INDIAN INSTITUTE OF UMAN RIGHTS

First Year
Paper 1.1

Introduction to Human Rights

Part A

3 . Charvaka originally known as Lokāyata and Bārhaspatya, is the ancient school of Indian materialism. Charvaka holds
direct perception, empiricism, and conditional inference as proper sources of knowledge,
embraces philosophicalskepticism and rejects Vedas, Vedic ritualism, and supernaturalism.

5. There are six official languages of the UN. These are Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish .

7. The United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP)was founded in June 1972.

8. New York.

9. The practice of attacking and robbing ships at sea.

11. on December 4, 1986. Browse historical events, famous birthdays and notable death from Dec 4, 1986

12 The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 was enforced on 28th January 1993.

13 . United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization.

14. Magna Carta Libertatum, commonly called Magna Carta, is a charter of rights agreed to by King John of England at
Runnymede.

15. Ranganath mishra.

Part B

Answer-2

. _Introducation
Police are one of the most important organisations of the society. The policemen, therefore, happen to be the most visible representatives of
the government. In an hour of need, danger, crisis and difficulty, when a citizen does not know what to do and whom to approach, the police
station and a policeman happen to be the most appropriate and approachable unit and person for him.[1]The police are expected to be the
most accessible, interactive and dynamic organisation of any society. Their roles, functions and duties in the society are natural to be varied
on the one hand; and complicated on the other. Broadly speaking the twin roles of the police are maintenance of law and maintenance of
order. However, the ramifications of these two duties are numerous, which result in making a large inventory of duties, functions, powers,
roles and responsibilities of the police organisation. Vesting of varied powers in the hands of police, while necessary to perform their duties
on the other hand leaves door to misuse and hence infringement of Human Rights. This article will deal with Powers of Police, incidents of
misuse of power, legislative checks and judicial control of police activities.

Definition of Police
The term police have neither been defined in the Criminal Procedure Code nor in the Police Act 1881 nor in any State Police acts provides
only the structure and organization of police force in the states.
Black’s law dictionary defines “police” As (1) “the governmental department charged with the perversion of public order, the promotion of
public safety, and the The term “police” can simply be defined as any person or body of person created by the authority of the state,
obligated and empowered to maintain law and order, prevention and investigation of crimes perversion and detection of crime” And (2) “the
officers or members of this department.

Human Rights Violations by Police

In this report, Human Rights Watch documented four abuses frequently committed by police in parts of India: failure to
investigate crimes, arbitrary arrest and illegal detention, custodial torture, and extrajudicial killings.

Failure to Register Complaints and Investigate Crime

Police in India frequently fail to register crime complaints, called First Information Reports (FIRs), and to investigate crimes.
Police officers told Human Rights Watch that they are often under pressure from political leaders to show a reduction in crime
by registering fewer FIRs. Some said that they face suspension or reprimand if they register too many. Police also blame their
failure to investigate cases on insufficient personnel and a reluctance to take on new cases that add to an already heavy
workload.

Police, including specially designated Crimes Against Women cells, fail to sufficiently aid victims of domestic violence.
According to NGOs and police themselves, police often urge victims to “compromise” with their spouses or spouses’ families,
even when women allege repeated and severe physical abuse. Women’s rights activists say that police often do not investigate
rape cases and re-traumatize victims who approach them for help through their hostile or inadequate response. For example,
when 16-year-old Sunita (a pseudonym) became pregnant after she was raped by her cousin, her family members in a village
near Sitapur, Uttar Pradesh beat her and threatened to kill her. Police refused to register an FIR for the rape, and advised her
to get an abortion and marry someone from another village.

Illegal Arrest and Detention, Police Torture and Ill-Treatment

Police officers sometimes make arrests in retaliation for complaints of police abuse, in return for bribes, or due to political
considerations or the influence of powerful local figures. They also admit that they use unlawful coercion, including torture, to
elicit confessions to the charges they fabricate. Police often fail to follow procedures mandated by the Supreme Court in DK
Basu v. West Bengal, including production of a suspect before a magistrate within 24 hours of arrest.A Bangalore police officer
admitted:

Providing a sense of security to ordinary citizens and attending to their grievances is dependent on the establishment of a police force which
is efficient, honest and professional. The fact that such a police force does not exist in India, as attested by the findings of various
commissions and committees, the complaints received by the human rights commissions, the stories reported by the press and the
experiences of the common people on the street. The need for police reform is self-evident and urgent. There are two directions in which
police reforms must be pursued simultaneously.

Part.B

Answer.3

Introducation

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is a historic document that was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly at
its 183rd session on 10 December 1948 as Resolution 217 at the Palais de Chaillot in Paris, France. Of the then 58 members of the United
Nations, 48 voted in favor, none against, eight abstained, and two did not vote.[1]
The Declaration consists of 30 articles affirming an individual's rights which, although not legally binding in themselves, have been elaborated
in subsequent international treaties, economic transfers, regional human rights instruments, national constitutions, and other laws. The
Declaration was the first step in the process of formulating the International Bill of Human Rights, which was completed in 1966, and came
into force in 1976, after a sufficient number of countries had ratified them.
Some legal scholars have argued that because countries have constantly invoked the Declaration for more than 50 years, it has become
binding as a part of customary international law.[2][3] However, in the United States, the Supreme Court in Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain (2004),
concluded that the Declaration "does not of its own force impose obligations as a matter of international law."[4] Courts of other countries have
also concluded that the Declaration is not in and of itself part of domest

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

 foundational document of international human rightslaw. It has been referred to as humanity’s Magna Carta by Eleanor Roosevelt,
who chaired the United Nations (UN) Commission on Human Rights that was responsible for the drafting of the document. After
minor changes it was adopted unanimously—though with abstentions from the Belorussian Soviet Socialist Republic
(SSR), Czechoslovakia, Poland, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, the Soviet Union, the Ukrainian SSR, and Yugoslavia—by the UN
General Assembly on December 10, 1948 (now celebrated annually as Human Rights Day), as a “common standard of achievement
for all peoples and all nations.” The French jurist René Cassin was originally recognized as the principal author of the UDHR. It is
now well established, however, that, although no individual can claim ownership of this document, John Humphrey, a Canadian
professor of law and the UN Secretariat’s Human Rights Director, authored its first draft. Also instrumental in the drafting of the
UDHR were Roosevelt; Chang Peng-chun, a Chinese playwright, philosopher, and diplomat; and Charles Habib Malik, a Lebanese
philosopher and diplomat.

Structure and content

The underlying structure of the Universal Declaration was introduced in its second draft, which was prepared by René Cassin. Cassin worked
from a first draft, which was prepared by John Peters Humphrey. The structure was influenced by the Code Napoléon, including a preamble
and introductory general principles.[5] Cassin compared the Declaration to the portico of a Greek temple, with a foundation, steps, four
columns, and a pediment

Preamble
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom,
justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of
a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest
aspiration of the common people,

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights
should be protected by the rule of law,

Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,

Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the
human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger
freedom,

Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and
observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and
observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,

Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of
achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind,
shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to
secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of
territories under their jurisdiction

Article 1.
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a
spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2.

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language,
religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the
political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing
or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 3.

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 4.
No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms

Article 5.

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 6.
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law

Article 7.
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any
discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 8.
Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the
constitution or by law.

Article 9.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 10
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights
and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Article 11.
( 1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at
which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under
national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at
the time the penal offence was committed.

Article 12.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation.
Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Article 13.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Article 14.
(1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
(2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and
principles of the United Nations.
Article 15.
(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

Article 16.
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled
to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Article 17.
(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

Article 18.
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either
alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 19.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and
impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Article 20.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and assoc
(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.iation.

Article 21.
(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be
by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

Article 22.
Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation
and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the
free development of his personality.

Article 23.
(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity,
and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

Article 24.
Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

Article 25.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing
and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or
other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social
protection.

Article 26.
(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be
compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the
basis of merit.
(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental
freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the
United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

Article 27.
( 1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement
and its benefits.
(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of
which he is the author.
Article 28.
Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

Article 29.
(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the
purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality,
public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 30.
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed
at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

conclusation

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is an international document that states basic rights and fundamental
freedoms to which all human beings are entitled.

part.B

Answer .4

Introducation

The Declaration of Human Duties and Responsibilities (DHDR) was written for reinforcing the implementation of human rights under the
auspices of the UNESCO and the interest of the UN High Commissioner of Human Rights and was proclaimed in 1998 "to commemorate the
50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights"(UDHR) in the city of Valencia. Therefore, it is also known as the Valencia
Declaration.

Based on Article 29 of the UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on
December 10, 1948, stating, that everyone has duties to the community in which the free and full development of his personality is realised,
Whereas human duties have social nature in their basis and cannot be separated from human rights, and a person cannot have rights without
having duties, and only realising own duties equally with rights it is possible to obtain real freedom, justice and peace in the world,
Whereas disregard or removal from carrying-out of duties generates various conflicts among people and creates problems, including global

ones, which disturb the mind of the Humanity,

Concept of Duty

As discussed above, normally, duty is linked with `obligation'. The concept of duty arises from fulfillment of a requirement. Duties arise in
several ways and means, such as moral duties, legal duties, parental duties, societal duties, and civil duties etc. However, from the point of view
of law, duties arise from legal norms or requirements. They have to be discharged, the way it was prescribed. Accordingly, the actions
constitute as right or wrong basing on the discharge of duty. If one acts contrary to a duty, it constitutes a wrong. (For example, a legal norm
tells us not to speak ill of others which will affect their decency, if speaks ill of others, it constitutes as wrong.). A duty imposes an obligation to
respect the rights of others and the society. Hence, rights and duties are reciprocal. A right is demand and a duty is an expectation.
The different types of duties

Duties may be distinguished between (1) natural and acquired duties, (2) positive and negative duties,
(3) perfect and imperfect duties and (4) prima facie and all things considered as duties.

(A) Natural and Acquired Duties

Natural duties bind all of us without any specification by any institution or body. Each one of us
discharge these duties voluntarily. For example: not to harm others, not to tell lies, not to misuse the
freedoms, duty to respect others, not to injure the innocent, not to beat children, to uphold truth and
justice, etc. Acquired duties are duties undertaken by individuals by virtue of something they have done,
or as a particular relationship, which they might have with others. This means, certain duties are legal,
and need to perform the acquired obligations basing on one's willingness. If refused to perform after
consented to discharge, it attracts legal consequences. Another type of acquired duties results from
special relationships that individuals undertake as groups, often referred to as responsibilities. For
example, parents discharging their duties towards their children, doctors to patients, and lawyers to
their clients. These duties assumed by individuals to exercise automatically by accepting to act in a
specific role.

(B) Positive and Negative Duties

According to another legal jurist John Rawls, positive duties require us to do good. On the other hand,
negative duties impose restrictions on doing bad or refraining from acting. Helping the poor may be a
positive duty, which may not have any obligation. However, not to tell lies or not to harm others is a
negative duty, which imposes an obligation.

(C) Perfect and Imperfect Duties

Perfect and Imperfect duties appear similar to that of the positive and negative duties. According to Prof
Immanuel Kant, a German philosopher, they are not similar. Perfect duties expect individuals to
discharge the incurred obligations as per the goal that is set at all times without any deviation. Imperfect
duties have no rigidity. Imperfect duties are duties that are never completed in its true spirit. The
performance of these duties depends on circumstances. According to Kant, it is difficult to cultivate
one's own talent is an example for imperfect duty.

(D) Prima facie and all things considered duties

According to W. D. Ross, people mostly discharge their duties to live up to their promises as a goodwill.
This means, many a times people perform their duties basing on the advantages and disadvantages. This
being the primary concept of duty, Ross calls individuals to be rational in discharging their duties in a
proper manner without harming the interests of others. Human Rights have the above duty perceptions
in its philosophy. To eradicate the present day maladies, and to improve the moral and ethical standards
among individuals as beneficiaries and defenders of

Conclusion
As the holders of human rights and fundamental freedoms, all individuals, peoples, and communities in the exercise of their
rights and freedoms, have the dutyand responsibility to respect those of others, and a duty to strive for the promotion and
observance thereof”.

Part-B

Answer.5

The historical background of human rights.

The Cyrus Cylinder (539 B.C.)

In 539 B.C., the armies of Cyrus the Great, the first king of ancient Persia, conquered the city of Babylon. But it was his next

actions that marked a major advance for Man. He freed the slaves, declared that all people had the right to choose their own

religion, and established racial equality. These and other decrees were recorded on a baked-clay cylinder in the Akkadian

language with cuneiform script.

Known today as the Cyrus Cylinder, this ancient record has now been recognized as the world’s first charter of human

rights. It is translated into all six official languages of the United Nations and its provisions parallel the first four Articles of the

Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The Spread of Human Rights.

From Babylon, the idea of human rights spread quickly to India, Greece and eventually Rome. There the concept of “natural

law” arose, in observation of the fact that people tended to follow certain unwritten laws in the course of life, and Roman law

was based on rational ideas derived from the nature of things.

Documents asserting individual rights, such as the Magna Carta (1215), the Petition of Right (1628), the US Constitution

(1787), the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1789), and the US Bill of Rights (1791) are the

written precursors to many of today’s human rights documents.

