1 The best comprehensive studies are: Lauterpacht, International Law and Human rights (1950); Jacob Eobinson, Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in the Charter of the United Nations (1946); Nehemiah Eobinson, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Its Origin, Significance, Application and Interpretation (2nd ed., 1958); Chakravarti, Human Rights and the United Nations (1958); Ganjii, International Protection of Human Rights (1962). See also: United Nations, Dept. of Public Information, These Rights and Freedoms (1950); United Nations Work for Human Rights (4th ed., 1961), U.N. Pub. Sales No. 62.1.3; A Standard of Achievement (Special 15th Anniversary Edition, 1963), U.N. Pub. Sales No. 62.1.13; Guradze, Der Stand der Menschenrechte im Volkerrecht (1956).

2 Lauterpaeht, note 1 above, and McDougal, review, 60 Yale Law J. 1051 (1951); Lasswell, World Politics and Personal Insecurity (1935); Arendt, The Origin of Totalitarian ism (1951); Dollard and Associates, Frustration and Aggression (1939); Pear (ed.), Psychological Factors of Peace and War (1950); Klineberg, Tensions Affecting International Understanding (1950); Cantril (ed.), Tensions That Cause War (1950) (common statement and individual papers by a group of social scientists brought together by UNESCO); Kisker (ed.), World Tension—The Psychopathology of International Relations (1951); Kardiner, The Mark of Oppression (1951).

3 Corwin, Liberty Against Government (1948); Barker, Principles of Social and Political Theory 232-233 (1951); Laski, The Eise of European Liberalism 109 (1936).

4 Barker, op. cit. 244-252; Mannheim, Man and Society in an Age of Reconstruction 336 (1948); Buchanan-Lutz, Rebuilding the World Economy 34 (1947).

5 Corwin, note 3 above; Tawney, Equality (1931).

6 Lasswell, , “The Interrelations of World Organization and Society,” 55 Yale Law J. 889 (1946)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Maciver, Democracy and Economic Challenge 29 (1952).

7 Wade, Introduction to Dicey, Law of the Constitution (9th ed., 1950).

8 Former Secretary General Lie, in his address to the New York Herald Tribune Forum, said: “The demand for freedom, for equality of rights, for economic opportunity, can be heard with rising insistence and urgency by all who have ears to hear. “We face here one of the great challenges of our civilization. Either we must find effective ways to answer it by the peaceful evolutionary means proclaimed in the United Nations Charter or we shall find ourselves engulfed in a succession of violent upheavals that will bring widespread chaos.” New York Herald Tribune, Oct. 20, 1952, at p. 10.

9 This categorization is derived from Lasswell and Kaplan, Power and Society (1950), and has been used in various previous publications, including McDougal and Leighton, “The Rights of Man in the World Community: Constitutional Illusions versus Rational Action,” 14 Law and Contemporary Problems 490 (1949), and 59 Yale Law J. 60 (1949); and in McDougal, , “The Comparative Study of Law for Policy Purposes: Value Clarification as an Instrument of Democratic World Order,” 61 Yale Law J. 917 (1952).CrossRefGoogle Scholar Some of these publications are collected in McDougal and Associates, Studies in World Public Order (1961).

10 McDougal and Leighton, note 9 above.

11 Wright (ed.), The World Community (1948); Ogburn (ed.), Technology and International Relations (1949); Staley, World Economy in Transition 3-56 (1939); Lasswell, , “The Interrelations of World Organization and Society,” 55 Yale Law J. 889 (1946);CrossRefGoogle Scholar Bourquin, “Pouvoir Scientifique et Droit International,” 70 Hague Academy Eecueil des Cours 335-402 (1947).

12 Kant, Perpetual Peace 142 (Smith ed., 1917).

13 These interdependences are outlined in more detail in McDougal and Leighton, note 9 above, and McDougal, , “The Role of Law in World Politics,” 20 Miss. Law J. 253 (1949).Google Scholar See also Klineberg, Tensions Affecting International Understanding 187- 212; Horkheimer, “The Lessons of Fascism,” in Cantril (ed.), Tensions That Cause Wars 209-242; Kisker, World Tension—The Psyehopathology of International Relations 312; Lasswell, “World Loyalty,” in Wright (ed.), The World Community 200-225; Gorove, , “Towards World Loyalty,” 23 Miss. Law J. 159–188 (1952);Google Scholar Flugel, Man, Morals and Society 316-317 (1945); West, Conscience and Society 226-237 (1945); “A Plea Tor Rational Approach to the Problem of War and Peace,” 16 U. of Chicago Law Eev. 390-396 (1948/49).

14 Lasswell, National Security and Individual Freedom (1950).

15 This description is that of Lasswell in The World devolution of Our Time (1951). See also his National Security and Individual Freedom (1950); “ ‘Inevitable War’ “: A. Problem in the Control of Long Range Expectations,” 2 World Politics 1-40 (1949); and “The Prospects of Cooperation in a Bi-polar World,” 15 U. of Chicago Law Eev. 887-901 (1947/48).

16 Corbett, Law and Society in the Relations of States 54 (1951); Idelson, “The Law of the Nations and the Individual,” 30 Grotius Society Transactions 50 (1944).

17 Hyde, International Law Chiefly as Interpreted and Applied by the United States 209 (1945); Oppenheim, International Law 279 (Lauterpacht, 7th ed., 1948). Kunz, “Present-Day Efforts at International Protection of Human Rights: A General Analytical and Critical Introduction,” 1951 Proceedings, American Society of International Law 117, still maintains that “ t o make individuals direct subjects of international law … has no chance to be realized, for theoretical as well as practical reasons.''

18 The International Law of the Future , “ 30 Am. Bar Assn, . Journal 35-37 (1944); 38 A.J.I.L. Supp. 54–135 (1944).Google Scholar See also Oppenheim, note 17 above.

19 Jessup, A Modern Law of Nations 88 (1948); Fenwick, International Law 265 (3rd ed., 1948).

20 Consultative Council of Jewish Organizations, Implementation of an International Covenant of Human Rights 27 (1952); Arts. 15 and 19, par. 4, Italian Peace Treaty; Art. 2, Hungarian and Bulgarian Peace Treaties, and Art. 3, Rumanian Peace Treaty. Full text, Dept. of State, Treaties of Peace … (Pub. 2743, European Series 21); 42 A.J.I.L. Supp. 47, 179, 225, 252 (1948); Martin, , “Human Rights in the Paris Peace Treaties,” 24 Brit. Yr. Bk. Int. Law 392–398 (1947);Google Scholar Kertesz, , “Human Rights in Peace Treaties,” 14 Law and Contemporary Problems 627–646 (1949).CrossRefGoogle Scholar See also Schwelb, “The Austrian State Treaty and Human Rights,” 5 Int. and Comp. Law Q. 265 (1956).

21 Roth, Minimum Standard of International Law Applied to Aliens 23 (1949); Punn; The Protection of Nationals 47 (1931), For a detailed discussion, see Harvard Law School, Eesearch in International Law, the Law of Responsibility of States for Damage Done in Their Territory to the Person or Property of Foreigners, 23 A.J.I.L. Spec. Supp. 133-218 (1929); Borchard, The Diplomatic Protection of Citizens Abroad (1919). The recent discussions in the International Law Commission offer a great variety in view.

