Ninth session 
Agenda item 58 

DRAFT INTERNATIONAL COVENANTS ON HUMAN RIGHTS  

Report of the Third Committee

Rapporteur: Mrs. L. TSALDARIS (Greece) 

[Contents]

DRAFT INTERNATIONAL COVENANTS ON HUMAN RIGHTS 

Report of the Third Committee 

I. INTRODUCTION 

1. The General Assembly, on 10 December 1948, adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and, in the same resolution (217(III)), requested the Economic and Social Council to ask the Commission on Human Rights to continue to give priority in its work to the preparation of a draft covenant on human rights and draft measures of implementation. The Commission, at its tenth session (23 February to 16 April 1954); completed its work on a draft Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and a draft Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 

2. The various stages of the work on the draft covenants are outlined in the report of the Commission on the work of its tenth session (E/2573, chapter III, part I). The review covers the period from the second session of the Commission in December 1947, when it decided that the International Bill of Human Rights should consist of a "declaration", a "covenant" and "measures of implementation" (E/600, paragraph 18) up to the completion of the two draft covenants by the Commission at its last session. 

3. The Commission also decided at that session to request the Economic and Social Council to forward to the General Assembly certain documents relating to the admissibility or non-admissibility of reservations to the covenants and the effect to be attributed to them (E/2573, chapter III, part IV B, paragraphs 262 to 305). It also included in its report certain observations submitted by four of its members (E/2573, paragraph 39) regarding the procedure which might be followed for the final adoption of the covenants. These representatives (Egypt, France, the Philippines and Uruguay) proposed that the Council's attention should be drawn to the possible advantage of recommending that the General Assembly give the drafts two separate readings at two consecutive sessions, the first to deal with the drafts in their present form. 

4. The Council at its eighteenth session noted with warm appreciation that the Commission had completed the lengthy and difficult task of preparing, in so far as possible, the draft covenants, and felt that this fact warranted special mention in its report to the General Assembly.

5. In section I of resolution 545 B I (XVIII) of 29 July 1954, the Council transmitted the draft covenants to the General Assembly, together with the Commission's report and the records of the proceedings of the Council on the subject. It drew the attention of the Assembly to the suggestions about procedure for the final consideration of the draft covenants contained in that report. It requested the Secretary-General to bring the covenants and the parts of the report concerning them to the special attention of the Governments of Member and non-member States, and to collect any comments they might submit. In section II of resolution 545 B (XVIII) the Council transmitted to the General Assembly the proposals and amendments together with the pertinent summary records of the Commission's discussion on the problem of admissibility or non-admissibility of reservations to the covenants. In resolution 547 J (XVIII) the Council also forwarded to the Assembly the recommendation on article 22 of the draft Covenant on Civil and Political Rights submitted to it by the Commission on the Status of Women, to be considered at the same time as the draft Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 

6. The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland transmitted comments in accordance with the Council's request (A/C.3/574). 

II. PROCEDURE FOLLOWED BY THE THIRD COMMITTEE 

7. The General Assembly, at its 478th meeting on 25 September 1954, decided to allocate the item "Draft International Covenants on Human Rights" to the Third Committee. The Committee decided to take this up as the second item on its agenda (A/C.3/SR.544, 548 and 549). It also considered at the same time the section of chapter V of the report of the Economic and Social Council on the draft covenants (A/2686, chapter V, section 1). 

8. The Committee first discussed the procedure it wished to follow in dealing with the draft covenants (A/C.3/SR.557 to 560). In this connexion, it took into account the suggestions of the four members of the Commission on Human Rights (E/2573, paragraph 39), which had been drawn to the attention of the General Assembly by the Council. 

9. A difference of opinion arose in the Committee over what should constitute a "first reading" of the draft covenants. Some members thought that there should be a general discussion at which all delegations, and especially those who had not been represented on the Commission on Human Rights, would have a chance to express their views. Some considered that such a general discussion should constitute a "first reading". Others thought that the Committee should begin immediately to discuss the draft covenants article by article. It was argued that the drafts had been under discussion for several years and that a general debate or general discussion would not serve any useful purpose at that stage. 