The Magna Carta (1215)

The Magna Carta, or “Great Charter,” was arguably the most significant early influence on the extensive historical process
that led to the rule of constitutional law today in the English-speaking world.

In 1215, after King John of England violated a number of ancient laws and customs by which England had been governed,

his subjects forced him to sign the Magna Carta, which enumerates what later came to be thought of as human rights.

Among them was the right of the church to be free from governmental interference, the rights of all free citizens to own and

inherit property and to be protected from excessive taxes. It established the right of widows who owned property to choose
not to remarry, and established principles of due process and equality before the law. It also contained provisions forbidding

bribery and official misconduct.

Widely viewed as one of the most important legal documents in the development of modern democracy, the Magna Carta

was a crucial turning point in the struggle to establish freedom.

Petition of Right (1628)

The next recorded milestone in the development of human rights was the Petition of Right, produced in 1628 by the English

Parliament and sent to Charles I as a statement of civil liberties. Refusal by Parliament to finance the king’s unpopular

foreign policy had caused his government to exact forced loans and to quarter troops in subjects’ houses as an economy

measure. Arbitrary arrest and imprisonment for opposing these policies had produced in Parliament a violent hostility to

Charles and to George Villiers, the Duke of Buckingham. The Petition of Right, initiated by Sir Edward Coke, was based

upon earlier statutes and charters and asserted four principles: (1) No taxes may be levied without consent of Parliament,

(2) No subject may be imprisoned without cause shown (reaffirmation of the right of habeas corpus), (3) No soldiers may be

quartered upon the citizenry, and (4) Martial law may not be used in time of peace.

United States Declaration of Independence (1776)

On July 4, 1776, the United States Congress approved the Declaration of Independence. Its primary author, Thomas

Jefferson, wrote the Declaration as a formal explanation of why Congress had voted on July 2 to declare independence from

Great Britain, more than a year after the outbreak of the American Revolutionary War, and as a statement announcing that

the thirteen American Colonies were no longer a part of the British Empire. Congress issued the Declaration of

Independence in several forms. It was initially published as a printed broadsheet that was widely distributed and read to the

public.

Philosophically, the Declaration stressed two themes: individual rights and the right of revolution. These ideas became

widely held by Americans and spread internationally as well, influencing in particular the French Revolution.

The Constitution of the United States of America (1787) and Bill of Rights (1791)

Written during the summer of 1787 in Philadelphia, the Constitution of the United States of America is the fundamental law

of the US federal system of government and the landmark document of the Western world. It is the oldest written national

constitution in use and defines the principal organs of government and their jurisdictions and the basic rights of citizens.

The first ten amendments to the Constitution—the Bill of Rights—came into effect on December 15, 1791, limiting the

powers of the federal government of the United States and protecting the rights of all citizens, residents and visitors in

American territory.
The Bill of Rights protects freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to keep and bear arms, the freedom of assembly

and the freedom to petition. It also prohibits unreasonable search and seizure, cruel and unusual punishment and compelled

self-incrimination. Among the legal protections it affords, the Bill of Rights prohibits Congress from making any law

respecting establishment of religion and prohibits the federal government from depriving any person of life, liberty or

property without due process of law. In federal criminal cases it requires indictment by a grand jury for any capital offense, or

infamous crime, guarantees a speedy public trial with an impartial jury in the district in which the crime occurred, and

prohibits double jeopardy.

Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1789)

In 1789 the people of France brought about the abolishment of the absolute monarchy and set the stage for the

establishment of the first French Republic. Just six weeks after the storming of the Bastille, and barely three weeks after the

abolition of feudalism, the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (French: La Déclaration des Droits de

l’Homme et du Citoyen) was adopted by the National Constituent Assembly as the first step toward writing a constitution for

the Republic of France.

The Declaration proclaims that all citizens are to be guaranteed the rights of “liberty, property, security, and resistance to

oppression.” It argues that the need for law derives from the fact that “...the exercise of the natural rights of each man has

only those borders which assure other members of the society the enjoyment of these same rights.” Thus, the Declaration

sees law as an “expression of the general will,“ intended to promote this equality of rights and to forbid “only actions harmful

to the society.”

The First Geneva Convention (1864)

In 1864, sixteen European countries and several American states attended a conference in Geneva, at the invitation of the
Swiss Federal Council, on the initiative of the Geneva Committee. The diplomatic conference was held for the purpose of
adopting a convention for the treatment of wounded soldiers in combat.

The main principles laid down in the Convention and maintained by the later Geneva Conventions provided for the obligation

to extend care without discrimination to wounded and sick military personnel and respect for and marking of medical

personnel transports and equipment with the distinctive sign of the red cross on a white background.

Part-c

Answer-3

Introduction
 ‘Human rights’ refers to the basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled, often held to include the right to life and liberty, freedom
of thought and expression, and equality before the law. Human rights are the foundation of human existence and coexistence. They are universal,
indivisible and interdependent. Human rights are recognised as fundamental by the United Nations and, as such, feature prominently in the
Preamble of the Charter of the United Nations: “… to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person,
in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small…”. The United Nations is the only international entity with jurisdiction for
universal human rights legislation. Where it has been adopted, legislation commonly contains:

 security rights that prohibit crimes such as murder/”enforced” involuntary suicide, massacre, torture and rape;
 liberty rights that protect freedoms in areas such as belief and religion, association, assembling and movement;
 political rights that protect the liberty to participate in politics by expressing themselves, protesting, participating in a republic;
 due process rights that protect against abuses of the legal system such as imprisonment without trial, secret trials and excessive punishments;
 equality rights that guarantee equal citizenship, equality before the law and nondiscrimination;
 welfare rights (also known as economic rights) that require the provision of, e.g. education, paid holidays, and protections against severe poverty
and starvation;
 group rights that provide protection for groups against ethnic genocide and for the ownership by countries of their national territories and
resources.

Protect Human Rights

The term “human rights” was mentioned seven times in the UN's founding Charter, making the promotion and protection of human
rights a key purpose and guiding principle of the Organization. In 1948, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights brought human
rights into the realm of international law. Since then, the Organization has diligently protected human rights through legal
instruments and on-the-ground activities.

How does the UN promote and protect human rights.

High Commissioner for Human Rights
The Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) has lead responsibility in the UN system for the promotion and protection
of human rights. The office supports the human rights components of peacekeeping missions in several countries, and has many country and regional
offices and centres. The High Commissioner for Human Rightsregularly comments on human rights situations in the world and has the authority to
investigate situations and issue reports on them.

Human Rights Council

The Human Rights Council, established in 2006, replaced the 60-year-old UN Commission on Human Rights as the key independent UN
intergovernmental body responsible for human rights.

Human Rights Treaty Bodies

The human rights treaty bodies are committees of independent experts that monitor implementation of the core international human rights treaties

Special Procedures
The special procedures of the Human Rights Council are prominent, independent experts working on a voluntary basis, who examine, monitor, publicly
report and advise on human rights from a thematic or country-specific perspective.

UNDG-HRM
The UN Development Group’s Human Rights Mainstreaming Mechanism (UNDG-HRM) advances human rights mainstreaming efforts within the UN
development system.

Special Advisers on the Prevention of Genocide and the Responsibility to Protect

The Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide acts as a catalyst to raise awareness of the causes and dynamics of genocide, to alert relevant
actors where there is a risk of genocide, and to advocate and mobilize for appropriate action; the Special Adviser on the Responsibility to Protect leads
the conceptual, political, institutional and operational development of the Responsibility to Protect.

What legal instruments help the UN protect human rights

The International Bill of Human Rights
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) was the first legal document protecting universal human rights. Together with the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the three instruments form the so-
called International Bill of Human Rights. A series of international human rights treaties and other instruments adopted since 1945 have expanded the
body of international human rights law
 Democracy.
Democracy, based on the rule of law, is ultimately a means to achieve international peace and security, economic and social progress and
development, and respect for human rights – the three pillars of the United Nations mission as set forth in the UN Charter. At the 2005 World Summit,
all the world’s governments reaffirmed “that democracy is a universal value based on the freely expressed will of people to determine their own
political, economic, social and cultural systems and their full participation in all aspects of their lives” and stressed “that democracy, development and
respect for all human rights and fundamental freedoms are interdependent and mutually reinforcing”. Democratic principles are woven throughout the
normative fabric of the United Nations. The 2009 Guidance Note on Democracy of the Secretary-General sets out the United Nations framework for
democracy based on universal principles, norms and standards and commits the Organization to principled, coherent and consistent action in support
of democracy.

What other UN offices and bodies are responsible for protecting human rights
Security Council
The UN Security Council, at times, deals with grave human rights violations, often in conflict areas. The UN Charter gives the Security Council the
authority to investigate and mediate, dispatch a mission, appoint special envoys, or request the Secretary-General to use his good offices. The
Security Council may issue a ceasefire directive, dispatch military observers or a peacekeeping force. If this does not work, the Security Council can
opt for enforcement measures, such as economic sanctions, arms embargos, financial penalties and restrictions, travel bans, the severance of
diplomatic relations, a blockade, or even collective military action.

Third Committee of the General Assembly

The General Assembly’s Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) examines a range of issues, including human rights
questions. The Committee also discusses questions relating to the advancement of women, the protection of children, indigenous issues,
the treatment of refugees, the promotion of fundamental freedoms through the elimination of racism and racial discrimination, and the right
to self-determination. The Committee also addresses important social development questions.

Various Other UN Bodies

Different intergovernmental bodies and interdepartmental mechanisms based at the United Nations headquarters in New York, as well as the United
Nations Secretary-General, address a range of human rights issues. The General Assembly, the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC)and their
subsidiary organs make policy decisions and recommendations to Member States, the United Nations system and other actors. The United Nations
Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII), an advisory body to the Economic and Social Council, has a mandate to discuss indigenous issues,
including human rights. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights interacts with and provides advice and support on human rights issues
to these bodies and mechanisms. The Office also works to mainstream human rights in all areas of work of the Organization, including development,
peace and security, peacekeeping and humanitarian affairs. Human rights issues are also addressed in the context of the post-conflict UN
peacebuilding support activities

Secretary-General
The Secretary-General appoints special representatives, who advocate against major human rights violations:

 Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Children and Armed Conflict

 Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Sexual Violence in Conflict

 Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Violence Against Children

The ‘Human Rights Up Front’ Initiative is an initiative by the UN Secretary-General to ensure the UN system takes early and effective action, as
mandated by the Charter and UN resolutions, to prevent or respond to serious and large-scale violations of human rights or international humanitarian
law. The initiative underlines a shared responsibility among the various UN entities to work together to address such violations. HRuF seeks to achieve
this by effecting change at three levels: cultural, operational and political. These changes are gradually transforming the way the UN understands its
responsibilities and implements them. The initiative has been progressively rolled-out since late 2013. Through various presentations, letters and policy
documents, the Secretary-General and Deputy Secretary-General have presented HRuF to the General Assembly and to staff and UN system
leaders.

On 19 January 2018, United Nations Secretary General António Guterres established the International Commission of Inquiry envisioned by
the Agreement on Peace and Reconciliation in Mali. He appointed Lena Sundh (Sweden), Vinod Boolell (Mauritius) and Simon Munzu
(Cameroon) to serve as Commissioners and selected Ms. Sundh as Chair. Established at the request of the signatory parties to the
Agreement, the Commission of Inquiry will advance national reconciliation and support the Malian authorities’ efforts in the fight against
impunity. The Commissioners, who are serving in their personal capacities, will investigate serious violations of international human rights
and humanitarian law committed in Mali since January 2012 and submit a report to the Secretary General on 22 Octo ber 2019

UN Peace Operations
Many United Nations peacekeeping operations and political and peacebuidling missions also include the human rights-related mandates aimed at
contributing to the protection and promotion of human rights through both immediate and long-term action; empowering the population to assert and
claim their human rights; and enabling State and other national institutions to implement their human rights obligations and uphold the rule of law.
Human rights teams on the ground work in close cooperation and coordination with other civilian and uniformed components of peace operations, in
particular, in relation to the protection of civilians; addressing conflict-related sexual violence and violations against children; and strengthening respect
for human rights and the rule of law through legal and judicial reform, security sector reform and prison system reform.

Charter of the United Nations

The Charter of the United Nations (also known as the UN Charter) of 1945 is the foundational treaty of the United Nations,
an intergovernmental organization.[1] The UN Charter articulated a commitment to uphold human rights of citizens and outlined a
broad set of principles relating to achieving ‘higher standards of living’, addressing ‘economic, social, health, and related problems,’
and ‘universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as
to race, sex, language, or religion.’[2] As a charter, it is a constituent treaty, and all members are bound by its articles. Furthermore,
Article 103 of the Charter states that obligations to the United Nations prevail over all other treaty obligations

The Charter was opened for signature on 26 June 1945 and was signed at the San Francisco War Memorial and Performing Arts Center in
San Francisco, United States, on 26 June 1945, by 50 of the 51 original member countries (Poland, the other original member, which was
not represented at the conference, signed it two months later). It entered into force on 24 October 1945, after being ratified by the
original five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council—the Republic of China (after 1949, located in Taiwan and was later
replaced by the People's Republic of China), the Provisional Government of the French Republic(later replaced by the Fourth Republic and
then the Fifth Republic), the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (later replaced by the Russian Federation), the United Kingdom, and
the United States—and a majority of the other signatories. In the meantime, the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki took place on 6
and 9 August, respectively; the introduction of this new weapon of warfare completely changed the security environment in which the UN
Charter was promulgated. Most countries in the world have now ratified the Charter.