22 Borchard, cited above, Preface; Dunn, cited above, pp. 62-63; Both, cited above, pp. 81-110; Borchard, “ The Minimum Standard of the Treatment of Aliens,” 1939 Proceedings, Am. Soc. Int. Law 51-63.

23 Dunn, cited above, pp . 56, 140 - 141 ; Both, above, p p . 62-80.

24 Freeman, “Human Rights and the Rights of Aliens,” 1951 Proceedings, Am. Soc. Int. Law 127.

25 lbid. 123, 127. See, however, the Statute of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Eefugees, annexed to General Assembly Bes. 427/V/1950; Convention on the Status of Eefugees, 1951, cited in note 46 below; and the Convention on the Status of Stateless Persons, 1954, U.N. Conference on the Status of Stateless Persons, Final Act and Convention, U.N. Doc. E/CONF.17/5/Eev.l., and 1954 Yearbook of Human Rights 369.

26 Lauterpacht, International Law and Human Rights 78-79 (1950); Verdross, Volkerrecht 492-493 (1950); Schindler, “Gedanken zum Wiederaufbau des Volkerrechts,” in his Becht, Staat und Volkergemeinschaft 237, 239, 240 (1948); Politis, The New Aspect of International Law 24-25 (1928). See also O'Sullivan, “The Concern of International Law for the Individual,” 34 Grotius Society Transactions 6-29 (1948); Dunn, “The International Rights of the Individual,” 1941 Proceedings, Am. Soc. Int. Law 18; McDougal, “International Law, Power and Policy: A Contemporary Conception,” 82 Hague Academy Becueil des Cours 173, 174, 237-256 (1953).

27 Hambro, “Individuals before International Tribunals,” 1941 Proceedings, Am. Soe. Int. Law 22-27; Lauterpacht, cited above, p. 48. See also explanatory paper on measures of implementation prepared by the Secretary General, U.N. Doc.A/5411 (April, 1963).

28 Lauterpacht, note 1 above, p. 38 et seq.; Levy, “Criminal Eesponsibility of Individuals and International Law,” 12 U. of Chicago Law Eev. 313, 326 (1945); McDougal and Feliciano, Law and Minimum World Public Order 706 (1961). Art. II of the Convention for the Protection of Submarine Telegraph Cables, 75 Brit, and For. State Papers 356 (1883-1884); North Sea Convention, 79 ihid. 894 (1887-1888); Convention for Unification of Certain Eules of Law with Eespect to Assistance and Salvage at Sea, 3 U. S. Treaties 2943 (1923); Convention for Preservation and Protection of Fur Seals, ibid. 2966; Convention on the Suppression of Counterfeiting Currency, 4 Hudson, International Legislation 2692 (1928-1929); Convention Between the U. S. and Other Powers to Suppress Slave Trade and Slavery, 4 U. S. Treaties 5022 (1938); Convention on the Suppression of Traffic in Women and Children, 1 Hudson, International Legislation 726 (1919-1921); Convention For Limiting the Manufacture and Eegulating the Distribution of Narcotics, 139 L. N. Treaty Series 301. See also the decision of the U. S. Consular Court in Tangier on a piracy charge, New York Times, Dec. 21, 1952, p. 1, col. 1.

29 Lauterpacht, , ‘ ‘ The Subjects of the Law of Nations,'’ 64 Law Quarterly Eev. 97, 99 (1948);Google Scholar Wright, , “International Law and Power Politics,” 2 Measure 135 (1951).Google Scholar

31 Jones, , “National Minorities: A Case Study in International Protection,” 14 Law and Contemporary Problems 599 (1949);CrossRefGoogle Scholar Mitrany, , “Human Rights and International Organization,” 3 India Q. 115 (1947).Google Scholar

32 1 Miller, The Drafting of the Covenant 183 (1928); see also pp. 269, 461.

33 Kaeekenbeeck, The International Experiment of Upper Silesia (1942).

34 87 Cong. Bee, Pt. I, pp. 46-47, 77th Cong., 1st Sess.

35 6 Dept. of State Bulletin 3 (1942); 35 A.J.I.L. Supp. 191 (1941) ; 36 ibid. 191 (1942).

36 Dept. of State, Postwar Foreign Policy Preparation 1939-1945, p. 327 (Pub. 3580, Gen. Foreign Pol. Series 15, 1950). For the Dept. of State's preliminary work and drafting of a “ Bill of Rights” see ibid. 84, 98, 115-116; for the text of the draft, see ibid. 483-485, Annex No. 14.

37 1 U.N.C.I.O. Docs. 717 (1945). Art. 2(7) of the United Nations Charter, which recites that “nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter,” has been on occasion invoked as imposing limitation on the powers both of nation states to make new agreements and of the U.N. Organizationto undertake programs of definition and implementation with respect to human rights. It seems clear, however, that this article imposes no limitation on the powers of nation states to make new agreements and little, if any, limitation on the powers of the organization in the domain of human rights. The words “domestic jurisdiction” have no inherent or established doctrinal meaning and were purposely left vague in the Charter to enable the organization effectively to meet unknowable future contingencies. The explicit stipulations in the Charter for promoting human rights would have been meaningless had it been intended that the “domestic jurisdiction” clause should preclude definition and implementation. See McDougal and Leighton, note 9 above, at 77, and Lauterpacht, note 1 above, at 166.

38 For the text of the Declaration, see Res. 217 (III) in General Assembly, 3rd Sess., Official Records, Pt. I, Resolutions, p. 71; 43 A.J.I.L. Supp. 127 (1949).

39 Ibid.

40 Lauterpacht, note 1 above, pp. 394-408; Fawcett, , “A British View of the Covenant,” 14 Law and Contemporary Problems 439 (1949);CrossRefGoogle Scholar Ch. Malik, , “Progress of the Covenant on Human Rights,” 10 United Nations Bulletin 554–557 (1951).Google Scholar

41 See Schwelb, ‘ ‘ The Influence of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on International and National Law,” 1959 Proceedings, Am. Soc. Int. Law 217, and “Die Kodiflkationsarbeiten der Vereinten Nationen auf dem Gebiete der Menschenrechte,” 8 Archiv des Volkerrechts 16, 36 (1959); Lin Mousheng, “The Human Rights Program,” in 1961-1962 Annual Eeview of United Nations Affairs 102, 105 (1963); A Standard of Achievement, op. cit. note 1 above, at 12-32; Schwelb, Human Rights and the International Community (1964).

42 Ees. 260 (III) ; General Assembly, 3rd Sess., Official Eecords, Pt. I, Eesolutions, p. 174; 45 A.J.I.L. Supp. 7 (1951). It should be noted that Arts. 2 and 3 of the convention make constitutional rulers and officials responsible for acts committed against their own citizens. As of June, 1962, the convention had been ratified or acceded to by 64 states.

