Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-4hhp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-21T04:43:13.511Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A comparison of self-evaluating state reporting systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 November 2010

Elisabeth Kornblum
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A self-evaluating state reporting system is a method for implementing international agreements. A self-evaluating state report provides information on the operation and implementation of a treaty regime. Self-evaluating means that a state monitors its own execution of an international agreement in its territory. The information may be submitted to an international institution with a supervisory role or to a technical secretariat.

The key tasks of a supervisory international organization are: collecting information and data, receiving reports on treaty implementation by States, facilitating independent monitoring and inspection, and acting as a forum for reviewing the performance of states or the negotiation of further measures and regulations. Such bodies may acquire law-enforcement and law-making functions.

This report describes the self-evaluating state reporting systems of the United Nations human rights conventions, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, the International Labour Organisation, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, the World Intellectual Property Organization, the disarmament treaties and the environment treaties.

There are several characteristics of determining importance for the functioning of a reporting system. In short, these are: the sensitivity of the subject of a treaty; the economic value of the subject; the specificity of the subject; the popularity of the subject in the media; secretarial support; the flexibility of the reporting procedure; a permanent body to which to report; the quality and efficient functioning of the supervisory body; follow-up; admission to an international instrument and the existence of a national monitoring body or procedure.

It should be noted that the allocation of sufficient human and financial resources will be essential to the effectiveness of a reporting system.

Type
Implementation of International Humanitarian Law
Information
International Review of the Red Cross (1961 - 1997) , Volume 35 , Issue 304 , February 1995 , pp. 39 - 68
Copyright
Copyright © International Committee of the Red Cross 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 GC I, 23, 26, 44, 47, 48, 53; GC II, 39, 45, 48, 49; GC III, 127, 128; GC IV, 145; AP I, 6, 12 to 31, 80, 82, 83, 84, 87; AP II, 19.

2 GC I, 48; GC II, 49; GC III, 128; GC IV, 145; AP I, 84.

3 M.T. Dutli, Mechanisms for the Implementation of International Humanitarian Law, Expert Meeting on Certain Weapon Systems and on Implementation Mechanisms in International Law (Geneva, 30 May-1 June), Report drawn up by the ICRC, July 1994, 120–127.

4 K. Drzewicki, “National Legislation as a Measure for Implementation of International Humanitarian Law”, in F. Kalshoven, Y. Sandoz, eds., Implementation of International Humanitarian Law. Research Papers by participants in the 1986 Session of the Centre for Studies and Research in International Law and International Relations of the Hague Academy of International Law (1989), 109–131.

5 Article 72, paragraph 3, read: The High Contracting Parties shall report to the depositary of the Conventions and to the International Committee of the Red Cross at intervals of four years on the measures they have taken in accordance with their obligations under this article.

6 See note 3.

7 K. Drzewicki, 1989, 127, IRRC, No. 255, November-December 1986, p. 346.

8 Implementation of International Humanitarian Law, National Measures, document drawn up by the ICRC (Doc. 1991 C.I/4.1/1), Geneva, 1991, 7–8.

9 The Convention against Torture has an optional inquiry procedure under Article 20. If it appears to the Committee that torture is being systematically practised in the territory of a State, the Committee invites that State to cooperate in its examination of the information and, to this end, the Committee may designate one or more of its members to make a confidential inquiry, which may include a visit to its territory, and hearing of witnesses. The findings are submitted to the Committee, which transmits them, together with its own comments or suggestions, to the State party. The Committee may also decide to request additional information, either from the representatives of the State concerned or from governmental and non-governmental organizations, as well as individuals, for the purpose of obtaining further elements on which to form an opinion. It invites that State to inform the Committee of actions it has taken with regard to the Committee's findings. After all the proceedings regarding an inquiry have been completed, the Committee may decide to include a summary account of the results of the proceedings in its annual report. Only at that stage is the work of the Committee made public. An inquiry was conducted on Turkey. The procedure was started on the basis of an Amnesty International report. At present another inquiry procedure has been initiated.