10. It was suggested that the draft covenants might be discussed "part by part" or "section by section". It was said that those who favoured holding a general discussion could then comment on the general principles underlying the articles in each part or section, while those who wanted to discuss the individual articles would be free to do so under each part or section. Objections were raised to this suggestion on the grounds that it might not allow time enough to complete the discussion of the draft covenants at the present session, and also that difficulties would arise in grouping the articles in sections or parts, and regarding the order in which the sections or parts should be discussed. The view was expressed that the first reading should be completed at the current session of the Assembly. Others, however, thought that it was premature to decide finally on that question and that the decision should not be prejudged. 

11. During the debate on procedure reference was made to the possibility of convening a conference of plenipotentiaries, of holding a special session of the Third Committee, or of setting up a committee of all Member States or a sub-committee of the Third Committee to draw up the draft covenants in final form. Several representatives expressed the view that, for the present state at any rate, the Third Committee itself should deal with the draft covenants and should devote approximately half its remaining meetings to this item. 

Proposals and amendments before the Committee 

12. Proposals were made by Afghanistan (A/C.3/L.406) concerning the procedure to be adopted for dealing with the draft covenants as follows: 

"1. The draft covenants should be discussed during the current session of the General Assembly. 

"2. The draft covenants should be discussed in the Third Committee. 

"3. The first reading of the draft covenants should take place, section by section, in the Third Committee during the current session of the General Assembly." 

13. In an amendment by the United Kingdom (A/C.3/L.407) the addition of the following paragraph was proposed: 

"4. The Third Committee will devote not more than half of its remaining meetings to the consideration of the draft covenants." 

The representative of Cuba orally proposed that the words "not more than" should be replaced by the word "one" (A/C.3/SR.560). This proposal was accepted by the representative of the United Kingdom. 

14. An amendment was submitted by Australia (A/C.3/L.408) to replace paragraph 3 of the proposals of Afghanistan by the following text: 

"A first reading of the draft covenants, beginning with a general discussion, should take place in the Third Committee during the current session of the General Assembly." 

The representative of Egypt orally proposed that the words "section by section" in paragraph 3 of the proposals of Afghanistan should be replaced by the words "part by part" (A/C.3/SR.560). 

15. The representative of Afghanistan accepted the amendments put forward by the United Kingdom and Egypt (A/C.3/SR.560). 

Decisions of the Committee 

16. The first proposal of Afghanistan (A/C.3/L.406, paragraph 1) was adopted by 52 votes to none, with one abstention. 

17. The second proposal of Afghanistan (A/C.3/L.406, paragraph 2) was adopted by 51 votes to none, with one abstention. 

18. In connexion with the third proposal of Afghanistan (A/C.3/L.406, paragraph 3) the Committee first voted on whether it wished to consider the amendment of Australia (A/C.3/L.408) as an amendment or a separate proposal. It decided, by 27 votes to 15, with 5 abstentions, that it should be considered as an amendment. 

19. A proposal by the representative of Lebanon to vote only on those words of the Australian amendment which amended the Afghanistan text was adopted by 19 votes to 2, with 23 abstentions. 

20. The Committee then voted as follows: 
	
(a) On the amendment of Australia: 
	It adopted, by 25 votes to 15, with 10 abstentions, the first word "a" as a substitution for the word "the" in the proposal of Afghanistan. 
	The word "beginning" was retained by 26 votes to 5, with 12 abstentions. 
	The words "beginning with a general discussion" were adopted by 30 votes to 7, with 13 abstentions. 

(b) A motion to insert the phrase "part by part" was rejected by 22 votes to 16, with 7 abstentions. 

21. The third proposal of Afghanistan, as amended by Australia, was adopted on a roll-call vote taken at the request of the representative of Afghanistan, by 31 votes to 3, with 18 abstentions. The voting was as follows: 

In favour: Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, France, Guatemala, Iceland, Israel, Luxembourg, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, Poland, Sweden, Turkey, Union of South Africa, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America, Uruguay. 

Against: China, Egypt, Haiti. 

Abstaining: Afghanistan, Bolivia, Burma, Costa Rica, Ethiopia, Greece, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Yugoslavia. 