43 Office of United States Chief of Counsel of Prosecution of Axis Criminality, Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression, Opinion and Judgment (1947); 41 A.J.I.L. 172 (1947). The Nuremberg Judgment marks a full recognition of the international responsibility of the individual and affirms a realistic principle of international law. “Crimes against international law are committed by men, not by abstract entities, and only by punishing individuals who commit such crimes can the provisions of international law be enforced.” International Military Tribunal Judgment, Sept. 30, 1946. See I Trial of the Major War Criminals 222-223 (1947); Schwelb, , “Crimes Against Humanity,” 23 Brit. Tr. Bk. Int. Law 178–226 (1946);Google Scholar McDougal and Feliciano, op. cit. note 28 above, at 126 and 165.

44 Cf. Art. IV of the Genocide Convention. See also Art. 25 of the draft statute for an international criminal court: ‘ ‘ The Court shall be competent to judge natural persons, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals.” Report of the Committee on International Criminal Jurisdiction, General Assembly, 9th Sess., Official Records, Supp. No. 12 (A/2645) (1953).

45 For more detailed discussion of these measures, see Sehwelb, ‘ ‘ International Conventions on Human Rights,” 9 Int. and Comp. Law Q. 654 (1960); United Nations Work for Human Rights, op. cit. note 1 above, at 12-35.

46 For text see Final Act and Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 2/108/Eev. 1, U.N. Pub. Sales No. 1951. IV.4; 11 U.N. Bulletin 143- 148 (1951); 1951 Yearbook on Human Rights 581. As of June, 1962, the convention had been ratified or acceded to by 33 states. See also Weis, “ T h e International Protection of Refugees,” 48 A.J.I.L. 193 (1954).

47 For text see Final Act and Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons, U.N. Doc. E/CONF. 17/5/Eev. 1, U.N. Pub. Sales No. 1956. XIV.l; 1954 Yearbook on Human Rights 369. As of June, 1962, the convention had been ratified or acceded to by 11 states. Note that stateless persons are granted merely treatment “ n o t less favorable” than that accorded to aliens generally in the matter of wageearning employment (Art. 17) and the right of association (Art. 15), whereas refugees are entitled to “ t h e most favourable treatment accorded to nationals of a foreign country, in the same circumstances.” (Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, note 46 above, Arts. 17 and 15.)

48 For text see Final Act and Convention on the Seduction of Statelessness, U.N. Docs. A/CONF. 9/14 and A/CONF. 9/15.

49 For text see U.N. Dept. of Public Information, These Rights and Freedoms 192- 197 (1950); 1948 Yearbook on Human Rights 427. As of June, 1962, the convention had been ratified or acceded to by 58 states. See also Jenks, The International Protection of Trade Union Freedom 24 (1957).

50 For text see These Rights and Freedoms, cited above, pp. 198-202; 1949 Yearbook on Human Rights 291. As of June, 1962, the convention had been ratified or acceded to by 53 states. See also Jenks, note 49 above, and “ T h e Application of International Labour Conventions by Means of Collective Agreements,” 19 Zeitschrift für Ausländisches Öffentliches Eeeht und Völkerrecht 197-224 (1958).

51 For text see Final Act of the U.N. Conference of Plenipotentiaries on a Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery, the Slave Trade, and Institutions and Practices Similar to Slavery, U.N. Doc. E/CONF. 24/23, U.N. Pub. Sales No. 1957. XIV.2; 1956 Yearbook on Human Rights 289. As of June, 1962, the convention had been ratified or acceded to by 38 states.

52 For text see International Labour Office, Official Bulletin, “Vol. XL (1957), No. 1; Appendix XVI to the Record of Proceedings of the International Labour Conference, 40th Sess., Geneva, 1957; 1957 Yearbook on Human Rights 303. As of June, 1962, the convention had been ratified or acceded to by 54 states. See also Jenks, Human Rights and International Labour Standards (1960).

53 For text see General Assembly, Ees. 630 (VII), 7th Sess., Official Records, Supp. No. 20 (A/2361), p. 22; 1952 Yearbook on Human Rights 373. As of Dec. 31, 1962, the convention had been ratified or acceded to by 7 states, and hence had come into force.

54 The text of the Draft Convention on the Gathering and International Transmission of News had been amalgamated with the original Draft Convention Concerning the Institution of an International Right of Correction in 1949 to form the Draft Convention on the International Transmission of News and the Right of Correction, which was approved by the General Assembly (Ees. 277 C (III ) ) . The General Assembly, however, also adopted a resolution providing that the amalgamated draft convention shall not be open for signature until the General Assembly has taken definite action on the Draft Convention on Freedom of Information (Ees. 277 A (III) ) . For text of the amalgamated Draft Convention, see 1949 Yearbook on Human Rights 356; General Assembly, Ees. 277 (III) , 3rd Sess., Official Eecords, Pt. II, Eesolutions, pp. 21-30 (1949). In 1952 the provisions on the right of correction were taken out again. See note 53 above.

55 For revised draft of the convention now before the General Assembly, see U.N. Doc. A/AC.42/7. At the 14th, 15th and 16th sessions of the General Assembly (1959, 1960, 1961) the Third Committee revised the Preamble and Arts. 1 to 4 of the draft convention. See the Eeports of the Third Committee, U.N. Docs. A/4341, A/4636 and A/5041. At its 1962 session, the General Assembly resolved to give priority to the draft convention and declaration on freedom of information (Ees. 1840 (XVII)). Other instruments which might also be mentioned as implementing the goal of freedom of information include the following: Agreement for Facilitating the International Circulation of Visual and Auditory Materials of an Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Character, 1948 Yearbook on Human Rights 431; Agreement on the Importation of Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Materials, 1950 ibid. 411; The International Telecommunication Convention, 1947 United Nations Yearbook 932.

56 For text see International Labour Conference, 42nd Sess., Geneva, 1958, Eecords of Proceedings, p. 834, Convention No. I l l ; 1958 Yearbook on Human Rights 307. As of June, 1962, the convention had been ratified or acceded to by 35 states.

57 For text see U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/210. The convention entered into force on May 22, 1962. In December, 1962, the General Conference of UNESCO adopted -without dissent a Protocol instituting a Conciliation and Good Offices Commission to deal with disputes between states parties. The Commission is modeled on the Human Rights Committee as contemplated in the Draft Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as adopted by the Commission on Human Rights at its tenth session. The Protocol is contained in U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/228, Memorandum submitted by UNESCO to the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities (Jan. 7, 1963).

58 For text see Sixth Eeport of the International Labour Organisation to the United Nations, Geneva, 1952, p. 160; 1951 Yearbook on Human Rights 469. As of June 10, 1962, the convention had been ratified or acceded to by 38 states.

59 For text see General Assembly, Ees. 640 (VII), 7th Sess., Official Eecords, Supp. No. 20 (A/2361), p. 28; 1952 Yearbook on Human Rights 375. As of June, 1962, the convention had been ratified or acceded to by 36 states. See also Convention on the Political Rights of Women. History and Commentary, ST/50A/27, U.N. Pub. Sales No. 1955.IV.17; The United Nations and the Status of Women, U.N. Pub. Sales No. 61.1.9.

60 For text see General Assembly, Ees. 1040 (XI), Annex, 11th Sess., Official Eecords, Supp. No. 17 (A/3572), p. 18; 1957 Yearbook on Human Rights 301. As of June, 1962, the convention had been ratified or acceded to by 27 states. See also Nationality of Married Women, Doc. E/CN.6/254 and Addenda, U.N. Pub. Sales No. 1955.IV.1; Legal Status of Married Women, U.N. Pub. Sales No. 57.IV.8.

