Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-07T19:29:59.628Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Protection of Human Rights in British State Practice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 August 2009

Georg Schwarzenberger
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The international protection of human rights has in recent years become a prominent topic in the literature on international law and on the agenda of international conferences. The explanation for this is not far to seek. The experiences of two world wars and the ‘oppression of dictators’ would in themselves be sufficient reasons for such interest. Re-assertion of the inalienable rights of man serves as a reminder of the truth that man is not meant to be merely a means to the attainment of transient ends. Though the academic character of the many schemes propounded is only too apparent, they evoke sympathy; for they voice widely-felt anxiety over the ever-increasing pressure of organized groups upon the individual, the ultimate basis of life in national and international society. Charters of human rights, suitably formulated in the abstract, have also an undeniable utility value in war and peace. They provide a convenient common denominator for allies who are primarily united in negatives, that is to say, by common enmity towards their adversaries. Once victory has eliminated the unifying element, the functions of such wartime ideologies change. They become ‘artillery of popular excitation’ in the peacetime struggles of world power politics and, like religion in former times, a ‘cloak to shadow divers factious designes.’

Type
Research Article
Information
The Review of Politics , Volume 10 , Issue 2 , April 1948 , pp. 174 - 189
Copyright
Copyright © University of Notre Dame 1948

Access options

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

References

1 United Kingdom Draft of an International Bill of Human Rights (1947), p. 3.Google Scholar

2 See for the proposals of the early war years the present writer's Pomer Politics (1941), Chapter 28Google Scholar. Cf. also the Resolutions on Human Rights adopted by various Conferences of the Inter-Parliamentary Union since 1923 (Bulletin of the Inter-Parliamentary Union (1947), p. 87et seq.Google Scholar); the Draft Declaration of the International Rights and Duties of Man formulated by the Inter-American Juridical Committee, 1946Google Scholar; the Bill of Human Rights prepared by the Commission to Study the Organization of Peace (International Conciliation (1946), No. 426Google Scholar) and Lauterpacht, H., An International Bill of the Rights of Man (1945)Google Scholar. Cogent criticism of these schemes is expressed in Brierly's, J. L.Outlook for International Low (1944), p. 109et seq.Google Scholar

3 Speech of Canning, December 12, 1826 (Temperley, H., The Foreign Policy of Canning, p. 579).Google Scholar

4 Instructions of Queen Elizabeth to the English Ambassadors to Denmark, 1602 (16 Rymex's, Foedera, p. 430).Google Scholar

5 Official Journal of the League of Nations (1932), pp. 816–817Google Scholar. See further the present writer's International Law, vol. I (1945), p. 62et seq. and p. 149et seq.Google Scholar

6 MrLeeper, (Athens) to MrEden, , January 15th 1945 (Cmd. 6592 (1945), p. 2)Google Scholar. See for an instance of the sensitiveness of a British Foreign Secretary to public opinion at home, Castlereagh's State Paper of May 5th, 1820 (A., and P., , (1823), xix, pp. 69–71. Other notable examples are furnished by the consistent policies adopted by successive British governments regarding the suppression of the Slave Trade.Google Scholar

7 January 12th, 1852 (Temperley, H. and Penson, Lillian M., Foundations of British Foreign Policy (1938), pp. 183–184.Google Scholar

8 SirPollock, Frederick and Maitland, F. W., The History of English Lara, vol. I, 1923, pp. 464–465Google Scholar. Cf. also Chapter 28 of the Ordinances of the Staple of 1353 (27 Edv. III Slat. 2) and on the trial of aliens per mediaetatem, Malloy, Ch., De Jure Maritimo el Navali (1744), p. 448et seq.Google Scholar

9 See further the present writer's The Most Favoured-Nation Standard in British State Practice (22 B.Y.I.L., 1945, p. 96et seq.).Google Scholar