CHAPTER I

PURPOS ES AND PRINCIPLES

Article 1. The^Purposes of the United Nations are: 1. To maintain international peace and security, and
to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the
peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about
by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or
settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;

2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and
self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;

3. To achieve international cooperation in solving international problems of an economic, social,

cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for
fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and

4. To be a center for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends

Article 2-The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in
accordance with the following Principles.

1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.

2. All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership,
shall fulfil in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.
 3. All Members shall settle their internationaldisputes by peaceful means in such a manner that
international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the
territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the
Purposes of the United Nations.

5. All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with
the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United
Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.

6. The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in
accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace
and security.

7. 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; but this principle shall not prejudice the
applicaIion of enforcement measures under Chapter VII.

CHAPTERII

MEMBERSHIP

Article 3- The original Members of the United Nations shall be the states which, having participated in
the United Nations Conference on International Organization at San Francisco, or having previously
signed the Declaration by United Nations of January 1,1942, sign the present Charter and ratify it in
accordance with Article 110.

Article 4 -1. Membership in the United Nations is open to all other peace-loving states which accept the
obligations contained in the present Charter and, in the judgment of the Organization, are able and
willing to carry out these obligations.

2. The admission of any such state to membership in the United Nations will be effected by a decision of
the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council.

Article 5 - A Member of the United Nations against which preventive or enforcement action has been
taken by the Security Council may be suspended from the exercise of the rights and privileges of
membership by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council. The exercise
of these rights and privileges may be restored by the Security Council.

Article 6- A Member of the United Nations which has persistently violated the Principles contained in
the present Charter may be expelled from the Organization by the General Assembly upon the
recommendation of the Security Council.

CHAPTER III
ORGANS

Article 7- 1. There are established as the principal organs of the United Nations: a General Assembly, a
Security Council, an Economic and Social Council, a Trusteeship Council, an International Court of
Justice, and a Secretariat.

2. Such subsidiary organs as may be found necessary may be established in accordance with the
present Charter.

Article 8 -The United Nations shall place no restrictions on the eligibility of men and women to
participate in any capacity and under conditions of equality in-its principal and subsidiary organs.

CHAPTER IV

THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY

Composition

Article 9 -1. The General Assembly shall consist of all the Members of the United Nations

. 2. Each Member shall have not more than five representatives in the General Assembly.

Functions and Powers

Article 10 -The General Assembly may discuss any questions or any matters within the scope of the
present Charter or relating to the powers and functions of any organs provided for in the present
Charter, and, except as provided in Article 12, may make recommendations to the Members of the
United Nations or to the Security Council or to both on any such questions or matters.

Article 11- 1. The General Assembly may consider the general principles of cooperation in the
maintenance of international peace and security, including the principles governing disarmament and
the regulation of armaments, and may make recommendations with regard to such principles to the
Members or to the Security Council or to both.

2. The General Assembly may discuss any questions relating to the maintenance of international peace
and security brought before it by any Member of the United Nations, or by the Security Council, or by a
state which is not a Member of the United Nations in accordance with Article 35, paragraph 2, and,
except as provided in Article 12,- may make recommendations with regard to any such questions to the
state or states concerned or to the Security Council or to both. Any such question on which action is
necessary shall be referred to the Security Council by the General Assembly either before or after
discussion.

3. The General Assembly may call the attention of the Security Council to situations which are likely to
endanger international peace and security.

4. The powers of the General Assembly set forth in this Article shall not limit the general scope of Article
10.
Article 12- 1. While the Security Council is exercising in respect of any dispute or situation the functions
assigned to it in the present Charter, the General Assembly shall not make any recommendation with
regard to that dispute or situation unless the Security Council so requests.

2. The Secretary-General, with the consent of the Security Council, shall notify the General Assembly at
each session of any matters relative to the maintenance of international peace and security which are
being dealt with by the Security Council and shall similarly notify the General Assembly, or the Members
of the United Nations if the General Assembly is not in session, immediately the Security Council ceases
to deal with such matters.

Article 13 1. The General Assembly shall initiate studies and make recommendations for the purpose of
: a. promoting international cooperation in the political field and encouraging the progressive
development of international law and its codification; b. promoting international cooperation in the
economic, social, cultural, educational, and health fields, and assisting in the realization of human rights
and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.

2. The further responsibilities, functions, and powers of the General Assembly with respect to matters
mentioned in paragraph l(b) above are set forth in Chapters IX and X.

Article 14- Subject to the provisions of Article 12, the General Assembly may recommend measures for
the peaceful adjustment of any situation, regardless of origin, which it deems likely to impair the general
welfare or friendly relations among nations, including situations resulting from a violation of the
provisions of the present Charter setting forth the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations.

Article 15- 1. The General Assembly shall receive and consider annual and special reports from the
Security Council; these reports shall include an account of the measures that the Security Council has
decided upon or taken to maintain international peace and security.

2. The General Assembly shall receive and consider reports from the other organs of the United
Nations.

Article 16- The General Assembly shall perform such functions with respect to the international
trusteeship system as are assigned to it under Chapters XII and XIII, including the approval of the
trusteeship agreements for areas not designated as strategic

. Article 17- 1. The General Assembly shall consider and approve the budget of the Organization. 2. The
expenses of the Organization shall be borne by the Members as apportioned by the General Assembly.
3. The General Assembly shall consider and approve any financial and budgetary arrangements with
specialized agencies referred to in Article 57 and shall examine the administrative budgets of such
specialized agencies with a view to making recommendations to the agencies concerned.

Voting

Article 18 1. Each member of the General Assembly shall have one vote. 2. Decisions of the General
Assembly on important questions shall be made by a two-thirds majority of the members present and
voting. These questions shall include: recommendations with respect to the maintenance of
international peace and security, the election of the non-permanent members of the Security Council,
the election of the members of the Economic and Social Council, the election of members of the
Trusteeship Council in accordance with paragraph l(c) of Article 86, the admission of new Members to
the United Nations, the suspension of the rights and privileges of membership, the expulsion of
Members, questions relating to the operation of the trusteeship system, and budgetary questions. 3.
Decisions on other questions, including the determination of additional categories of questions to be
decided by a two-thirds majority, shall be made by a majority of the members present and voting.

Article 19- A Member of the United Nations which is in arrears in the payment of its financial
contributions to the Organization shall have no vote in the General Assembly if the amount of its arrears
equals or exceeds the amount of the contributions due from it for the preceding two full years. The
General Assembly may, nevertheless, permit such a Member to vote if it is satisfied that the failure to
pay is due to conditions beyond the control of the Member.

Procedure

Article 20 -The General Assembly shall meet in regular annual sessions and in such special sessions as
occasion may require. Special sessions shall be convoked by the Secretary-General at the request of the
Security Council or of a majority of the Members of the United Nations.

Article 21 -The General Assembly shall adopt its own rules of procedure. It shall elect its President for
each session.

Article 22 -The General Assembly may establish such subsidiary organs as it deems necessary
for the performance of its functions. COMPOSITION
Article 23
1. The Security Council shall consist of fifteen Members of the United Nations. The Republic of China, France, the Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America shall be permanent members of the
Security Council. The General Assembly shall elect ten other Members of the United Nations to be non-permanent members of the Security
Council, due regard being specially paid, in the first instance to the contribution of Members of the United Nations to the maintenance of
international peace and security and to the other purposes of the Organization, and also to equitable geographical distribution.
2. The non-permanent members of the Security Council shall be elected for a term of two years. In the first election of the non-permanent
members after the increase of the membership of the Security Council from eleven to fifteen, two of the four additional members shall be
chosen for a term of one year. A retiring member shall not be eligible for immediate re-election.
3. Each member of the Security Council shall have one representative.
FUNCTIONS and POWERS
Article 24
1. In order to ensure prompt and effective action by the United Nations, its Members confer on the Security Council primary responsibility for
the maintenance of international peace and security, and agree that in carrying out its duties under this responsibility the Security Council
acts on their behalf.
2. In discharging these duties the Security Council shall act in accordance with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations. The
specific powers granted to the Security Council for the discharge of these duties are laid down in Chapters VI, VII, VIII, and XII.
3. The Security Council shall submit annual and, when necessary, special reports to the General Assembly for its consideration.
Article 25
The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present
Charter.
Article 26
In order to promote the establishment and maintenance of international peace and security with the least diversion for armaments of the
world's human and economic resources, the Security Council shall be responsible for formulating, with the assistance of the Military Staff
Committee referred to in Article 47, plans to be submitted to the Members of the United Nations for the establishment of a system for the
regulation of armaments.
VOTING
Article 27
1. Each member of the Security Council shall have one vote.
2. Decisions of the Security Council on procedural matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members.
3. Decisions of the Security Council on all other matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members including the concurring votes
of the permanent members; provided that, in decisions under Chapter VI, and under paragraph 3 of Article 52, a party to a dispute shall
abstain from voting.
PROCEDURE
Article 28
1. The Security Council shall be so organized as to be able to function continuously. Each member of the Security Council shall for this
purpose be represented at all times at the seat of the Organization.
2. The Security Council shall hold periodic meetings at which each of its members may, if it so desires, be represented by a member of the
government or by some other specially designated representative.
3. The Security Council may hold meetings at such places other than the seat of the Organization as in its judgment will best facilitate its
work.
Article 29
The Security Council may establish such subsidiary organs as it deems necessary for the performance of its functions.
Article 30
The Security Council shall adopt its own rules of procedure, including the method of selecting its President.
Article 31
Any Member of the United Nations which is not a member of the Security Council may participate, without vote, in the discussion of any
question brought before the Security Council whenever the latter considers that the interests of that Member are specially affected.
Article 32
Any Member of the United Nations which is not a member of the Security Council or any state which is not a Member of the United Nations, if
it is a party to a dispute under consideration by the Security Council, shall be invited to participate, without vote, in the discussion relating to
the dispute. The Security Council shall lay down such conditions as it deems just for the participation of a state which is not a Member of the
United Nations.

The United Nations and Human Rights

The United Nations Charter sets forth the "inherent dignity" and the "equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human
family." Upholding these human rights principles as "the foundation of freedom, justice, and peace in the world" is fundamental to
every undertaking of the United Nations.

Counclsion

Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, regardless of race, sex, nationality, ethnicity, language, religion, or
any other status. Human rights include the right to life and liberty, freedom from slavery and torture, freedom of opinion
and expression, the right to work and education, and many more.

Part c

Answer.4

Introduction
The law of State responsibility is the chapter of international law that concerns the breach by a State of one or more of its
international obligations. In international law, responsibility is the corollary of obligation; every breach by a subject of
international law of its international obligations entails its international responsibility. The law of State responsibility defines
when an international obligation is to be held to have been breached, as well as the consequences of that breach, including
which States are entitled to react, and the permissible means of that reaction.

Unlike national laws, wherein different rules often apply according to the source of the obligation breached (e.g., contract
law, tort law, criminal law), international law does not concern itself with the source of the obligation that is breached; in
principle (and unless otherwise specifically provided) the same rules apply to the breach of an obligation whether the source
of the obligation is a treaty, customary international law, a unilateral declaration, or the judgment of an international court.

In August 2001 the International Law Commission [1] completed its Articles on the Responsibility of States for
Internationally Wrongful Acts (ARSIWA), a project on which it had been working for more than forty years. The aim of
the articles is to codify the generally applicable rules of State responsibility.

It should be noted that the ARSIWA are envisaged as laying down general rules that apply in default of any more
specific rule applicable to the obligation in question. In some cases, special rules may apply to an obligation (either as
a result of the formulation of the rule itself, or because the obligation in question forms part of a special regime); for
instance, it is possible that a particular obligation may be subject to a special rule requiring fault or damage before
there is held to be a breach, or it may be that the category of States entitled to react is wider than the default position
under the ARSIWA. This is the principle of lex specialis (to the extent that special rules are applicable and inconsistent
with the rules contained in the ARSIWA, the special rules will prevail and displace the more general rules).

The Elements of State Responsibility

The starting point of the articles is that “every internationally wrongful act of a State entails the international responsibility of
that State” [2] . The act or omission of a State will qualify as an “internationally wrongful act” if two conditions are met. First,
the act or omission must constitute a breach of an international obligation, or, as the articles put it, must be “not in
conformity with what is required” by the international obligation [3] . This implies that the obligation in question must be
binding on the State at the time of the conduct, which is said to constitute a breach. Second, the act or omission must be
“attributable” to the State.