61 For text see General Assembly, Ees. 1763 (XVII), 17th Sess., Official Eecords, Eesolutions, Supp. No. 17 (A/5217), p. 28. Another convention which should perhaps be mentioned in connection with the status of women is the Convention for the Suppression of the Traffic of Persons and of the Exploitation of the Prostitution of Others, General Assembly, Ees. 317 (IV), 4th Sess., Official Eecords, Eesolutions, pp. 33-35 (1949).

62 For text of the declaration as drafted by the Commission on Human Rights and a note by the Secretary General reporting on the progress of its consideration by the Third Committee of the General Assembly, see U.N. Doc. A/5145. At the 17th Session of the General Assembly the Third Committee revised and approved the Preamble and Art. 1 of the Declaration. At the same session the Assembly decided to complete the drafting of this instrument at its 1963 session. See Eeport of the Third Committee, U.N. Doc. A/5359, and General Assembly Ees. 1839 (XVII).

63 For text of the declaration as submitted to the General Assembly in 1960 by the Economic and Social Council, see ECOSOC Ees. 756 (XXIX). The General Assemblyhas yet to consider the draft declaration. See also U.N. Docs. A/5363 and A/5444 (1963).

64 For text of the declaration see General Assembly, Res. 1386 (XIV), 14th Sess., Official Eecords, Resolutions, Supp. No. 16 (A/4354), p. 19, and U.N. Doc. A/4249. A survey of various declarations and draft declarations is offered in Schwelb, Human Rights and the International Community 59-72 (1964).

65 For the full text of both draft Covenants as prepared by the Commission on Human Rights, see its Report of its Tenth Session to the Economic and Social Council, 18th Sess., Official Records, Supp. No. 7 (U.N. Docs. E/2573; E/CN.4/705), pp. 62-72. For the text of the two draft covenants as revised by the Third Committee of the General Assembly at the 10th (1955) to 17th (1962) sessions, see TJ.N. Doc. A/C.3/ L.1062 (1963); for the text of the articles revised at the 18th session (1963), see the Report of the Third Committee, U.N. Doc. A/5655. For Secretariat annotations on the text of the draft covenants, see Doc. A/2929 (1955). For a general discussion of the provisions see: Simsarian, , “Economic, Social, and Cultural Provisions in the Human Rights Covenant—Revision of the 1951 Session of the Commission on Human Rights,” 24 Dept. of State Bulletin 1003–1014 (1951);Google Scholar Saba, , “Les Droits economiques, sociaux, et culturels dans le future Pacte des Droits de 1'homme,” 78 Journal du Droit International 464–481 (1951);Google Scholar Ch. Malik, , “Human Rights in the United Nations,” 78 U.N. Bulletin 248–253 (1952);Google Scholar Simsarian, ,“Two Covenants of Human Rights Being Drafted,” 27 Dept. of State Bulletin 20–23 (1952),Google Scholar and his “Progress in Drafting Two Covenants on Human Rights in the United Nations,” 46 A.J.I.L. 710-718 (1952).

66 Holcombe, in “The Covenant on Human Rights,” 14 Law and Contemporary Problems 413 (1949), offers this appraisal: “ I t is a project for a piece of international legislation, more ambitious and perhaps more important than any other in the history of international law.“

67 For the texts of the articles as adopted thus far by the Third Committee of the General Assembly, see: General Assembly, Third Committee, 10th Sess., Official Records, Report (A/3077); ibid., 11th Sess., Report, pp. 4-21 (A/3525); ibid., 12th Sess., Report, pp. 6-14 (A/3764 and Add. 1 ) ; ibid., 13th Sess., Report, pp. 4-13 (A/4045); ibid., 14th Sess., Report (A/4299); ibid., 15th Sess., Report, p. 10 (A/4625); ibid., 16th Sess., Report, pp. 14-15 (A/5000); ibid., 17th Sess., Report (A/5365). At the 18th Session of the General Assembly (1963) the Third Committee adoptedArts. 2 and 4 of the draft Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and decided to insert an article on the rights of the child following Art. 22 of that Covenant. The Third Committee also adopted a provision on the right to freedom from hunger to be added as par. 2 of the combined Arts. 11 and 12 of the draft Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (U.N. Doc. A/5655, Report of the Third Committee). See draft Covenants reprinted below, p. 857.

68 General Assembly, Res. 421 (V) E, 5th Sess., Official Records, Resolutions, p. 43 (1950). The Soviet bloe throughout pressed for a single Covenant, Doc. E/CN.4/ SR. 269, p . 10; General Assembly, Third Committee, 6th Sess., Official Records, A / C . 3/ SR. 368, p . 130. See also the statement of the delegate of Chile, Doc. E/CN.4/SR. 267, p. 7; Joint proposal of Chile, Egypt, Pakistan and Yugoslavia, Doc. A/C.3/L.182 (Nov. 30, 1951).

69 General Assembly, Res. 543 ( V I ) , 6th Sess., Official Records, p. 36; Third Committee, 6th Sess., Official Records, Report, pp. 10-12 (A/1212). See also statement of delegates of the United Kingdom (Docs. E/CN.4/SR.268, p. 4, and A/C.3/SR.361, p. 87), United States (Doc. A/C.3/SR.361, p. 78), France (Doc. A/C.3/SR. 363, p. 98), New Zealand (Doc. A/C.3/SR.367, p. 121), and Denmark (Doc. A/C.3/SR.362, p. 89) ; further, Doc. E/CN.4/529, pp. 13-16.

70 The summary we here make is basically in terms of the draft covenants as presented by the Commission on Human Rights in the Eeport of its Tenth Session to the Economic and Social Council, 18th Sess., Official Eecords, Supp. No. 7 (TJ.N. Docs. E/2573; E/CN.4/705), pp. 62-72 (1954). Any significant changes or additions made by the Third Committee of the General Assembly in adopting the articles will also be specified in the footnotes.

71 The Third Committee has made additions to Art. 6 which provide that sentence of death may not be imposed on people below 18 years of age, as well as on pregnant women, and that “nothing in this article shall be invoked to delay or to prevent the abolition of capital punishment by any state party to the covenant.” For amended text of Art. 6, see General Assembly, Third Committee, 12th Sess., Official Eecords, Eeport, p. 14 (A/3764 and Add. 1).

72 The British delegate doubted whether freedom of movement was a basic right (Doc. E/CN.4/SR.315, p. 5 ) ; the Australian delegate even moved for its deletion (ibid,., p. 6 ) ; “ … freedom of speech, the right of association, and human rights in general would be an illusion,” asserted correctly the Indian delegate, “ i f the right to liberty of movement was not ensured.” (Doe. E/CN.4/SR.315, p. 5.) The Third Committee amended Art. 12 so as to stipulate more clearly that “ n o one may be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter Ms own country” and to provide that this right is not to be subject to any of the restrictions set forth in the article's first paragraph. For the amended text of Art. 12, see General Assembly, Third Committee, 14th Sess., Official Eecords, Eeport (A/4299).