22. The additional paragraph proposed by the United Kingdom (A/C.3/L.407), with the amendment orally proposed by the representative of Cuba and accepted by the representative of the United Kingdom, was adopted by 38 votes to none, with 7 abstentions. 

23. The decisions of the Committee therefore were as follows: 

(a) The draft covenants should be discussed during the current session of the General Assembly. 

(b) The draft covenants should be discussed in the Third Committee. 

(c) A first reading of the draft covenants, beginning with a general discussion, should take place in the Third Committee during the current session of the General Assembly. 

(d) The Third Committee would devote one-half of its remaining meetings to the consideration of the draft covenants. 

24. The general discussion was held during the 561st to 577th meetings from 21 October to 2 November 1954. It is briefly summarized in chapter III, part A of the present report. 

25. After the conclusion of the general discussion, at the 577th meeting, the Committee adopted, by 50 votes to none, with one abstention, an oral proposal by the representative of Afghanistan, by which the Committee decided to begin, at its next meeting, the second part of its first reading of the draft covenants, on the understanding that every delegation would be free to submit, if possible in one statement, new proposals or amendments to or observations on the articles. 

26. The second part of the first reading took place at the 578th to 582nd meetings, from 9 to 12 November 1954. A brief summary, including the proposals and amendments submitted, is given in chapter III, part B of the present report. 

27. At the 577th meeting also, the representative of Costa Rica introduced a proposal which concerned future work on the draft covenants. This was discussed at the 577th to 586th meetings of the Committee. The draft resolution presented, the various amendments to it, and the action taken by the Committee are described in chapter IV of the present report. 

III. FIRST READING OF THE DRAFT COVENANTS 

A. First part (general discussion) 

28. Most representatives on the Committee participated in the general discussion, when certain general questions relating to the draft covenants were raised. Different opinions were expressed on the admissibility of reservations. There were some general observations on the measures of implementation. Reference was made to the right of petition. Widely divergent views were expressed on some provisions common to both draft covenants, such as the article on the right of peoples to self-determination, the federal clause and the territorial application article. Observations and suggestions on some of the individual articles in each draft covenant were also made during the general discussion. 

29.  Several members expressed their regret that the General Assembly had decided on the preparation of two covenants. It was pointed out that civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights were of equal importance and mutually interdependent. Certain economic, social and cultural conditions were necessary for the full enjoyment of civil and political rights. The distinction which had been made was a purely artificial one. Others held that the nature of the two categories of rights rendered it necessary to give them separate treatment. The level of realization of economic, social and cultural rights in every country depended on factors which were not always within the power of the Government to control. It was also argued that the draft Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights expressed aspirations to be achieved progressively over a period of time, while civil and political rights should be guaranteed immediately by a State on becoming a party to the latter covenant. The view was also expressed that, while it might be difficult at this stage to reverse the previous decision of the General Assembly, as many States as possible should become parties to the two covenants simultaneously. 

30. Many representatives emphasized that the two covenants should be drafted in such a way that they would be acceptable to as many States as possible. Their effectiveness would depend as much on their acceptability as on their content. At the same time it was pointed out that they should not establish such a low level that all States could ratify them immediately, because then they would have no real effect. Similarly, instruments which established such high ideals that no nation could ratify them would be of little value. Some members of the Committee expressed the view that the drafts in their present form had, in general, achieved a wide degree of compromise between differing political, economic and cultural opinions and, while not ideal, should be regarded as fairly satisfactory. 

31. Many of the views expressed on the question of reservations were linked with the idea of universal acceptability of the covenants. Some representatives held that, in instruments as important as the covenants, no reservations should be permitted. Many, however, expressed the view that, in the interests of securing the maximum number of ratifications, a reasonable provision on reservations should be included. It was generally agreed that, if reservations were admitted, adequate safeguards against abuse must be provided. Various suggestions to meet this problem were made. These included: limiting the articles to which reservations would be allowed; admitting reservations only after two-thirds of the States parties had consented to them; establishing a time-limit for the duration of reservations; and admitting only those which were compatible with the purpose and object of the covenants. The view was expressed that the question of reservations should be decided before the substantive articles were finally decided upon.