The general rule is that a State is not responsible for the acts of private individuals. The State is of course an abstract entity,
unable to accomplish any physical act itself. Just as in domestic law corporations act through their officers and agents, so in
international law the State normally acts through its organs and officials. The first, and clearest, case of attribution is that of
the organs of the State (e.g., police officers, the army) whose acts are attributable to the State even in instances where they
contravene their instructions, or exceed their authority as a matter of national law [4] . No distinction is made based on the
level of the particular organ in the organizational hierarchy of the State; State responsibility can arise from the actions of a
local policeman, just as it can from the actions of the highest officials, for instance a head of state or a foreign minister. Nor
is any distinction made upon the basis of the separation of powers; State responsibility may arise from acts or omissions of
the legislature and the judiciary, although by the nature of things it is more common that an internationally wrongful act is
the consequence of an act or acts of the executive. Second, the rules of attribution cover situations in which individuals, not
otherwise State organs, are exercising “elements of governmental authority” at the time that they act [5] . Third, acts of
private individuals are attributable to the State if those individuals are acting on the instructions of the State, or under its
effective direction or control [6] . Fourth, in exceptional circumstances in which there is an absence or default of
governmental authority, the acts of private individuals may be attributable to the State if those individuals, in effect, step into
the breach and perform necessary governmental functions [7] .

With regard to certain obligations, a State may incur responsibility even though actions have been carried out by private
individuals, because the essence of the obligation was to ensure that a given result occurred. For instance, if a foreign
embassy is overrun by a mob, or harm is done to diplomatic staff by private individuals, as occurred with the U.S. embassy in
Tehran during the Iranian revolution of 1979 to 1980, a State may incur responsibility, even if those individuals act on their
own initiative. Equally, under Article V of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide,
the obligation of a State to punish those responsible for genocide earlier on related to genocide may be breached in
instances in which a State fails to punish any person responsible for the genocide, “whether they are constitutionally
responsible rulers, public officials, or private individuals.” There is probably a similar rule in general international law in
relation to crimes against humanity. In both cases, the basis of responsibility here is not the attribution to the State of the
acts of the individuals; it is the failure by the State as an entity to comply with the obligations of prevention and prosecution
incumbent on it.

A somewhat anomalous instance of attribution is that covered by Article 10. As was noted above, in the normal course of
events, a State is not responsible for the acts of private individuals; a fortiori, it is not responsible for the acts of
insurrectional movements, because, by definition, an insurrectional group acts in opposition to the established state
structures and its organization is distinct from the government of the State to which it is opposed. However, Article 10(1)
provides that “the conduct of an insurrectional movement which becomes the new government of a State shall be
considered an act of that State under international law.” Article 10(2) provides for a similar rule with respect to an
insurrectional movement that succeeds in establishing a new State within the territory of a pre-existing State. The effect of
the rule is to attribute retrospectively the conduct of the movement in question to the State. In the case of a successful
insurrectional movement, the acts of the movement are attributed to the State as if the movement had been the government
at the time of its acts, even though, if the insurrection had failed, no attribution would be possible. In the case of the
establishment of a new State, the effect is even more drastic because acts are attributed to the State retrospectively to a time
when it did not yet definitively exist.

Except in this case, there is no established machinery for attributing collective responsibility (e.g., for war crimes, genocide, or
crimes against humanity) to an armed opposition group. In such circumstances individual responsibility is the only possibility
at the international level of ensuring a degree of responsibility for criminal acts.

Certain circumstances may serve to preclude the wrongfulness of a breach of international law by a State, in much the same
way that defenses and excuses work in national criminal law. In international law these are termed “circumstances precluding
wrongfulness” [8] . For instance, the consent of the state to which the obligation was owed will prevent the breach being
wrongful, as will, under certain restrictively defined conditions, force majeure, distress, and necessity. Finally, a State taking
countermeasures (defined as the nonperformance of an obligation in response to a prior wrongful act of another State, in
order to induce that State to comply with its obligations) may mean that what would otherwise be a breach of an
international obligation is not in fact wrongful. However, quite apart from the strict procedural conditions with which the
taking of countermeasures is hedged, it should be noted that certain obligations may not be the object of countermeasures.
Among these are the obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force, obligations for the protection of fundamental
human rights, obligations of a humanitarian character prohibiting reprisals under peremptory norms of general international
law (jus cogens). This last limitation in fact applies generally to circumstances precluding wrongfulness: it is never possible to
plead that a breach of a peremptory norm was justified.

The Content of International Responsibility

Upon the commission of an internationally wrongful act, new legal obligations come into existence for the State responsible
for that act. First, that State is under an obligation to make full reparation for the injury caused by the internationally
wrongful act. Reparation may take one of three forms: restitution, compensation, or satisfaction (or some combination of
them). Traditionally, restitution has played the primary role, although in instances in which restitution is materially
impossible, the injured State may have to content itself with compensation or satisfaction. Second, the responsible State is
under an obligation to conclude the internationally wrongful act if it is continuing, and in an appropriate case, may be
required to make assurances and guarantees of non-repetition.

The Articles mark a decisive step away from the traditional bilateralism of international law and toward what has been called
“community interest” in the provisions dealing with the States that are entitled to react to the breach of an internationally
wrongful act. Traditionally, only the State that was directly injured, or in some way “targeted,” by the breach of an
international obligation could demand reparation. In addition, although any state could take unfriendly measures that did
not constitute the breach of an international obligation owed to the State at which they were directed (retorsion), the taking
of countermeasures was commonly understood as being limited to these “injured States.”
The first major move away from the strict bilateralism of international law was the judgment of the International Court of
Justice in the Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company Limited (Belgium v. Spain) case. In that case, the court stated:

[A]n essential distinction should be drawn between the obligations of a State towards the international community as a
whole, and those arising vis-à-vis another State in the field of diplomatic protection. By their very nature the former are the
concern of all States. In view of the importance of the rights involved, all States can be held to have a legal interest in their
protection; they are obligations erga omnes [9] .

In the next paragraph, the court went on to state that “such obligations derive, for example, in contemporary international
law, from the outlawing of acts of aggression, and of genocide, as also from the principles and rules concerning the basic
rights of the human person, including protection from slavery and racial discrimination.” This distinction between obligations
of which only the injured State may complain, and those in the observance of which a wider community of States have an
interest, is reflected in Articles 42 and 48, although it should be stressed that the latter provision is undoubtedly one of the
clearest examples of progressive development to be found within the articles. It seems indisputable that all other States have
an interest in the observance by other States (and individuals) of the prohibitions of genocide and crimes against humanity.
However, the exact implications of this interest require further working out in the light of State practice.

The Relationship between State Responsibility and

Individual Responsibility
The relationship between State responsibility and individual responsibility has until recently been a neglected issue,
principally due to the late development of international individual criminal responsibility.

In 1947 the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg stated that “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” [10] . This statement says much about perceptions of the international legal system in the immediate aftermath of
World War II; however, insofar as it seems to assert that observance of the rules of international law prohibiting atrocities can
only be achieved through the prosecution of individuals, the assertion no longer holds true.

During the 1990s a number of inter-State cases alleging State responsibility for violations of the international rules
concerned with the outlawing of atrocities were brought before the International Court of Justice. Some of these cases, in
particular those between the States that had emerged after the disintegration of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
(Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Yugoslavia [Serbia and Montenegro], 1993 onward; Croatia v. Yugoslavia, 1999 onward),
concerned situations involving allegations of genocide and crimes against humanity that were concurrently the subject of
investigation and prosecution of individuals before the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY).
Other cases [11] alleged, among other things, violations of the 1948 UN Genocide Convention, serious violations of human
rights, and war crimes that had not been the subject of international prosecution. At the preliminary objections stage of the
case (mentioned above) between Bosnia and Serbia-Montenegro, the respondents argued for a restrictive interpretation of
the jurisdictional provision contained in Article IX of the 1948 UN Genocide Convention. Article IX provides as follows:

Disputes between the Contracting Parties relating to the interpretation, application or fulfillment of the present Convention,
including those relating to the responsibility of a State for genocide or for any of the other acts enumerated in Article III,
shall be submitted to the International Court of Justice at the request of any of the parties to the dispute.

Serbia-Montenegro argued that the provision only conferred jurisdiction on the court in relation to responsibility for failure
to comply with the obligations to prevent and punish genocide, as contained in Articles V, VI, and VII of the convention, and
not to State responsibility for violations of the substantive prohibition of genocide contained in Article III. Accordingly, it was
argued, as the jurisdiction of the court is based on consent, the court had no jurisdiction in relation to the allegations made
by Bosnia and Herzegovina of violations of the prohibition of genocide by individuals whose acts were attributable to Serbia-
Montenegro.

The court dealt with the point briefly, observing:

[T]he reference in Article IX to “the responsibility of a State for genocide or for any of the other acts enumerated in Article
III,” does not exclude any form of State responsibility. Nor is the responsibility of a State for acts of its organs excluded by
Article IV of the Convention, which contemplates the commission of an act of genocide by “rulers” or “public officials” [12] .

Accordingly, it held, a dispute existed between the parties on this point, as well as on the “the facts of the case, their
imputability, and the applicability to them of the provisions of the Genocide Convention,” and was sufficient to its
jurisdiction [13] . Two points bear emphasizing. First, the argument of Serbia-Montenegro did not have as a necessary
premise that State responsibility for actual acts of genocide attributable to a State does not exist; rather, the argument was
that State responsibility of this type did not fall within Article IX. Second, the decision of the court at the preliminary
objections stage of the case did not definitively decide whether breach of the 1948 UN Genocide Convention by an
individual necessarily involves State responsibility if the relevant acts are attributable to a State, as the only hurdle that had
to be surmounted was whether there was a dispute between the parties as to the interpretation or application of the
convention. However, the tone of the court’s judgment seems to suggest that State responsibility does arise in these
circumstances, and this would be consistent with general principle.

Conversely, the ICTY has made reference to State responsibility in elucidating the law relevant to the international criminal
responsibility of individuals. In the Furundzija case the Trial Chamber held that the international legal norms prohibiting
torture arising from human rights law and international humanitarian law “impose obligations upon States and other entities
in an armed conflict, but first and foremost address themselves to the acts of individuals, in particular to State officials or
more generally, to officials of a party to the conflict or else to individuals acting at the instigation or with the consent or
acquiescence of a party to the conflict” [14] . As a consequence,

Under current international humanitarian law, in addition to individual criminal liability, State responsibility may ensue as a
result of State officials engaging in torture or failing to prevent torture or to punish torturers. If carried out as an extensive
practice of State officials, torture amounts to a serious breach on a widespread scale of an international obligation of
essential importance for safeguarding the human being, thus constituting a particularly grave wrongful act generating State
responsibility [15] .

It is therefore now generally accepted that a single act can give rise to “two distinct types of responsibility coming under
mutually autonomous legal regimes” [16] . The ILC intentionally left the question of the interplay of the two bodies of law
open for future development, inserting a saving clause as Article 58, ARSIWA, which reads, “These articles are without
prejudice to any question of the individual responsibility under international law of any person acting on behalf of a State.”
Similarly, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) provides in its Article 25(4) that “[n]o provision in this
Statute relating to individual criminal responsibility shall affect the responsibility of States under international law.”

However, although the rules constituting the general-framework of State responsibility and international criminal
responsibility may constitute distinct bodies of law, there are inevitably certain overlaps or points of contact between the two
systems due to the fact that at the root of both are the same norms of substantive international law, that is, those
prohibiting anyone from committing genocide, crimes against humanity, and so on.

Most obviously, for instance, it is clear that an individual cannot be found guilty of genocide if he did not have the “specific
intent” to “destroy in whole or part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group, as such,” required by Article II of the 1948
Genocide Convention. Equally, in seeking to establish State responsibility for genocide, it seems clear that at least one
person, if not more, whose acts are attributable to the State should have the requisite specific intent. In this sense, the 1948
Genocide Convention operates as a lex specialis in relation to the generally applicable rules of international law, in which
culpa or intention is not generally required.

Second, although the definition of genocide is not expressed in such terms, the logistical and organizational structures
necessary for the commission of the crime inevitably involve State or para-statal structures. A person who murders a single
person on the basis of the national, ethnic, racial, or religious group to which that person belongs does not commit
genocide, even though it may be that he would murder all of the members of the group if he could, and thus arguably has
the required specific intent. A certain amount of concertation is necessary, and there is a certain threshold of scale both for
genocide and crimes against humanity (of which, ultimately, genocide is a species).
In relation to crimes against humanity, Article 3 of the Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR)
requires that the acts have been committed as part of “a widespread or systematic attack against any civilian population on
national, political, ethnic, racial, or religious grounds,” whereas Article 5 of the Statute of the ICTY, which only requires that
the acts have been committed “in armed conflict, whether international or internal in character, and directed against any
civilian population” has been interpreted by the ICTY as requiring that there be a widespread or systematic attack. In similar
fashion, Article 7 of the Rome Statute of the ICC imposes the slightly different requirement of “a widespread and systematic
attack directed against any civilian population” in its definition of crimes against humanity. As with genocide, the
requirement of “a widespread or systematic attack” implies an element of scale or of planning, and will in most cases involve
structures and apparatus that will normally only be disposed of by a State or by an armed opposition group, although proof
of a plan or policy is not a necessary part of the definition of the crime.

It was for reasons of this kind that the ILC included in its articles a provision dealing specifically with the issue of
responsibility for what are termed composite acts—that is, acts wherein the gist of the wrong is the combination of
individual acts that are not in themselves necessarily wrongful or criminal as a matter of international law. Article 15 of
ARSIWA provides as follows:

1. The breach of an international obligation by a State, through a series of actions or omissions defined in aggregate as
wrongful, occurs when the action or omission occurs which, taken with the other actions or omissions, is sufficient to
constitute the wrongful act.