73 For a justified criticism of the ambiguity of the conception of a crime, see the comment of the delegates of Belgium (Doc. E/CN.4/SB. 310, p. 14) and of France (Doc. E/CN.4/L.182, p. 15). The amendments of the Third Committee to Art. 14 have added to the minimum guarantees to which an accused is entitled the right “ t o communicate with counsel of his own choosing,” the right “ t o be tried without undue delay,” and the right “ t o be tried in his presence.” The amendments also provide protection against double jeopardy, and guarantee convicted persons the right to review of their convictions and sentences by a higher tribunal. For the amended text ot Art. 14, see General Assembly, Third Committee, 14th Sess., Official Eecords, Eeport (A/4299).

74 Art. 24, as first drafted, established a general equality clause applicable to all rights, and not merely to those recognized by the Covenants. See comments of the delegates of Yugoslavia (Does. E/CN.4/SR.326 and E/CN.4/SR.327, pp. 7-8), India (Doc. E/CN.4/SR.327, p. 4), and of Lebanon (Doc. E/CN.4/8R.327, p. 9). For more recent developments, see note 81 below.

75 Cf. Art. 32 et seq. of the Convention on Refugees.

76 The Third Committee made significant amendments to Art. 8. Amended Par. 1 a includes the texts basically as originally proposed by the Human Rights Commission. Par. 1 b preserves the right of unions to form national federations or confederations and the latter to form international union organizations. Par. 1 c protects the right of unions to function freely, subject only to legal restrictions necessary “ t o national security and order or for protection of the rights of others.” Par. 1 d secures the right to strike when done in conformity with the laws of the country. Par. 2 permits ‘ ‘ lawful restrictions'’ of these rights by the armed forces, police, or administration of a state. For the amended text of Art. 8, see General Assembly, Third Committee, 11th Sess., Official Records, Report, pp. 11-12 (A/3525).

77 For criticism of the ambiguity of terms and the problems involved, see Nisot's statement (Doc. E/CN.4/8R.252). See also Secretary General's Memorandum: The Principle of Self-Determination in Relation to Chapters XI, XII, and XIII of the Charter (Doc. E/CN.4/662, April 16, 1952); and his Note: The Right of Peoples and Nations to Self-Determination (Doc. E/CN.4/516, March 2, 1951). Art. 1 underwent considerable re-wording at the hands of the Third Committee. For the revised text see General Assembly, Third Committee, 10th Sess., Official Records, Report (A/3077).

78 Doc. E/CN.4/SE. 263, p. 4, comment of the French delegate stressing the democratic means by which the right to self-determination must be exercised.

79 Comment on the relationship between the right to self-determination and subversive activities and treason; see Doc. E/CN.4/SB.261, p. 8.

80 See relevant comments by Cassia (France) (Doc. B/CN.4/SE.253), by the delegates of the United Kingdom (Doc. A/C.3/SB.642), of The Netherlands (Docs. A/C.3/SE. 567, A/C.3/SB.642), of Canada (Docs. A/C.3/SE.570, A/C.3/8E.645) and of Australia (Docs. A/C.3/SE.564, A/C.3/8E.647). See also Eoosevelt, “The Universal Validity of Man's Eight to Self-Determination,” 27 Dept. of State Bulletin 917 (1952).

81 This provision underwent a fundamental change in the Third Committee, which inserted the words “ I n this respect” at the beginning of the second sentence of Art. 24, which now reads: “All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. In this respect the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection… . “ As amended, the text does not prohibit all types of discrimination, particularly discrimination in private relations. The text as it now stands prohibits discrimination only in respect of the principle of equality before the law and in respect of equal protection of the law. The restrictive amendment was proposed by the United Kingdom and Greece and adopted in a roll-call vote of 36 to 30, with 11 abstentions. See Eeport of the Third Committee, 16th Sess., Doc. A/5000, pars. 105, 110 and 114.

82 The Third Committee added to Art. 10 the provision that accused juvenile persons be separated from adults, be brought as speedily as possible to trial, and be accorded treatment appropriate to their age and legal status. For the amended text of Art. 10, see General Assembly, Third Committee, 13th Sess., Official Eecords, Report, p. 12 (A/4045).

83 The Third Committee added a paragraph to Art. 18 which provides for the liberty of parents and legal guardians to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions. For the amended text of Art. 18, see General Assembly, Third Committee, 15th Sess., Official Records, Report, p. 10 (A/4625).

84 The Third Committee added a provision to Art. 14 to the effect that ‘ ‘ the development of a system of schools at all levels shall be actively pursued, an adequate fellowship system shall be established, and the material conditions of the teaching staff shall be continuously improved.” It also added a stipulation that no part of Art. 14 should be construed as interfering with the liberty of individuals and private bodies to establish educational institutions, subject to the principles of par. 1 and to the minimum standard of education of the state. For the amended text of Art. 14, see General Assembly, Third Committee, 12th Sess., Official Records, Report, p. 6 (A/3764 and Add, 1).

85 It should be noted that Art. 15, providing for implementation of compulsory primary education, is the only article of the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights which provides for a positive obligation accompanied by a precise time limit for its implementation. Doe. E/CN.4/SB.291, p. 9. See ibid., pp. 11, 13, 14.

86 The amendments made to Art. 16 by the Third Committee secured the right of everyone “ t o benefit from the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary, or artistic production of which he is the author,” and also provided that “ t h e states parties to the Covenant recognize the benefits to be derived from the encouragement and development of international contacts and cooperation in the scientific and cultural fields.” For the amended text of Art. 16, see General Assembly, Third Committee, 12th Sess., Official Eecords, Eeport, p. 10 (A/3764 and Add. 1).

87 The joint Yugoslav-Uruguayan draft proposal (Doe. E/CN.4/L.58/ Eev. 1), though stressing the element of freedom, suggested an explicit recognition of the right to work: “Everyone has the right to work: that is, everyone should be granted the right to obtain employment in order to earn his living by work which he freely accepts.” As to the right of aliens to work, see the positive comments of delegates of the United States, Chile, and Greece (Doc. E/CN.4/SR.272). See also Commission on Human Rights, Activities of the United Nations and of the Specialized Agencies in the Field of Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (Doc. E/CN.4/364/Eev. 1), p. 146, pars. 49-61 (1952).

88 Cf. Yugoslavia's amendment (Doc. E/CN.4/L.63/Bev. 1) proposing to tie up “ fair wages” with the cost of living and profits of the enterprises.

89 Proposals of Prance (Doc. E/CN.4/L.66; comment, Doc. E/CN.4/SR.302); United States (Doc. E/CN.4/599), and Uruguay (Doc. E/CN.4/603). See, however, the statement of the Chilean delegate (Doc. E/CN.4/SR.303, p. 3). See also the proposal of the United States (Doc. E/CN.4/L.313), revised (Doc. E/CN.4/L.313/Eev. 1), the amendments to it proposed by Egypt, India, and Lebanon (Doc. E/CN.4/L. 316); the alternative proposal by Chile (Doc. E/CN.4/L.320/Corr. 1); and the text proposed by the subcommittee (Doc. E/CN.4/L. 321).

90 More recent attitudes in the United Nations are reflected in the General Assembly Eesolution of Dec. 14, 1962, on Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Resources. See Doc. A/RES/1803 (XVII); 57 A.J.I.L. 710 (1963).

