149 / 262
THE ENFORCEMENT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
S.A.D.S.I INAUGURAL
In the course of his Inaugural Address, the Auditor,
Mr. Sheridan, continued as follows :
The Convention as domestic law
In Austria, Belgium, West Germany, Italy, Luxem-
bourg, and the Netherlands, the provisions of the Con-
vention form part of the domestic law of the country
and can be iuvoked in national Courts, but only those
provisions which are "self executing"—that is sufficiently
detailed not to require further legislation. Of the re-
maining countries all but Malta, Cyprus and Turkey
have accepted the right of petition and the jurisdiction
of the Court. But in these three countries the only
enforcement of the Convention would be a complaint
by another State and as we have seen these are seldom
lodged.
Whether they do so by internal legislation to bring
their laws into line with the Convention, or by direct
incorporation is left to themselves, but the Commission
and Court have assumed the provisions of the Conven-
tion to be obligatory and fully binding on States.
Among the direct effects of the Convention are the
changes in the laws of countries brought about because
of actual proceedings before the Commission and Court,
commencement of proceedings and fear of proceedings.
Ireland has not since reintroduced internment. A Bill
to amend the law involved in the
De Becker case
was
introduced in 1957 but was still pending in 1961 when
the hearing before the Court was to take place on
Monday, July 3rd. On Friday, June 30th, the Bill was
enacted and on Saturday, July 1st, it was published in
the Official Gazette which had never before appeared
on a Saturday. Norway changed its Constitution to
remove a prohibition on Jesuits. Since we signed the
Convention with a reservation as to legal aid it is likely
that our Criminal Justice (Legal Aid) Act 1962 was to
bring our law into line with the Convention. Belgium
amended her law on Vagrancy, as did Austria her
law on criminal appeals, and Germany those on remand
and detention. There must be added to these the num-
ber of administrative practices discontinued in member
States.
Influence of the European Convention
Indirectly the Convention influenced countries such
as Nigeria whose constitutions are based on it as are
those of many former British colonies which enjoyed the
protection of the Convention under Britain and on
losing this on independence wrote the rights guaranteed
into their constitutions.
It has served as an example of the acceptance of
international control over the actions of national
governments and particularly of the effectiveness of
regional arrangements on human rights. While univer-
sal enforcement of human rights remains the ideal,
regional agreements represent both a step towards this
and it must be admitted, the most realistic hope in the
immediate future. The advantage of the common back-
ground possessed by parties in a regional arrangement
is obvious.
So far only Central and Southern American States
of the Organisation of American States have followed
with the American Convention on Human Rights signed
in 1969 on behalf of twelve countries. While there had
been various noises from Africa and South-East Asia
nothing concrete has emerged from there.
On the world level, in 1966 the United Nations
General Assembly finally ratified the second part of
their Bill of Rights, namely the International Covenants.
In the end there emerged two covenants, one on Econo-
mic, Social and Cultural Rights, the other on Civil and
Political Rights. The latter had also an optional Protocol
attached to it containing measures of implementation
of sorts. I do not propose to deal with Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights. While they are a feature of
ever-increasing importance, the method of their enforce-
ment is different and it is even doubtful if some are
"rights" in the sense we would understand at all. At
European level they are dealt with by the European
Social Charter of 1961 and the International Court of
Justice has stressed the importance of human rights.
While the rights guaranteed in the Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights are more detailed than those
in the European Convention, the machinery for en-
forcement is, to put it mildly, modest. A Human Rights
Committee is established which can request State parties
to submit reports on the implementation of their obli-
gations. But its recommendations have nothing but
moral force. Even the optional Protocol which allows
for a right of individual petition provides only for
friendly settlements, if these are not achieved the
Committee is powerless. There is no equivalent to the
Committee of Ministers in the European Convention
to enforce findings.
While not wishing to dismiss the United Nations
Covenants, while they do represent a significant
achievement in an organisation of 180 odd member
States and have not been ratified long enough to have
their effects properly appreciated, they do seem to be
far from an immediate step to the sort of Universal
Charter of Human Rights envisaged by Mr. Sean Mac-
Bride. He put forward to the seventh Nobel Symposium
on Human Rights in Oslo in 1967 the idea of Regional
Systems with appeals from the National to the Regional
Courts and in some circumstances from the Regional
Courts to the Universal Court of Human Rights at the
United Nations. This should be the aim of all who
believe in the international enforcement of Human
Rights. To that end the Government of Ireland should
work at the United Nations.
Final suggestions
Finally I would make the following points :
(1) The new Irish Government should, in accordance
with the resolution of the Parliamentary Conference at
Vienna in 1971, incorporate the provisions of the Con-
vention into our domestic law. Further they should
ratify the United Nations Covenants and the optional
Protocol. This would end the hypocrisy of our position
internationally, where we voted for the Covenants in
the General Assembly and then refused to ratify them
despite another recommendation of the Vienna Confer-
ence.
(2) At this stage, twenty years after the European
Convention came into force, the acceptance of the right
of individual petition and the jurisdiction of the Court
148