2. In such a case, the breach extends over the entire period starting with the first of the actions or omissions of the series and
lasts for as long as these actions or omissions are repeated and remain not in conformity with the international obligation.

According to the commentary, this has specific application to crimes against humanity and genocide.

Even though it has special features, the prohibition of genocide, formulated in identical terms in the 1948 Convention and in
later instruments, may be taken as an illustration of a composite obligation. It implies that the responsible entity (including a
State) will have adopted a systematic policy or practice. According to Article II(a) of the Convention, the prime case of
genocide is “killing members of [a national, ethnical, racial or religious group]” with the intent to destroy that group as such,
in whole or in part. Both limbs of the definition contain systematic elements. Genocide also has to be carried out with the
relevant intention, aimed at physically eliminating the group “as such.” Genocide is not committed until there has been an
accumulation of acts of killing, causing harm, etc., committed with the relevant intent, so as to satisfy the definition in Article
II. Once that threshold is crossed, the time of commission extends over the whole period during which any of the acts was
committed, and any individual responsible for any of them with the relevant intent will have committed genocide. [17] .

The Distinction between Commission and Failure to

Prevent or Punish
The 1948 UN Genocide Convention distinguishes between the basic prohibition of genocide and conduct ancillary to
genocide—incitement, conspiracy, and so on [18] , and the question of prevention and punishment [19] . Persons
committing genocide (whether or not State officials) are to be punished. The State is under an obligation not merely to enact
laws prohibiting genocide [20] , but also to prevent and punish actual violations occurring within its territory. Thus, there is a
distinction between the criminal act, which is committed by individuals and is punishable accordingly, and the State’s
obligation to prevent and punish—failure to do which is not as such criminal, but amounts to a breach of an international
obligation. In the Application of the Genocide Convention case, as noted already, Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro)
argued that the only obligation that had been incumbent upon it under the convention was to prevent genocide and punish
acts of genocide occurring on its territory; the court rejected this argument, affirming that the jurisdictional provision did not
exclude “any form of State responsibility” [21] . The court left to the merits phase of the case the question of the scope of the
obligations under the convention, and accordingly the extent of State responsibility falling within the jurisdictional provision.
However, leaving aside the technicalities of jurisdiction, the better view is that—whether under the convention or as a matter
of general international law—a State is responsible for any act of genocide committed by one of its organs or by other
persons whose conduct in the relevant respect is attributable to the State.
As indicated by the Bosnia case, it is arguable that, in these as in other respects, there may be a distinction between on the
one hand the scope of responsibility (and accordingly of jurisdiction) under the convention, and on the other the scope of
the obligations, and of responsibility under general international law. For example, national jurisdiction to try persons
suspected of genocide is limited by Article VI to genocide committed on the territory of the implicated State. It is
inconceivable that jurisdiction is so limited under general international law, given such developments as the extension of
nationnal jurisdiction over international crimes in general (including crimes less serious than genocide)

History of the State Responsibility

Work on State responsibility began in the ILC in 1956 under Special Rapporteur García Amador (Cuba). This early work focused on State
responsibility for injuries to aliens and their property (Property, Right to, International Protection). Although García Amador submitted six
reports between 1956 and 1961, there was little discussion of them, in part because of the demands of other topics but also because the
debate in 1957 had indicated there was no general agreement as to the way forward. In 1957 the ILC postponed any detailed discussion of
García Amador’s proposals.

In 1962 it was proposed to redraw the boundaries of the topic so as to focus on ‘the definition of the general rules governing the
international responsibility of the State’ (UN ILC Special Rapporteur R Ago, ‘ Report on State Responsibility’ [1963] para. 5). By this was
meant the rules of general application concerning State responsibility, applicable not only to diplomatic protection but also to other fields. The
point was not to elaborate the substantive rules themselves or the specific obligations of States arising from them, but to focus on the
framework or matrix of rules of responsibility, identifying whether there has been a breach by a State and its consequences.

In 1963 the ILC approved this reconceptualization of the topic and appointed Roberto Ago (Italy) as Special Rapporteur. Between 1969 and
1980, Roberto Ago produced eight reports and the ILC provisionally adopted 35 articles constituting Part One of the proposed draft articles:
‘Origin of State Responsibility’. The detailed treatment in Part One of the rules of attribution and the general justifications or excuses for an
internationally wrongful act was highly influential. Other elements were more controversial, in particular Art. 19 Draft Articles on State
Responsibility of 1980 (‘1980 Draft Articles’) introducing the concept of international—ie State—crimes (see also International Criminal Law),
as well as the over-elaborate typology of obligations in Arts 20 to 26 1980 Draft Articles.

In 1979, Willem Riphagen (Netherlands) was appointed Special Rapporteur. Between 1980 and 1986, he presented seven reports,
containing a complete set of draft articles on Part Two—‘Content, Forms and Degrees of International Responsibility’—and Part Three—
‘Settlement of Disputes’—together with commentaries. Owing to the priority given to other topics, only five articles from his Part Two were
provisionally adopted during this period. The most important of these was Art. 40 Draft Articles, an extended definition of ‘injured State’.

In 1987, Gaetano Arangio-Ruiz (Italy) was appointed Special Rapporteur. In the period 1988 to 1995 he presented seven reports, enabling
the ILC to adopt the text with commentaries on first reading in 1996 (‘1996 Draft Articles’). The draft articles of 1996 thus consisted of three
tranches, Part One, adopted in the period 1971 to 1980 under Ago, a few articles in Part Two Chapter I adopted in the period to 1986 under
Riphagen, and the residue dealing with reparations, countermeasures, the consequences of international crimes, and dispute settlement,
adopted in the period 1992 to 1996 under Arangio-Ruiz. There was no reconsideration of earlier articles at any point, so problems of co-
ordination existed between the three groups (for a table showing the evolution of the first reading text see Crawford [2002] 315).

In 1997 the ILC decided to complete the second reading within four years and appointed James Crawford (Australia) as Special
Rapporteur.

Certain key features of the text provided guiding principles for the second reading. The first was its comprehensive coverage of obligations,
bilateral and multilateral. Part One 1996 Draft Articles covered questions of responsibility arising from the breach of any international
obligation of a State. They were not limited to obligations of States owed exclusively to other States, as distinct from obligations owed to non-
State entities, to all States or to the international community as a whole (see also Obligations erga omnes). Second, no distinction was drawn
between treaty and non-treaty obligations: international law draws no distinction between responsibility ex delicto and ex contractu. A third
and related feature is the open and generally neutral approach taken by the ILC to the content of the primary rules. As far as possible, no
attempt is made to specify the content of the primary obligations of States. In particular there is no separate requirement of fault or wrongful
intent for an internationally wrongful act to be held to exist. Nor do the 1996 Draft Articles specify any requirement of injury, damage, or harm
to another State for responsibility to arise. Whether these conditions are required depends on the primary obligation, and there is no a priori
limit on the content or scope of international obligations. On the other hand the existence of injury, harm, or damage is relevant in terms of
the invocation of responsibility and the form and extent of reparation and is referred to in that context.

At the same time there were unresolved difficulties with the first reading text. The most visible was the controversy over international crimes
of State. The existence of obligations towards the international community as a whole was affirmed by the International Court of Justice
(ICJ) in the Case concerning the Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Co Ltd (at para. 33; Barcelona Traction Case), in a dictum often-
quoted and generally accepted. On first reading Arts 19 and 40 (3) 1996 Draft Articles sought to translate that idea by reference to the notion
of international crimes of States. These were defined as breaches of an international obligation ‘so essential for the protection of fundamental
interests of the international community that its breach is recognized as a crime by the community as a whole’ (Art. 19 (2) 1996 Draft
Articles). Art. 19 (3) 1996 Draft Articles then provided examples of international crimes ‘on the basis of the rules of international law in force’,
a phrase not found in Ago’s original (UN ILC Special Rapporteur R Ago, ‘ Fifth Report on State Responsibility’ para. 155). Apart from the fact
that Art. 19 (3) 1996 Draft Articles plainly strayed over the line between primary and secondary rules, there remained a fundamental doubt
about what it means to say that a State has committed a crime, especially given that international law had developed the notion of criminal
responsibility (see also Individual Criminal Responsibility). There is no example in practice of a State being held criminally liable: the only
penalties ever imposed on States after judicial process have been civil penalties or fines within the framework of European Union (‘EU’) law
(see also European [Economic] Community). Strong reservations as to the terminology of ‘crimes’ were expressed within the ILC and in the
comments of many governments, although others continued to support the idea. On the other hand there was no particular difficulty in
principle or in terms of the present state of international organization in accepting the idea that some obligations are held to the international
community as a whole and not only to individual States, and that grave breaches of those obligations could attract special consequences.
The problem was how to translate that idea into the text in a way which would be generally acceptable.

At least as problematic was Art. 40 1996 Draft Articles, which defined ‘injured State’ in an unco-ordinated and diffuse way. For example, it
equated a State seriously harmed by the breach of an obligation owed to it individually and States individually unaffected but seeking to
ensure compliance with an obligation in the general interest. In the ICJ’s South West Africa Cases (Ethiopia v South Africa; Liberia v South
Africa) (Second Phase), Ethiopia and Liberia were seeking to vindicate a public interest in the due administration of the Mandate (see
also Mandates). They were not relying on individual rights of their own. But the ICJ held that the claim was inadmissible precisely because it
did not involve individual rights of the claimant States (see also South West Africa/Namibia [Advisory Opinions and Judgments]). It was this
narrow approach—a serious lacuna when the direct beneficiary of the obligation is not a State and has no capacity to sue—which the ICJ
sought to address in the Barcelona Traction Case. But simply to equate the victim of the breach and the third State seeking to vindicate its
rights was quite unsatisfactory (see also International Courts and Tribunals, Standing).

A subtler defect was the presentation of all the consequences of an internationally wrongful act as flowing automatically—by operation of
law—from the breach. In accordance with the time-honoured formula developed in the Case concerning the Factory at Chorzów (Germany v
Poland) (Claim for Indemnity) (Merits)(‘Chorzów Factory Case’), this is true for the obligation of full reparation, which is as it were an
inseparable consequence of the breach and which falls within the jurisdiction of a tribunal empowered to determine the breach (see
also German Interests in Polish Upper Silesia Cases). But other consequences such as the taking of countermeasures are not automatic
legal consequences of a breach: rather they follow, in some cases, from the failure to make reparation. Responsibility entails reparation, but
the claims process requires choices to be made and involves elements of election and response. By wrapping up all the consequences of a
breach in one unwieldy part, the 1996 Draft Articles ignored the vital area of invocation.

Conclusion
Therefore, in international law, responsibility pertains to a State which commits an internationally wrongful act against
another, giving rise to the duty to give reparation. The wrongful act that is attributable to a State, committed by its agencies
or officials or in the exercise of its authority, constitutes a breach of international obligation that is binding at the time the
act is committed.Such a classic formulation of international responsibility is premised on inter se relations of States; an act or
omission of one State in breach of an obligation defined by international custom or convention, which it owes to another
State. However, progress in the theory and practice of international responsibility has gone beyond the scope of bilateral
relations. The developments towards the consolidation of the institutions making up the International Community of States
as a whole have broadened in significant scale.

Part-c

Answer-4

Intoducation

Apartheid means separateness. Apartheid was a system of legal racial segregation enforced by the South African
National Party government between 1948 and 1994. This system created a society of enormous repression for
black South Africans.

These policies of racial separation began long before 1948. In 1910, a series of laws were introduced to limit the
rights of the black majority. Laws like the Mines and Works Act of 1911, limited the kind of jobs that black workers
could have, reducing them to exclusively doing menial work, while securing the better job opportunities for white
workers. Laws were also introduced to restrict land ownership and use by the black majority. The Native Land Act
of 1913 set aside less than 10% of South African territory as reservations for black people and barred them from
buying land outside these areas.

Policies like these also limited the political influence of black South Africans by depriving them of the right to vote
or to protest unfair labor practices. Despite these political, economic, and social challenges, groups like the African
National Congress (ANC) formed to stage resistance and liberation movements to free black South Africans from
these atrocities. The conflicts intensified and, out of fear, white South Africans rallied great support behind the
National Party to win the 1948 election in South Africa, thus ensuring the opportunity to put into place an even
greater repressive government against the majority black population.

What was apartheid

Translated from the Afrikaans meaning 'apartness', apartheid was the ideologysupported by the National Party (NP) government and was introduced in South
Africa in 1948. Apartheid called for the separate development of the different racial groups in South Africa. On paper it appeared to call for equal development and
freedom of cultural expression, but the way it was implemented made this impossible. Apartheid made laws forced the different racial groups to live separately and
develop separately, and grossly unequally too. It tried to stop all inter-marriage and social integration between racial groups. During apartheid, to have a friendship
with someone of a different race generally brought suspicion upon you, or worse. More than this, apartheid was a social system which severely disadvantaged the
majority of the population, simply because they did not share the skin colour of the rulers. Many were kept just above destitution because they were 'non-white'.