91 Art. 6 in its early drafting explicitly applied an international standard, admitting capital punishment only if the laws imposing it are “not contrary to the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.” For recent changes, see General Assembly, 12th Sess., Report of Third Committee (U.N. Doc. A/3764), pars. 85, 102 and 120.

92 The Third Committee has added to Art. 10 the more precise stipulation thatduring a reasonable period before and after childbirth, mothers should be accorded paid leave from work or leave with adequate social security benefits. For that revised text of Art. 10, see General Assembly, Third Committee, 11th Sess., Official Eecords, Eeport, p. 17 (A/3525). 93 The Third Committee decided to amalgamate Arts. 11 and 12. The new combined article retained basically the same wording as the original two. For its text, see ibid., p. 19. At the 18th Session the Third Committee added a provision on the right to freedom from hunger to the combined Arts. 11 and 12. TJ.N. Doc. A/5655, Annex.

94 For the amendments made to Art. 1 8 by the Third Committee, see note 83 above

95 These general qualifications are rather haphazardly itemized in the various articles. See Art. 12, Art. 18, par. 3, Art. 19, par. 3, Art. 20, Art. 21.

96 See comment of Malik (Lebanon), Doe. E/CN.4/SR.86, p. 13.

97 A less defendable derogation would have been established if one of the proposed federal-state clauses had been accepted. See proposal of Australia and India (Doc. E/ 2447, Annex II, Sec. B, No. I I I ) . It is difficult to see why one nation state should, because of peculiarities in internal constitutional structure (sometimes more alleged than real), seek or be allowed to assume lesser obligations with respect to human rights than other nation states. The Third Committee of the General Assembly has not yet considered Art. 27 of the Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights or Art. 52 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

98 Certainly the completion and ratification of the two Covenants, as presently proposed, by the nation states of the world could not rationally be construed to worsen such conditions. Both Covenants provide that no provision “may be interpreted as implying for any state, group or person any right to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms recognized herein or at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for in this Covenant,” and that there shall be “no restriction upon or derogation from any of the fundamental human rights recognized or existing in any contracting state pursuant to law, conventions, regulations or custom on the pretext that the present Covenant does not recognize such rights or that it recognizes them to a lesser extent.” See Art. 5 of both Covenants.

99 Under the U.N. Charter, deprivations of human rights which amount to threats to peace may, of course, authorize invocation of a vast range of collective procedures. (See Arts. 10, 11, 14 and 39-42 of the Charter; also General Assembly Res. 377 (V) Uniting for Peace, 5th Sess., Official Eecords, Eesolutions, p. 10 (1950); 45 A.J.I.L. Supp. 1 (1951).

100 Docs. A/C.3/SE.407, pp. 368, 372, 373; A/C.3/SE.394, p. 280; A/C.3/SE.565, p. 110.

101 For general discussion, see MaeChesney, ‘ ‘ International Protection of Human Rights in the United Nations,” 47 Northwestern U. Law Eev. 198-222 (1952); U.N. Secretary General, Memorandum, Draft International Covenant on Human Rights, Measures of Implementation, Docs. E/CN.4/530 and E/CN.4/530, Add. 1 (March 16, 17, 1952). A particularly incisive analysis appears in Holcombe, “The Covenant on Human Rights,” 14 Law and Contemporary Problems 413 (1949). See also the Secretary General's explanatory paper cited in note 27 above.

102 The original Australian proposal (Doc. E/CN.4/15, Feb. 5, 1947) suggested jurisdiction of the proposed international court only in disputes concerning human rights and freedoms as formulated by the Declaration. For further discussion and arguments, see Working Group on Implementation of the Commission on Human Rights, Eeport (Doc. E/CN.4/53), pars. 25-33, 31-32; Annex C of the Eeport of the Second Session of the Commission on Human Rights, Doc. E/600.

103 The original Australian proposal was further elaborated in Australia's Draft Statute of an International Court of Human Rights (Doc. E/CN.4/AC.1/27, May 10, 1948); see especially Art. 19. Cf. also the Secretary General's Note: International Court of Human Rights (Doc. E/CN.4/521).

104 Doc. E/CN.4/37 (Nov. 26, 1947).

105 Doc. E/CN.4/274; see, however, the French proposal (Doc. E/CN.4/82, Add. 10/ Eev. 1) suggesting a special committee competent also to receive petitions from individuals and non-governmental organizations; for further elaboration, see Doc. E/ CN.4/147.

106 Doc. E/CN.4/474.

107 Commission on Human Rights, Beport of the Eighth Session, cited note 53 above, at 50-54.

108 See, for instance, Doc. A/C.3/SB.406, pp. 361-362; Lauterpacht, note 1 above, p. 287; Cassin, “L'Homme, Sujet de Droit International et la Protection des Droits de 1'Homme dans la Société Universelle,” in La Technique et les Principes du Droit Public—Etudes en l'Honneur de G. Scelle 87 et seq. (1950). For an historical survey of the right of petition on the international level, see U.N. Secretary General's Beport: The Bight of Petition (Doc. E/CN.4/419).

109 Doc. E/CN.4/557; see also draft proposals of Chile (Doc. A/C.3/L.81); Ethiopiaand France (Doe. A/C.3/L.78); Israel (Doc. A/C.3/L.91 (Dec. 1)); and Uruguay (Doc. A/C.3/L. 93).

110 Doc. E/CN.4/606/Bev. 1; see, however, U. S. objection, Doc. A/C.3/SE. 407, p. 369; also Doc. A/AC/3/564. For a comparative table of various proposals on measures of implementation and Protocol on Petitions, see Docs. E/CN.4/617 and Add. 1.

111 See also, however, the later proposal submitted jointly by Uruguay, Chile, Egypt, and the Philippines (Docs. E/CN.4/L.341 and E/CN.4/L.341/Bev. 1), which does not provide for an office of U.N. Attorney General, but does secure to individuals and organizations the right of petition.

112 Doc. E/CN.4/549. See also Commission on Human Rights, Eeport on its Tenth Session to the Economic and Social Council, 18th Sess., Official Eecords, Supp. No. 7 (U.N. Docs. E/2573; E/CN.4/705), pp. 74-76.

113 Doc. E/CN.4/L.342/Eev. 1.

114 See, for example, the comment of the British delegate (Doc. A/C.3/8E.562, p. 96).

115 See, for example, the statements made by the delegates from the U.S.S.E. (Doc. A/C.3/SE.565, p. 10), India (Doc. A/C.3/SE.569, pp. 131-132), Sweden (Doc. A/C.3/ SE.571, p. 143), and Uruguay (Docs. A/C.3/573, pp. 154-155, and A/C.3/SE.578, p. 179).

116 Doc. A/C.3/SE.571, p. 140.

117 See statement by Secretary of State Dulles before the Senate Judiciary Committee, April 6, 1953, reprinted in Review of the United Nations Charter: A Collection of Documents, 83rd Cong., 2d Sess., Senate Doc. No. 87 (Washington, Government Printing Office, 1954), p. 295. See also New York Times, Jan. 24, 1954, p. 9.

118 See, for example, the statement of the Saudi Arabian delegate in 1954 (Doc. A/C.3/SE.563, p. 99). See also relevant comment in Gross, The United Nations: Structure for Peace 106 (1962).