10 Three instruments provide for an inter-state complaints procedure according to which States parties recognize the competence of a Committee to receive and consider communications from a State party claiming that another State party is not fulfilling its obligations under the instrument concerned: (a) the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 41 (optional); 43 States have made the declaration; (b) the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, Articles 11, 12 and 13 (obligatory); (c) the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Article 21 (optional); 36 State parties have made the declaration. To date, these procedures have not yet been resorted to.

11 The communications procedure is optional under the First Optional Protocol to the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, under Article 14 of CERD and under Article 22 of CAT (35 States accepted). A fourth procedure is envisaged under Article 77 of the Migrant Workers Convention, which is not yet in force. Individuals subject to the jurisdiction of States parties can complain to the Committee on the violations of their rights. The Communications Branch of the United Nations Centre of Human Rights makes a preliminary analysis of the Communication to decide to which Committee the communication should be submitted. Communications complaining only of torture or racial discrimination are more rare. Most complaints contain an element of civil and political rights. For that reason, most complaints are directed to the Human Rights Committee.

12 The members are elected by a secret vote, so it is possible that equitable geographical distribution is not realized.

13 U.N. Doc. CAT/C/X/Misc.3/Rev.l.

14 There are 7 members of CERD in the ARIS Advisory Committee.

15 See note 13.

16 See note 13.

17 See note 13.

18 Based on the draft annual report of the 12th session in April 1994, CAT/C/XII/ CRP.1/Add.3.

19 Resolution A/47/41, page 2 paras 2 to 8.

20 As long as this is the case the Committees will not put overmuch pressure on States to submit their reports.

21 The experts for the Council of Europe are paid at D1/D2 level.

22 CERD has a gentleman's agreement with the States parties that one report per 4 years is enough, not, as is stated in the Convention, every two years (Article 9, para. 1). A brief updating report can be submitted in the intervening years.

23 The Group of Three, established by the Convention against Apartheid is an ad hoc body and meets only once every 2 years. The problem with such an ad hoc group is that between meetings there is no body to take any action. This has become painfully obvious during the recent elections in South Africa, when the body could not convene, because at that time the Group of Three did not have any members.

24 — Manual on Human Rights Reporting, U.N. Doc. HR/PUB/91/1, (1991), 187–188.

— Orientation Manual, The U.N. Commission on Human Rights, its Sub-Commission, and related procedures, Minnesota Advocates for Human Rights (1993).

— A Guide for Non-Governmental Organizations Reporting to the Committee the Rights of the Child, The NGO Group for the Convention on the Rights of the Child (1994).

25 High-level, because not every country has a separate ministry for development.

26 From the leaflet, OECD in Brief. Further information was obtained from interviews with Mrs. Ballivet, of the Geneva office of the OECD, and from The Annual Report of the OECD 1992.

27 By Mrs. Ballivet, of the Geneva Office of the OECD.

28 P.J. Boylan, Review of the Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (The Hague Convention of 1954) (1993), 89–90.

29 K.J. Partsch, in Istituto internazionale di diritto umanitario, La protezione internazionale dei beni culturali/The international protection of cultural property/ La protection intemationale des biens culturels, “Acts of the Symposium organized on the occasion of the 30th Anniversary of the Hague Convention on the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict”, Rome (1986), 196.

30 See note 28.

31 See note 29.

32 Commission IV, Examination of Item 8.4, Reports of Member States on the Action Taken by Them to Implement the Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property (1970), Record of the General Conference, Reports, Bd.2, 24th session, Paris, 20 Oct.- 20 Nov. 1987. Report of the Committee on Conventions and Recommendations of the Executive Board on Proposals for the Implementation of the Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property, 22 C/93.

33 From an interview with Mr Eckstein, WIPO Geneva.