In basic principles, apartheid did not differ that much from the policy of segregation of the South African governments existing before the Afrikaner Nationalist Party
came to power in 1948. The main difference is that apartheid made segregation part of the law. Apartheid cruelly and forcibly separated people, and had a
fearsome state apparatus to punish those who disagreed. Another reason why apartheid was seen as much worse than segregation, was that apartheid was
introduced in a period when other countries were moving away from racist policies. Before World War Two the Western world was not as critical of racial
discrimination, and Africa was colonized in this period. The Second World War highlighted the problems of racism, making the world turn away from such policies
and encouraging demands for decolonization. It was during this period that South Africa introduced the more rigid racial policy of apartheid.

People often wonder why such a policy was introduced and why it had so much support. Various reasons can be given for apartheid, although they are all closely
linked. The main reasons lie in ideas of racial superiority and fear. Across the world, racism is influenced by the idea that one race must be superior to another.
Such ideas are found in all population groups. The other main reason for apartheid was fear, as in South Africa the white people are in the minority, and many
were worried they would lose their jobs, culture and language. This is obviously not a justification for apartheid, but explains how people were thinking.

Birth of Apartheid

Racial segregation and white supremacy had become central aspects of South African policy long before
apartheid began. The controversial 1913 Land Act, passed three years a fter South Africa gained its
independence, marked the beginning of territorial segregation by forcing black Africans to live in reserves
and making it illegal for them to work as sharecroppers. Opponents of the Land Act formed the South
African National Native Congress, which would become the African National Congress (ANC).

The Great Depression and World War II brought increasing economic woes to South Africa, and
convinced the government to strengthen its policies of racial segregation. In 1948, the Afrikaner National
Party won the general election under the slogan “apartheid” (literally “separateness”). Their goal was not
only to separate South Africa’s white minority from its non-white majority, but also to separate non-whites
from each other, and to divide black South Africans along tribal lines in order to decrease their political
power.

Apartheid Becomes Law

By 1950, the government had banned marriages between whites and people of other races, and
prohibited sexual relations between black and white South Africans. The Population Registration Act of
1950 provided the basic framework for apartheid by classifying all South African s by race, including
Bantu (black Africans), Coloured (mixed race) and white. A fourth category, Asian (meaning Indian and
Pakistani) was later added. In some cases, the legislation split families; parents could be classified as
white, while their children were classified as colored.

A series of Land Acts set aside more than 80 percent of the country’s land for the white minority, and
“pass laws” required non-whites to carry documents authorizing their presence in restricted areas. In
order to limit contact between the races, the government established separate public facilities for whites
and non-whites, limited the activity of nonwhite labor unions and denied non -white participation in
national government.

Apartheid and Separate Development

Hendrik Verwoerd, who became prime minister in 1958, would refine apartheid policy further into a
system he referred to as “separate development.” The Promotion of Bantu Self -Government Act of 1959
created 10 Bantu homelands known as Bantustans. Separating black South Af ricans from each other
enabled the government to claim there was no black majority, and reduced the possibility that blacks
would unify into one nationalist organization. Every black South African was designated as a citizen as
one of the Bantustans, a system that supposedly gave them full political rights, but effectively removed
them from the nation’s political body.

In one of the most devastating aspects of apartheid, the government forcibly removed black South
Africans from rural areas designated as “white” to the homelands, and sold their land at low prices to
white farmers. From 1961 to 1994, more than 3.5 million people were forcibly removed from their homes
and deposited in the Bantustans, where they were plunged into poverty and hopelessness.

Opposition to Apartheid
Resistance to apartheid within South Africa took many forms over the years, from non -violent
demonstrations, protests and strikes to political action and eventually to armed resistance. Together with
the South Indian National Congress, the ANC organized a mass meeting in 1952, during which attendees
burned their pass books. A group calling itself the Congress of the People adopted a Freedom Charter in
1955 asserting that “South Africa belongs to all who live in it, black or white.” T he government broke up
the meeting and arrested 150 people, charging them with high treason.

In 1960, at the black township of Sharpesville, the police opened fire on a group of unarmed blacks
associated with the Pan-African Congress (PAC), an offshoot of the ANC. The group had arrived at the
police station without passes, inviting arrest as an act of resistance. At least 67 blacks were killed and
more than 180 wounded. Sharpesville convinced many anti-apartheid leaders that they could not achieve
their objectives by peaceful means, and both the PAC and ANC established military wings, neither of
which ever posed a serious military threat to the state. By 1961, most resistance leaders had been
captured and sentenced to long prison terms or executed. Nelson Mandela, a founder of Umkhonto we
Sizwe (“Spear of the Nation”), the military wing of the ANC, was incarcerated from 1963 to 1990; his
imprisonment would draw international attention and help garner support for the anti-apartheid cause

Apartheid Comes to an End

In 1976, when thousands of black children in Soweto, a black township outside Johannesburg, demonstrated
against the Afrikaans language requirement for black African students, the police opened fire with tear gas and
bullets. The protests and government crackdowns that followed, combined with a national economic recession,
drew more international attention to South Africa and shattered all illusions that apartheid had brought peace
or prosperity to the nation. The United Nations General Assembly had denounced apartheid in 1973, and in
1976 the UN Security Council voted to impose a mandatory embargo on the sale of arms to South Africa. In
1985, the United Kingdom and United States imposed economic sanctions on the country.

Under pressure from the international community, the National Party government of Pieter Botha sought to
institute some reforms, including abolition of the pass laws and the ban on interracial sex and marriage. The
reforms fell short of any substantive change, however, and by 1989 Botha was pressured to step aside in favor
of F.W. de Klerk. De Klerk’s government subsequently repealed the Population Registration Act, as well as
most of the other legislation that formed the legal basis for apartheid. A new constitution, which enfranchised
blacks and other racial groups, took effect in 1994, and elections that year led to a coalition government with a
nonwhite majority, marking the official end of the apartheid system.

Who apartheid worked in south Africa

During apartheid, people were divided into four racial groups and seperated by law.[6] The system was used to deny many basic rights to non-
White people, mainly Black people who lived in South Africa. The law allowed white people to be in certain areas. Black people had to carry
special passes or have permission to travel outside their designated area, or work in particular areas reserved for Whites. The government
separated mixed communities and forcibly moved many people. Many laws were made, for example: interracial marriage was outlawed;
Black people could not own land in White areas or vote.
The United Nations did not agree with the South African government's apartheid policies.[7] There were protests in South Africa, like
in Sharpeville in 1960[8] and in Soweto in 1976.[9] After the Sharpeville Massacre, the UN tried to remove South Africa in 1974. France, the
United States, and the UK prevented that from happening. The Soweto Uprisings started because Africans were forced to study some
subjects at school in Afrikaans. Many Black people did not like Afrikaans because it was the language of the apartheid government and the
language of their oppressors.

Aim of aparthid
The aim of apartheid was to separate the people of South Africa into small independent nations. The black ones were called Bantustans.
South Africa said they were independent countries and exchanged ambassadors but other countries did not. The National Party government
did not want to spend a lot of money on this project. They also wanted to keep the majority of South Africa's land for white people, especially
the richest places, like the gold mines of Johannesburg. They wanted black men to work in these mines for little money but their families had
to live far away or face imprisonment.

Civil Disobedience and The Apartheid

Throughout history, civil disobedience has been used to bring about change across a wide variety of civil rights issues.
In India, Mahatma Gandhi used civil disobedience to nonviolently protest against the British Raj and, after a thirty-year
struggle, earn independence both for himself and his people. In the United States, Reverend Martin Luther King Jr.
employed civil disobedience to overcome both the Jim Crow laws that had oppressed the African-American minority
and the systemic racism that was once prevalent in the Southern United States. In South Africa, Nelson Mandela
utilized civil disobedience to lead an anti-apartheid revolution to combat the apartheid system that systemically
discriminated against the black inhabitants of South Africa. All three of these exemplary men have earned a Nobel
Peace Prize for their efforts (the prize was not awarded in 1948 because “there was no suitable living candidate”, a
tribute to Gandhi who was recently assassinated). Although violence could have been used to combat these civil rights
violations, all three of these individuals chose not to resort to violence, in favor of a more amicable alternative: civil
disobedience.

History
The ANC was formed in Bloemfontein in 1912, soon after the Union of South Africa. Originally it was called the South
African Native National Congress (SANNC). It was started as a movement for the Black elite, that is those Blacks
who were educated. In 1919, the ANC sent a deputation to London to plead for a new deal for South African blacks,
but there was no change to their position. The history of resistance by the ANC goes through three phases. The first
was dialogue and petition; the second direct opposition and the last the period of exiled armed struggle. In 1949, just
after apartheid was introduced, the ANC started on a more militant path, with the Youth League playing a more
important role. The ANC introduced their Programme of Action in 1949, supporting strike action, protests and other
forms of non-violent resistance. Nelson Mandela, Oliver Tambo and Walter Sisulu started to play an important role in
the ANC in this period. In 1952 the ANC started the Defiance Campaign. This campaign called on people to
purposefully break apartheid laws and offer themselves for arrest. It was hoped that the increase in prisoners would
cause the system to collapse and get international support for the ANC. Black people got onto 'white buses', used
'white toilets', entered into 'white areas' and refused to use passes. Despite 8 000 people ending up in jail, the ANC
caused no threat to the apartheid regime.

Conclusion
Although Black South Africans were granted equal rights by law after a long fought campaign, there is still huge
economic inequality between Blacks and Whites. In 2012, South Africa held it's first census in over ten years. It found
that the average Black family earned one-sixth (about 17%) of what the average White family earned. [12] "These
figures tell us that at the bottom of the rung is the black majority who continue to be confronted by deep poverty
unemployment and inequality,” President Jacob Zuma said when the findings were released. Nelson Mandela spent
the majority of his life fighting against apartheid laws, and without his activism; many of the changes would never
have happened.

Part C
Answer-6
Introduction
The International Bill of Human Rights was the name given to UN General Assembly Resolution 217 (III) and two international treaties
established by the United Nations. It consists of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (adopted in 1948), the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR, 1966) with its two Optional Protocols and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights (ICESCR, 1966). The two covenants entered into force in 1976, after a sufficient number of countries had ratified them.
The International Bill of Human Rights consists of the five core human rights treaties of the United Nations that function to advance the
fundamental freedoms and to protect the basic human rights of all people. The Bill influences the decisions and actions of Government, State
and Non-State actors to make economic, social and cultural rights a top-priority in the formation and implementation of national, regional and
international policy and law.

INTERNATIONAL BILL OF HUMAN RIGHTS

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is an ideal standard held in common by nations around the world, but it
bears no force of law. Thus, from 1948 to 1966, the UN Human Rights Commission’s main task was to create a body
of international human rights law based on the Declaration, and to establish the mechanisms needed to enforce its
implementation and use.

The Human Rights Commission produced two major documents: the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). Both became
international law in 1976. Together with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, these two covenants comprise
what is known as the “International Bill of Human Rights.”

The ICCPR focuses on issues such as the right to life, freedom of speech, religion and voting. The ICESCR focuses on
food, education, health and shelter. Both covenants proclaim these rights for all people and forbid discrimination.

Furthermore, Article 26 of the ICCPR established a Human Rights Committee of the United Nations. Composed of
eighteen human rights experts, the Committee is responsible for ensuring that each signatory to the ICCPR complies
with its terms. The Committee examines reports submitted by countries every five years (to ensure they are in
compliance with the ICCPR), and issues findings based on a country’s performance.

Many countries that ratified the ICCPR also agreed that the Human Rights Committee may investigate allegations by
individuals and organizations that the State has violated their rights. Before appealing to the Committee, the
complainant must exhaust all legal recourse in the courts of that country. After investigation, the Committee publishes
the results. These findings have great force. If the Committee upholds the allegations, the State must take measures
to remedy the abuse.

Universal Declaration Of Human Rights

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is a declaration adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on
December 10, 1948 at the Palais de Chaillot in Paris. The Declaration has been translated into over 300 languages and
dialects, making it the most widely translated document in the world[1]. The Declaration arose directly from the experience
of the Second World War and represents the first global expression of rights to which all human beings are entitled. It
consists of 30 articles which have been elaborated in subsequent international treaties, regional human rights instruments,
national constitutions and laws. The International Bill of Human Rights consists of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights and its two Optional Protocols. In 1966 the General Assembly adopted the two detailed Covenants, which complete
the International Bill of Human Rights.

The morals and values of human rights can be traced through the history of religious beliefs and cultures around the world.
European philosophers of the Age of Enlightenment developed theories of natural law and fail blog that influenced the
adoption of documents such as the Bill of Rights of England, the Bill of Rights in the United States, and the Declaration of the
Rights of Man and of the Citizen in France.

National and International pressure for an international bill of rights had been building throughout World War II, In his 1941
State of the Union address US president Franklin Roosevelt called for the protection of what he termed the “essential” Four
Freedoms: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, freedom from fear and freedom from want, as its basic war aims. This
has been seen as part of a movement of the 1940’s that sought to make human rights part of the conditions for peace at the
end of the war. The United Nations Charter “reaffirmed faith in fundamental human rights, and dignity and worth of the
human person” and committed all member states to promote “universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and
fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion”.