119 See Does. E/CN.4/340, A/C.3/SE.646, p. 109, and E/CONF.24/SB.3. Eeferenee may now be made to: (a) the “Explanatory paper on measures of implementation” prepared by the Secretary General, U.N. Doc. A/5411, April 29, 1963, and (b) to the fact that the General Assembly, on the recommendation of the Third Committee, has adopted a resolution on implementation in which it, inter alia, reaffirms its belief that final adoption of the draft International Covenants on Human Rights is urgent and essential for the universal protection and promotion of human rights; requests the Secretary General to transmit to Member states the text of the articles which were adopted at the tenth to eighteenth sessions of the General Assembly, with related documents; and invites Member states to consider these texts and the measures of implementation elaborated by the Commission on Human Rights, in order that they may be in a position to decide on the measures of implementation and on the final clauses. The General Assembly also decided to make a special effort at its Nineteenth Session, i.e. in 1964, to complete the adoption of the entire text of the draft Covenants.

120 See letter of Secretary of State Dulles to U. S. representative on the Commission on Human Rights, April 3, 1953, reprinted in Eeview of the United Nations Charter: A Collection of Documents, cited note 117 above, p. 262. For text of U. S. proposals, see U.N. Doc. E/2447, pars. 263, 269, 271.

121 ECOSOC Ees. 624/XXII/BI and I I (1956).

122 General Assembly, Ees. 729 ( V I I I ) , 730 ( V I I I ) , 839 ( I X ) , and 926 ( X ) .

123 For more comprehensive discussion of these new programs, see: Humphrey, “Human Rights: New Directions in the Human Rights Program,” New York Law Forum 391 (1958); Higgins, “Technical Assistance for Human Rights,” The World Today 174, 219 (1963); Lin Mousheng, note 41 above, at 107-118; United Nations Work for Human Rights, op. cit. note 1 above, at 25-30; Simsarian, “Human Rights Among Diverse World Orders,” 1959 Proceedings, Am. Soc. Int. Law 245.

124 The first two studies undertaken by the subcommittee appointed for this purpose have been on “ t h e right of everyone to be free from arbitrary arrest, detention and exile” and “ t h e right of arrested persons to communicate with those whom it is necessary for them to consult in order to ensure their defense or to protect their essential interests.” See United Nations Work for Human Rights, cited note 1 above, at 26-28.

125 See especially Higgins, loc. oit. note 123 above, at 220-221.

126 Ibid. 219-220.

127 Ibid. 221-223.

128 For a list of these seminars, their topics, dates and locations, see Lin Mousheng, note 41 above, at 109-110.

129 For more detailed review, see Martin, ‘ ‘ Human Rights and World Politics,'’ 5 Yearbook of World Affairs 37, 62 (1951).

130 General Assembly, Ees. 44 ( I ) , 267 ( I I I ) , 395 (V), 511 (VI); “Assembly's Action on Question of Indians in South Africa,” 13 I7.N. Bulletin 587 (1952). See also more recently, General Assembly, Ees. 1375 (XIV), 1598 (XV), 1881 (XVIII) and 1978 ( X V I I I ) ; and Security Council, Docs. S/4300 (1960), S/5386 and S/5471 (1963)

131 General Assembly, Ees. 385 (V), 5th Sess., Official Records, Resolutions, p. 17 (1950). Concerning the Hungarian Revolution specifically see: General Assembly, Res. 1004 (ES-II), 1005 (ES-II), 1006 (ES-II), 1007 (ES-II), 1008 (ES-II), 2nd Spec. Sess., Official Records, Resolutions (1956); and General Assembly, Res. 1127 (XI), 1128 (XI), 1129 (XI), 1130 (XI), 1131 ( X I ) , 1132 (XI), 11th Sess., Official Records, Resolutions (1956), pp. 63-64.

132 See Interpretation of Peace Treaties, Advisory Opinions, [1950] I.C.J. Rep. 65, 221; 44 A.J.I.L. 742, 752 (1950). Contrasting reference may now be made to the General Assembly's consideration of the item ‘ ‘ The Violation of Human Rights in South Viet-Nam.'’ During the consideration of this item at the 1232nd, 1234th and 1239th meetings of the General Assembly (October, 1963), the President read to the Assembly a letter from the Special Mission of South Viet-Nam extending an invitation to the representatives of several Member states to visit South Viet-Nam in order that they might see for themselves what the real situation was as regards relations between the Government and the Buddhist community of Viet-Nam. In the letter Viet-Nam invited the President to lend his good offices in helping to establish this mission. Later in the proceedings the President asked: “ A m I to take it that the Assembly wishes to act in accordance with the aforesaid letter … ? Since there are no objections I shall do so. The debate on item 77 is therefore suspended.” Subsequently the President announced the appointment of the mission with Ambassador Pazhwak of Afghanistan as chairman. Mr. Pazhwak was also the chairman of the Commission of Human Rights. The Principal Secretary of the Mission was the Director of the Division of Human Rights. The mission adopted its rules of procedure (Annex I I , Doc. A/5630), which contained a Paragraph 12 reading as follows: “ T h e Mission is an ad hoc fact-finding body and has been established to ascertain the facts of the situation as regards the alleged violations of human rights by the Government of the Republic of Viet-Nam in its relations with the Buddhist community of that country.” Paragraph 13 reads: “The Mission shall seek factual evidence. The Mission shall collect information, conduct on-the-spot investigations, receive petitions and hear witnesses. The impartiality of the Mission shall be demonstrated at all times.” The Mission reported to the General Assembly in a comprehensive document, A/5630, of Dec. 7, 1963. The coup d'état of Nov. 1, 1963, changed the situation fundamentally. As a consequence the General Assembly did not take any action on the report. The President announced on Dec. 13 (Doc. A/P.V. 1280) that he had been informed by the sponsors of the item that “ i n the light of recent events that took place in Viet-Nam … they do not think it useful to discuss this item at this time.'’ It was decided that no further action was required. 1964]

133 Art. 85 of the Charter.

134 Art. 87 of the Charter. See also General Assembly, Res. 446 ( V ) , Information on Human Rights in Non-Self-Governing Territories, 5th Sess., Official Records, Resolutions, p. 54 (1950); Res. 552 (VI), Examination of Petitions, ibid., 6th Sess., p. 55 (1951/52).

135 Art. 10 of the Declaration of Constitutional Principles of the Trusteeship Agreement for the Territory of Somaliland under Italian Administration, General Assembly, 5th Sess., Official Records, Supp. No. 10, p. 11 (A/1294). See also General Assembly, Res. 442 (V).

136 For more detailed analysis of the Declaration's influence, see Schwelb, ‘ ‘ The Influence of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on International and National Law,” 1959 Proceedings, Am. Soc. Int. Law 217; A Standard of Achievement, op. cit. note 1 above, at 24-30.

137 Res. 250(IV)(6), Essentials of Peace, General Assembly, 4th Sess., Official Records, Resolutions, p. 13 (1949); Res. 540 (VI), General Assembly, 6th Sess., Official Records, Resolutions, p. 35 (1951/52).

