-by-side comparison. If the majority wanted a single covenant drafted now by the 3rd Committee, our position would be flexible enough to agree to this. We would not, however, lose the opportunity to make known our position and the domestic difficulties which a single covenant would present. We would thus make clear at every turn the fact that we regarded the so-called economic and social rights as objectives, and not legally enforceable obligations. The papers offered by Mr. Green for consideration of the Delegation also included a draft statement to be made by us on this latter matter, and detailed proposals on drafting the covenant.
Dr. Lubin pointed out that the US in last summer’s ECOSOC meeting had obtained an agreement that, if the result were to be two separate covenants, they would both be submitted for ratification and signature to governments at the same time. Mr. Green said he would note this in the US position.
Dr. Tobias wondered about the relation between the HRC and the obligations of states under Article 73(e) of the Charter. Ambassador Sayre thought the covenant would not change any of the obligations of the Charter as to the nature of the Reports submitted under that Article. Mr. Sandifer pointed out that the question of ratification would still be up to the various states after the HRC had been drafted. Mr. Fisher posed a sample problem along these lines. If France should become a party to the HRC, and the Moroccans should protest under the appropriate procedures of the HRC, this would have no effect on Article 73 (e). The matter would not be kept away from the Assembly because of the reports submitted under that article either. It would come to the Assembly, or to the UN’s consideration, even if not raised as an Item on the GA agenda.