When the atrocities committed by Nazi Germany became public knowledge around the world after World War II, the
consensus within the world community was that the United Nations Charter did not sufficiently define the rights it
referenced. A universal declaration that specified the rights of individuals was necessary to give effect to the Charter’s
provisions on human rights.

Canadian John Peters Humphrey was called upon by the United Nations Secretary-General to work on the project and
became the Declaration’s principal drafter. At the time Humphrey was newly appointed as Director of the Division of Human
Rights within the United Nations Secretariat. The Commission on Human Rights, a standing body of the United Nations, was
constituted to undertake the work of preparing what was initially conceived as an International Bill of Rights. The
membership of the Commission was designed to be broadly representative of the global community with representatives of
the following countries serving: Australia, Belgium, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Chile, China, Cuba, Egypt, France,
India, Iran, Lebanon, Panama, Philippines, United Kingdom, United States, Soviet Union, Uruguay and Yugoslavia.

The Universal Declaration was adopted by the General Assembly on 10 December 1948 by a vote of 48 in favor, 0 against,
with 8 abstentions (all the Soviet Bloc states, Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Ukraine, USSR, as well as Yugoslavia, South
Africa and Saudi Arabia).

The following countries voted in favor of the Declaration: Afghanistan, Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Burma,
Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Denmark, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia,
France, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Iceland, India, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Liberia, Luxembourg, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand,
Nicaragua, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Thailand, Sweden, Syria, Turkey, United Kingdom, United
States, Uruguay and Venezuela.

Despite the central role played by Canadian John Humphrey, the Canadian Government at first abstained from voting on the
Declaration’s draft, but later voted in favour of the final draft in the General Assembly.

International Covenant On Civil And Political Rights

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) is a multilateral treaty adopted by the United Nations
General Assembly on December 16, 1966, and in force from March 23, 1976. It commits its parties to respect the civil and
political rights of individuals, including the right to life, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly,
electoral rights and rights to due process and a fair trial. As of October 2009, the Covenant had 72 signatories and 165
parties.

The ICCPR is part of the International Bill of Human Rights, along with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)
and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is monitored by the Human Rights Committee (a separate body to
the Human Rights Council which replaced the Commission on Human Rights, under the UN Charter in 2006) with permanent
standing, to consider periodic reports submitted by member States on their compliance with the treaty. Members of the
Human Rights Committee are elected by member states, but do not represent any State.

The ICCPR has its roots in the same process that led to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. A “Declaration on the
Essential Rights of Man” had been proposed at the 1945 San Francisco Conference which led to the founding of the United
Nations, and the Economic and Social Council was given the task of drafting it. Early on in the process, the document was
split into a declaration setting forth general principles of human rights, and a convention or covenant containing binding
commitments. The former evolved into the UDHR and was adopted on December 10, 1948.

Drafting continued on the convention, but there remained significant differences between UN members on the relative
importance of negative Civil and Political versus positive Economic, Social and Cultural rights. These eventually caused the
convention to be split into two separate covenants, “one to contain civil and political rights and the other to contain
economic, social and cultural rights.” The two covenants were to contain as many similar provisions as possible, and be
opened for signature simultaneously. Each would also contain an article on the right of all peoples to self-determination.

The first document became the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the second the International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The drafts were presented to the UN General Assembly for discussion in
1954, and adopted in 1966

Background

The International Bill of Human Rights consists of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and
its two Optional Protocols. Human rights had already found expression in the Covenant of the League of Nations,
which led, inter alia, to the creation of the International Labour Organisation. At the 1945 San Francisco
Conference, held to draft the Charter of the United Nations, a proposal to embody a "Declaration on the Essential
Rights of Man" was put forward but was not examined because it required more detailed consideration than was
possible at the time. The Charter clearly speaks of "promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for
fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion" (Art. 1, para. 3). The idea of
promulgating an "international bill of rights" was also considered by many as basically implicit in the Charter. The
Preparatory Commission of the United Nations, which met immediately after the closing session of the San
Francisco Conference, recommended that the Economic and Social Council should, at its first session, establish a
commission for the promotion of human rights as envisaged in Article 68 of the Charter. Accordingly, the Council
established the Commission on Human Rights early in 1946. At its first session, in 1946, the General Assembly
considered a draft Declaration on Fundamental Human Rights and Freedoms and transmitted it to the Economic
and Social Council "for reference to the Commission on Human Rights for consideration . . . in its preparation of an
international bill of rights" (resolution 43 (I)). The Commission, at its first session early in 1947, authorized its
officers to formulate what it termed "a preliminary draft International Bill of Human Rights". Later the work was
taken over by a formal drafting committee, consisting of members of the Commission from eight States, selected
with due regard for geographical distribution.

Towards the Universal Declaration

In the beginning, different views were expressed about the form the bill of rights should take. The
Drafting Committee decided to prepare two documents: one in the form of a declaration, which would
set forth general principles or standards of human rights; the other in the form of a convention, which
would define

specific rights and their limitations. Accordingly, the Committee transmitted to the Commission
on Human Rights draft articles of an international declaration and an international convention on
human rights. At its second session, in December 1947, the Commission decided to apply the
term "International Bill of Human Rights" to the series of documents in preparation and
established three working groups: one on the declaration, one on the convention (which it
renamed "covenant") and one on implementation. The Commission revised the draft declaration
at its third session, in May/June 1948, taking into consideration comments received from
Governments. It did not have time, however, to consider the covenant or the question of
implementation. The declaration was therefore submitted through the Economic and Social
Council to the General Assembly, meeting in Paris. By its resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December
1948, the General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as the first of
these projected instruments.

Towards the International Covenants

On the same day that it adopted the Universal Declaration, the General Assembly requested the Commission on
Human Rights to prepare, as a matter of priority, a draft covenant on human rights and draft measures of
implementation. The Commission examined the text of the draft covenant in 1949 and the following year it revised
the first 18 articles, on the basis of comments received from Governments. In 1950, the General Assembly declared
that "the enjoyment of civic and political freedoms and of economic, social and cultural rights are interconnected
and interdependent" (resolution 421 (V), sect. E). The Assembly thus decided to include in the covenant on human
rights economic, social and cultural rights and an explicit recognition of the equality of men and women in related
rights, as set forth in the Charter. In 1951, the Commission drafted 14 articles on economic, social and cultural rights
on the basis of proposals made by Governments and suggestions by specialized agencies. It also formulated 10
articles on measures for implementation of those rights under which States parties to the covenant would submit
periodic reports. After a long debate at its sixth session, in 1951/1952, the General Assembly requested the
Commission "to draft two Covenants on Human Rights, . . . one to contain civil and political rights and the other to
contain economic, social and cultural rights" (resolution 543 (VI), para. 1). The Assembly specified that the two
covenants should contain as many similar provisions as possible. It also decided to include an article providing that
"all peoples shall have the right of self-determination" (resolution 545 (VI)). The Commission completed
preparation of the two drafts at its ninth and tenth sessions, in 1953 and 1954. The General Assembly reviewed those
texts at its ninth session, in 1954, and decided to give the drafts the widest possible publicity in order that
Governments might study them thoroughly and that public opinion might express itself freely. It recommended that
its Third Committee start an article-by-article discussion of the texts at its tenth session, in 1955. Although the
article-by-article discussion began as scheduled, it was not until 1966 that the preparation of the two covenants was
completed. The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights were adopted by the General Assembly by its resolution 2200 A (XXI) of 16 December
1966. The first Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted by the same
resolution, provided international machinery for dealing with communications from individuals claiming to be
victims of violations of any of the rights set forth in the Covenant.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted and proclaimed by the General
Assembly as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that
every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall
strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by
progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective
recognition and observance, both among, the peoples of Member States themselves and among
the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction. Forty-eight States voted in favour of the
Declaration, none against, with eight abstentions. In a statement following the voting, the
President of the General Assembly pointed out that adoption of the Declaration was "a
remarkable achievement, a step forward in the great evolutionary process. It was the first
occasion on n which the organized community of nations had made a Declaration of human
rights and fundamental freedoms. The instrument was backed by the authority of the body of
opinion of the United Nations as a whole, and millions of people -men, women and children all
over the world- would turn to it for help, guidance and inspiration. The Declaration consists of a
preamble and 30 articles, setting forth the human rights and fundamental freedoms to which all
men and women, everywhere in the world, are entitled, without any discrimination. Article 1,
which lays down the philosophy on which the Declaration is based, reads: All human beings are
born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and
should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. The article thus defines the basic
assumptions of the Declaration: that the right to liberty and equality is man's birthright and
cannot be alienated: and that, because man is a rational and moral being, he is different from
other creatures on earth and therefore entitled to certain rights and freedoms which other
creatures do not enjoy. Article 2, which sets out the basic principle of equality and non
discrimination as regards the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms, forbids
"distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion,
national or social origin, property, birth or other status". Article 3, the first cornerstone of the
Declaration, proclaims the right to life, liberty and security of person -a right essential to the
enjoyment of all other rights. This article introduces articles 4 to 21, in which other civil and
political rights are set out, including: freedom from slavery and servitude; freedom from torture
and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; the right to recognition everywhere as
a person before the law; the right to an effective judicial remedy; freedom from arbitrary arrest,
detention or exile; the right to a fair trial and public hearing by an independent and impartial
tribunal; the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty; freedom from arbitrary
interference with privacy, family, home or correspondence; freedom of movement and residence;
the right of asylum; the right to a nationality; the right to marry and to found a family; the right
to own property; freedom of thought, conscience and religion; freedom of opinion and
expression; the right to peaceful assembly and association; and the right to take part in the
government of one's country and to equal access to public service in one's country. Article 22,
the second cornerstone of the Declaration, introduces articles 23 to 27, in which economic, social
and cultural rights -the rights to which everyone is entitled "as a member of society" -are set out.
The article characterizes these rights as indispensable for human dignity and the free
development of personality, and indicates that they are to be realized "through national effort and
international cooperation". At the same time, it points out the limitations of realization, the extent
of which depends on the resources of each State. The economic, social and cultural rights
recognized in articles 22 to 27 include the right to social security; the right to work; the right to
equal pay for equal work; the right to rest and leisure; the right to a standard of living adequate
for health and well-being; the right to education; and the right to participate in the cultural life of
the community. The concluding articles, articles 28 to 30, recognize that everyone is entitled to a
social and international order in which the human rights and fundamental freedoms set forth in
the Declaration may be fully realized, and stress the duties and responsibilities which each
individual owes to his community. Article 29 states that "in the exercise of his rights and
freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for
the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of
meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic
society". It adds that in no case may human rights and fundamental freedoms be exercised
contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations. Article 30 emphasizes that no
State, group or person may claim any right, under the Declaration, "to engage in any activity or
to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth" in the
Declaration.

Importance and influence of the Declaration

Conceived as "a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations", the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights has become just that: a yardstick by which to measure the degree
of respect for, and compliance with, international human rights standards. Since 1948 it has been
and rightly continues to be the most important and far-reaching of all United Nations
declarations, and a fundamental source of inspiration for national and international efforts to
promote and protect human rights and fundamental freedoms. It has set the direction for all
subsequent work in the field of human rights and has provided the basic philosophy for many
legally binding international instruments designed to protect the rights and freedoms which it
proclaims. In the Proclamation of Teheran, adopted by the International Conference on Human
Rights held in Iran in 1968, the Conference agreed that "the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights states a common understanding of the peoples of the world concerning the inalienable and
inviolable rights of all members of the human family and constitutes an obligation for the
members of the international community". The Conference affirmed its faith in the principles set
forth in the Declaration, and urged all peoples and Governments "to dedicate themselves to
[those] principles . . . and to redouble their efforts to provide for all human beings a life
consonant with freedom and dignity and conducive to physical, mental, social and spiritual
welfare". In recent years, there has been a growing tendency for United Nations organs, in
preparing international instruments in the filed of human rights, to refer not only to the Universal
Declaration, but also to other parts of the International Bill of Human Rights.