138 General Assembly, Res. 424(V), ibid., 5th Sess., p. 44 (1950).

139 General Assembly, Res. 315 (IV), ibid., 4th Sess., p. 32 (1945).

140 General Assembly, Res. 324 (IV), ibid., p. 39; Res. 644 (VII), ibid., 7th Sess., p. 32 (1952).

141 General Assembly, Res. 1514 (XV), ibid., 15th Sess., Supp. No. 16 (A/4684), p . 66 (1960).

142 Resolutions of the Tenth Inter-American Conference at Caracas, Venezuela, March 1-28, 1954, 1954 Yearbook on Human Rights 394; 48 A.J.I.L. Supp. 123 (1954).

143 Pinal Communiqué of the Asian-African Conference, Bandung, Indonesia, April 18-24, 1955, 1955 Yearbook on Human Rights 339. See also Charter of Organization of African Unity, Addis Ababa, May, 1963, reprinted below, p. 873. In more recent years a number of declarations on various subjects, bearing upon human rights questions, have been adopted by the General Assembly. Two especially reflect the growing authoritative status of the Universal Declaration of 1948. The Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples of Dec.14, 1960, Ees. 1514 (XV), includes a paragraph 7, which reads: “All States shall observe faithfully and strictly the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the present Declaration on the basis of equality… . “ (Italics supplied.) The United Nations Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Eacial Discrimination of Nov. 20, 1963, Ees. 1904 (XVIII), has an Article 11 which reads as follows: “Every State shall promote respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, and shall fully and faithfully observe the provisions of the present Declaration, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Declaration on the granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples.” (Italics supplied.)

144 See U.N. Docs. S/3301 and Add. 1, S/3305; 31 Dept. of State Bulletin 556 (1954); 1954 Yearbook on Human Rights 398-400. See also Schwelb, “The Trieste Settlement and Human Rights,” 49 A.J.I.L. 240 (1955). See, however, Agnelleto v. Eenko and Editoriale Stampa Triestina, Clunet (1962), p. 220.

145 See 1955 Yearbook on Human Rights 340, 342.

146 For reference to relevant literature on the European Convention, see Schwelb, “International Conventions on Human Rights,” 9 Int. and Comp. Law Q. 654, at 655, note 2 (1960); Vols. I and IV of the Yearbook of the European Convention on Human Rights; and Weil, The European Convention on Human Rights (Leiden, 1963); 57 A.J.I.L. 804 (1963). A recent significant instrument in this regard is the European Social Charter, signed at Turin, Oct. 18, 1961. See Security in Freedom: The European Social Charter, Council of Europe Directorate of Information, Strasbourg, 1962. In 1963 three protocols to the European Convention on Human Rights were signed. See 58 A.J.I.L. 331-336 (1964), and Schwelb, “Documentation on the Working of the European Human Rights Machinery,” ibid. 442.

147 Conference for the Conclusion and Signature of the Treaty of Peace with Japan, Record of Proceedings, San Francisco, Sept. 4-8, 1951, p. 313 (Dept. of State Pub. 4392, Int. Org. and Conf. Ser. II, Far Eastern 3); 1951 Yearbook on Human Rights 489.

148 See p. 616 above.

149 For preliminary analysis of the significance of these preamble references, see Schwelb, “The Influence of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on International and National Law,” 1959 Proceedings, Am. Soc. Int. Law 217, 220-222.

150 See the preamble and Art. 10 of its Constitution, 1958 Yearbook on Human Rights 90.

151 See the preamble of its Constitution, 1959, ibid. 186.

152 See the preamble of its Constitution, ibid. 83.

153 See the preamble of its Constitution, ibid. 119.

154 See the preamble of its Constitution, ibid. 193.

155 See the preamble of its Constitution, ibid. 258.

156 See the preamble of its Constitution, ibid. 275.

157 See Art. 7 of its Constitution (1960).

158 See Journal Officiel de la République Frangaise, Aug. 26, 1956, Decree No. 56- 847; 1956 Yearbook on Human Rights 267-268.

159 See Journal Officiel de la République Franchise, April 18, 1957, Decree No. 57- 301; 1957 Yearbook on Human Rights 273-274; Ordinance No. 58-1375, Dec. 30, 1958; Annex II to the Eeport of the U.N. Visiting Mission to Trust Territories in West Africa, 1958, Doc. T/1427, Art. 5.

160 See discussion in Schwelb, ‘ ‘ The Influence of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on International and National Law,” loo. cit. note 41 above, at 224-225, and “Die Kodifikationsarbeiten der Vereinten Nationen auf dem Gebiete der Menschenrechte,” loc. cit. ibid, at 40-42.

161 1949 Yearbook on Human Rights 99-111.

162 1951 md. 226. i6S 1952 ibid. 62.

164 1949 ibid. 113-117.

165 1950 ibid. 245, 250.

166 See Lin Mousheng, note 41 above.

167 See Act No. 94 of July 5, 1951, 1951 Yearbook on Human Rights 281.

168 See Ontario Fair Employment Practices Act of 1951, ibid. 38, and Fair Accommodation Practices Act of 1954, 1954 ibid. 44.

169 See ibid. 121.

170 See Legislative Decree No. 1664 of Oct. 22, 1955, 1955 Yearbook on Human Rights 5.

171 See Legislative Decree No. 3937 of Jan. 20, 1955, ibid. 18.

172 See Act No. 25 of Feb. 9, 1956, 1956 ibid. 184.

173 For citation to and discussion of such decisions, see Schwelb, ‘ ‘ The Influence of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights … , “ note 41 above, at 226-228, and A Standard of Achievement, note 1 above, at 28-30. An especially interesting decision is that in the case of Soc. Eoy Export et Charlie Chaplin c. Soc. Le Film Eayée Eichebé by the Court of Appeal in Paris, 87 Journal du Droit International 129-137 (1960). Considering the scope of application of the Geneva Universal Convention on Copyright, the Court of Appeal stated on page 137: “Whereas, in fact, a foreigner being assimilated to a citizen, by virtue of the Geneva Convention, he is entitled to the same right in Prance as a French author and there is no valid reason, even on the grounds of want of reciprocity, for limiting this assimilation to the financial protection of Copyright; “Whereas, moreover, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, voted by the Assembly of the United Nations on December 10th, 1948 and published in the Journal officiel on 19 February 1949, which gives it the force of French law, stipulates in Article 17 that … “ [Emphasis added.]

174 Economic and Social Council, Ees. 75 (V), Fifth Sess., Eesolutions, p. 20 (1947); Ees. 728/F/XXVIII (1959).

175 A full statement of this interpretation appears in Lauterpacht, note 1 above, at 223-233.

176 Commission on Human Rights, Eeport of the Eighth Session, note 53 above, at 42, par. 292.

177 The Chicago lawyer who proposed an international writ of habeas corpus for the release of William Oatis could be prophetic of rational future development. See 98 Cong. Bee, 82nd Cong., 2nd Sess., 5034 (May 8, 1952). In this regard, see also Kutner, World Habeas Corpus (2nd ed., 1962); “The Case for an International Writ of Habeas Corpus: A Eeply,” 37 U. Detroit Law J. 605 (I960); Kutner and Carl, “International Writ of Habeas Corpus: Protection of Personal Liberty in a World of Diverse Systems of Public Order,” 22 IT. Pittsburgh Law Eev, 469 (1961),