International Covenants on Human Rights

The preambles and articles 1, 3 and 5 of the two International Covenants are almost identical.
The preambles recall the obligation of States under the Charter of the United Nations to promote
human rights; remind the individual of his responsibility to strive for the promotion and
observance of those rights; and recognize that, in accordance with the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, the ideal of free human beings enjoying civil and political freedom and freedom
from fear and want can be achieved only if conditions are created whereby everyone may enjoy
his civil and political rights, as well as his economic, social and cultural rights. Article 1of each
Covenant states that the right to self-determination is universal and calls upon States to promote
the realization of that right and to respect it. The article provides that "All peoples have the right
of self-determination" and adds that "By virtue of that right they freely determine their political
status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development". Article 3, in both
cases, reaffirms the equal right of men and women to the enjoyment of all human rights, and
enjoins States to make that principle a reality. Article 5, in both cases, provides safeguards
against the destruction or undue limitation of any human right or fundamental freedom, and
against misinterpretation of any provision of the Covenants as a means of justifying infringement
of a right or freedom or its restriction to a greater extent than provided for in the Covenants. It
also prevents States from limiting rights already enjoyed within their territories on the ground
that such rights are not recognized, or recognized to a lesser extent, in the Covenants. Articles 6
to 15 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights recognize the rights
to work (art. 6); to the enjoyment of just and favourable conditions of work (art. 7); to form and
join trade unions (art. 8); to social security, including social insurance (art. 9); to the widest
possible protection and assistance for the family, especially mothers, children and young persons
(art. 10); to an adequate standard of living (art. I 1); to the enjoyment of the highest attainable
standard of physical and mental health (art. 12); to education (arts. 13 and 14); and to take part in
cultural life (art. 15). In its articles 6 to 27, the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights protects the right to life (art. 6) and lays down that no one is to be subjected to torture or
to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (art. 7); that no one is to be held in
slavery; that slavery and the slave-trade are to be prohibited; and that no one is to be held in
servitude or required to perform forced or compulsory labour (art. 8); that no one is to be
subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention (art. 9); that all persons deprived of their liberty are to
be treated with humanity (art. 10); and that no one is to be imprisoned merely on the ground of
inability to fulfil a contractual obligation (art. 11). The Covenant provides for freedom of
movement and freedom to choose a residence (art. 12) and for limitations to be placed on the
expulsion of aliens lawfully in the territory of a State party (art. 13). It makes provision for the
equality of all persons before the courts and tribunals and for guarantees in criminal and civil
proceedings (art. 14). It prohibits retroactive criminal legislation (art. 15); lays down the right of
everyone to recognition everywhere as a person before the law (art. 16); and calls for the
prohibition of arbitrary or unlawful interference with an individual's privacy, family, home or
correspondence, and of unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation (art. 17). The Covenant
provides for protection of the rights to freedom of thought, conscience and religion (art. 18) and
to freedom of opinion and expression (art. 19). It calls for the prohibition by law of any
propaganda for war and of any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes
incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence (art. 20). It recognizes the right of peaceful
assembly (art. 21) and the right to freedom of association (art. 22). It also recognizes the right of
men and women of marriageable age to marry and to found a family, and the principle of
equality of rights and responsibilities of spouses as to marriage, during marriage and at its
dissolution (art. 23). It lays down measures to protect the rights of children (art. 24), and
recognizes the right of every citizen to take part in the conduct of public affairs, to vote and to be
elected, and to have access, on general terms of equality, to public service in his country (art.
25). It provides that all persons are equal before the law and are entitled to equal protection of
the law (art. 26). It also calls for protection of the rights of ethnic, religious and linguistic
minorities in the territories of States parties (art. 27). Finally, article 28 provides for the
establishment of a Human Rights Committee responsible for supervising implementation of the
rights set out in the Covenant.

their liberty are to be treated with humanity (art. 10); and that no one is to be imprisoned merely
on the ground of inability to fulfil a contractual obligation (art. 11). The Covenant provides for
freedom of movement and freedom to choose a residence (art. 12) and for limitations to be
placed on the expulsion of aliens lawfully in the territory of a State party (art. 13). It makes
provision for the equality of all persons before the courts and tribunals and for guarantees in
criminal and civil proceedings (art. 14). It prohibits retroactive criminal legislation (art. 15); lays
down the right of everyone to recognition everywhere as a person before the law (art. 16); and
calls for the prohibition of arbitrary or unlawful interference with an individual's privacy, family,
home or correspondence, and of unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation (art. 17). The
Covenant provides for protection of the rights to freedom of thought, conscience and religion
(art. 18) and to freedom of opinion and expression (art. 19). It calls for the prohibition by law of
any propaganda for war and of any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that
constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence (art. 20). It recognizes the right of
peaceful assembly (art. 21) and the right to freedom of association (art. 22). It also recognizes the
right of men and women of marriageable age to marry and to found a family, and the principle of
equality of rights and responsibilities of spouses as to marriage, during marriage and at its
dissolution (art. 23). It lays down measures to protect the rights of children (art. 24), and
recognizes the right of every citizen to take part in the conduct of public affairs, to vote and to be
elected, and to have access, on general terms of equality, to public service in his country (art.
25). It provides that all persons are equal before the law and are entitled to equal protection of
the law (art. 26). It also calls for protection of the rights of ethnic, religious and linguistic
minorities in the territories of States parties (art. 27). Finally, article 28 provides for the
establishment of a Human Rights Committee responsible for supervising implementation of the
rights set out in the Covenant.

Conditions

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights affirms that the exercise of a person's rights and freedoms may be
subject to certain limitations, which must be determined by law, solely for the purpose of securing due recognition
of the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general
welfare in a democratic society. Rights may not be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United
Nations, or if they are aimed at destroying any of the rights set forth in the Declaration (arts. 29 and 30). The
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights states that the rights provided for therein may be
limited by law, but only in so far as it is compatible with the nature of the rights and solely to promote the general
welfare in a democratic society (art. 4). Unlike the Universal Declaration and the Covenant on Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights contains no general provision applicable to
all the rights provided for in the Covenant authorizing restrictions on their exercise. However, several articles in the
Covenant provide that the rights being dealt with shall not be subject to any restrictions except those which are
prescribed by law and are necessary to protect national security, public order, or the rights and freedoms of others.
Certain rights, therefore, may never be suspended or limited, even in emergency situations. These are the rights to
life, to freedom from torture, to freedom from enslavement or servitude, to protection from imprisonment for debt,
to freedom from retroactive penal laws, to recognition as a person before the law, and to freedom of thought,
conscience and religion. The Covenant on Civil and Political Rights allows a State to limit or suspend the enjoyment
of certain rights in cases of officially proclaimed public emergencies which threaten the life of the nation. Such
limitations or suspensions are permitted only "to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation" and
may never involve discrimination solely on the ground of race, colour, sex, language, religion or social origin (art.
4). The limitations or suspensions must also be reported to the United Nations.

First Optional Protocol

The first Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights enables
the Human Rights Committee, set up under that Covenant, to receive and consider
communications from individuals claiming to be victims of violations of any of the rights set
forth in the Covenant. Under article I of the Optional Protocol, a State party to the Covenant that
becomes a party to the Protocol recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee to
receive and consider communications from individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be
victims of a violation by that State of any of the rights set forth in the Covenant. Individuals who
make such a claim, and who have exhausted all available domestic remedies, are entitled to
submit a written communication to the Committee (art. 2). Such communications as are
determined to be admissible by the Committee (in addition to article 2, articles 3 and 5 (2) lay
down conditions for admissibility) are brought to the attention of the State party alleged to be
violating a provision of the Covenant. Within six months, that State must submit to the
Committee written explanations or statements clarifying the matter and indicating the remedy, if
any, that it may have applied (art. 4). The Human Rights Committee considers the admissible
communications, at closed meetings, in the light of all written information made available to it
by the individual and the State party concerned. It then forwards its views to the State party and
to the individual (art. 5). A summary of the Committee's activities under the Optional Protocol is
included in the report which it submits annually to the General Assembly through the Economic
and Social Council (art. 6).

Second Optional Protocol

The Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming
at the abolition of the death penalty, was adopted by the General Assembly by its resolution
44/128 of 15 December 1989. Under its article 1, no one within the jurisdiction of a State party
to the Protocol may be executed. Under article 3 of the Protocol, States parties must include in
the reports which they submit to the Human Rights Committee information on measures taken to
give effect to the Protocol. Article 5 of the Second Optional Protocol provides that, with respect
to any State party to the first Optional Protocol, the competence of the Human Rights Committee
to receive and consider communications from individuals subject to that State's jurisdiction shall
extend to the provisions of the Second Optional Protocol, unless the State party concerned has
made a statement to the contrary at the moment of ratification or accession. Under article 6, the
provisions of the Second Optional Protocol apply as additional provisions to the Covenant. Entry
into force of the Covenants and the Optional Protocols The International Covenant on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights entered into force on 3 January 1976, three months after the date of
deposit with the Secretary-General of the thirty-fifth instrument of ratification or accession, as
provided in article 27. As at 30 September 1995, the Covenant had been ratified or acceded to by
132 States: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria,
Azerbaijan, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil,
Bulgaria, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad,
Chile, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic,
Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Denmark, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador,
Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia,
Georgia, Germany, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti,
Hungary, Iceland, India, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan,
Jordan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Lithuania,
Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco,
Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua

Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of
Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Vincent and the
Grenadines, San Marino, Senegal, Seychelles, Slovakia, Slovenia, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka,
Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, Syrian Arab Republic, The former Yugoslav Republic
of Macedonia, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United Republic
of Tanzania, United States of America, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia,
Zaire, Zambia and Zimbabwe. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights entered
into force on 23 March 1976, three months after the date of deposit with the Secretary-General of
the thirty-fifth instrument of ratification or accession, as provided in article 49. As at 30
September 1995, the Covenant had been ratified or acceded to by 132 States: Afghanistan,
Albania, Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Barbados,
Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burundi,
Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, Colombia,
Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People's Republic of
Korea, Denmark, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Estonia,
Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti,
Hungary, Iceland, India, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya,
Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi,
Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand,
Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea,
Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, San Marino,
Senegal, Seychelles, Slovakia, Slovenia, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, Syrian
Arab Republic, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Uganda,
Ukraine, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States of America, Uruguay, Uzbekistan,
Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia and Zimbabwe. As at the same date, 44 States parties to
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights had made the declaration under its article 41, recognizing
the competence of the Human Rights Committee "to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State
Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations" under the Covenant. The provisions of article 41
entered into force on 28 March 1979 in accordance with paragraph 2 of that article. The first Optional Protocol to
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights entered into force simultaneously with the Covenant, having
received the minimum 10 ratifications or accessions required. As at 30 September 1995, 85 States parties to the
Covenant had also become parties to the first Optional Protocol: Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia,
Austria, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Canada,
Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark,
Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Estonia, Finland, France, Gambia, Georgia,
Germany, Guinea, Guyana, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya,
Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malta, Mauritius, Mongolia, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand,
Nicaragua, Niger, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania,
Russian Federation, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, San Marino, Senegal, Seychelles, Slovakia, Slovenia,
Somalia, Spain, Suriname, Sweden, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago,
Ukraine, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Zaire and Zambia. The Second Optional Protocol to the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty, entered into force on 11 July
1991, having received the minimum 10 ratifications or accessions required. As at 30 September 1995, the Protocol
had been ratified or acceded to by 28 States: Australia, Austria, Denmark, Ecuador, Finland, Germany, Hungary,
Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, Mozambique, Namibia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Panama,
Portugal, Romania, Seychelles, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia, Uruguay and Venezuela.

Effectiveness

The purpose of the various supervisory mechanisms is to combat violations and to promote compliance with
human rights treaties. Ideally, such mechanisms should function effectively. There are, however, a number
of problems.

Firstly, a large number of countries have either not recognised the competence of the relevant treaty-based
mechanisms or have failed to ratify the treaties concerned. Secondly, a number of treaty-based
mechanisms, such as the individual complaint mechanism, are victims of their own success. The sometimes
overwhelming number of individual complaints has led to a serious delay in the decision procedures,
especially under the European Court of Human Rights. Moreover, many procedures for individual
communications are understaffed and underfunded. At the UN level, the major shortcoming of the individual
complaints procedure is the absence of legally binding judgements. Although the treaty bodies have
developed certain ‘follow-up’ mechanisms, such as the ‘Human Rights Committee Special Rapporteur on
Follow-up’ there is still much room for improvement.

On the other hand, the most common supervisory mechanism, the examination of reports under the treaty-
based reporting mechanisms, also faces problems. The value of reports depends on the depth of research
that underpins them, the clarity of their content and the timeliness of their production and delivery
schedules. The value and promptness of reports affects the quality of decision-making throughout the
system. Unfortunately, some states do not seem to take the reporting system seriously and there are a
great number of states that have not submitted reports required under the various treaties. In general, the
human rights instruments do not provide for reprimanding delinquent states. Additionally, the submission of
reports to all the major human rights supervisory bodies creates practical difficulties for many states. At
present, the reports are overwhelming in number and tend towards duplication. This creates a serious
burden for states, especially for developing countries, which have to submit numerous reports. The same
problem is encountered by the Secretariat, which needs to struggle to keep abreast of the growing number
of reports requested by the various intergovernmental bodies. The sheer volume of reports is challenging
the supervisory bodies’ capacity to provide focused and value-added analysis. Several proposals have been
put forth with the aim to strengthen the treaty body system. On is the ‘common core document’ wherein
states would avoid duplication by providing more general information including information relating to
substantive treaty provisions congruent across all or several treaties. This core document, which would
minimise repetition of information in states’ reports to the treaty bodies, would be updated regularly and
submitted to each committee in tandem with targeted treaty-specific reports.

The non-treaty-based procedures are also encountering serious difficulties. Not only are the mechanisms
political by nature, but the examination of violations often takes a long time. Moreover, some of these
bodies, which act in regular meetings, are not well designed to respond to situations that require urgent
actions. The ‘mobilisation of shame’ - one of the tools employed by the charter-based procedures -
can, however, be very effective.

Conclusion

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is an ideal standard held in common by nations around the world,
but it bears no force of law. Thus, from 1948 to 1966, the UN Human Rights Commission’s main task was to
create a body of international human rights law based on the Declaration, and to establish the mechanisms
needed to enforce its implementation and use.