10 Granville, Lord to MrLayard, (Madrid), 03 8th, 1872 (Parliamentary Papers 1872. LXX. 715. (C. 502), No. 2, p. 4). The position of the Executive regarding the expulsion of aliens has since been strengthened on the basis of statutory enactments.Google Scholar

11 January 16th. 1844 (32 British and Foreign State Papers, pp. 915–916Google Scholar). The Despatch dealt with cases in which former Mahomedans who had become converts to Christianity were on this ground condemned to death and executed. This “barbarous practice” was considered by Lord Aberdeen as an abuse of sovereignty which justified the intervention of any Christian government in the interest of such Christian subjects of the Porte: “Her Majesty's Government require the Porte to abandon, once for all, so revolting a principle. They have no wish to humble the Porte by imposing upon it an unreasonable obligation; but as a Christian Government, the protection of those who profess a common belief with themselves, from persecution and oppression, on that account alone, by their Mahomedan rulers, is a paramount duty with them, and one from which they cannot recede.” (ibid., p. 916).

12 On the more recent State practice of Great Britain see the German Convention concerning the Status of Refugees coming from Germany, February 10th 1938 (League Doc. C. 75. M. 30. 1938. XII) and the Agreement on the Adoption of a Travel Document for Refugees, October 15th, 1946 (Cmd. 7933 (1947). Cf. also Simpson, J. M.The Refugee Problem (1937)Google Scholar and Jennings, R. Y., Some International Aspects of the Refugee Question (20 B.Y.I.L., 1939, p. 98et seq.).Google Scholar

13 August 4th, 1849 (50 British and Foreign State Papers, p. 804Google Scholar). See, however, 2 Moore's Digest of International Law (1906) p. 847.Google Scholar

14 See further the author's Power Politics, chapters 6 and 22.

15 Mr. Ormsby-Gore in the 14th Assembly of the League of Nations (Official Journal, Spec. Suppl. No. 120, p. 35Google Scholar). Cf. also Carr, E. H., Britain (1939) p. 37et seq.Google Scholar, and Lauterpacht, H., op. cit in note 2 above, pp. 147–150.Google Scholar

16 Cf. Clarkson, Th., The History of the Abolition of the African Slave Trade by the British Parliament (2 vols., 1808) and the Act of 1824 to amend and consolidate the Laws relating to the Abolition of the Slave Trade (5 Geo. IV, c. 113).Google Scholar

17 Wheaton, H., History of the Law of Nations (1845), p. 586.Google Scholar

18 O'Bryan, E.. The Complete History of the Treaty of Utrecht (Vol. I, Part II, 1715), p. 155Google Scholar. Cf. also Scelle, G., La Traite Négrière aux Indes de Castile (2 vols., 1906).Google Scholar

19 Clarkson, , l.c., in note 17 above, vol. II, p. 580Google Scholar. Cf. also SirCoupland, Reginald, Wilberforce (1923)Google Scholar and The British Anti-Slavery Movement (1933)Google Scholar. For a critical survey of British anti-slavery policy, see Wheaton, H., Enquiry Into the Validity of the British Claim to a Right of Visitation and Search of American Vessels suspected to be engaged in the African Slave Trade (1842).Google Scholar

20 Report of February 16th, 1816 (4 British and Foreign State Papers, p. 517).Google Scholar

21 Cf., for instance, Canning to Sir W. à Court, Madrid, January 30th 1824 (11 British and Foreign State Papers, p. 61Google Scholar). See on this Despatch also Lauterpacht, H., Recognition in International Law (1947), pp. 13–14Google Scholar, and further the Memorandum of a Conference between the Prince de Polignac (France) and Canning, held on October 9th, 1823 (11 British and Foreign State Papers, p. 50Google Scholar) and the Treaty between the Argentine Confederation and Great Britain of February 2nd, 1825 (3 Hertslet's Commercial Treaties, p. 44Google Scholar). To choose a more recent instance, de jure recognition of Lithuania was made dependent by the Conference of Ambassadors on the acceptance by Lithuania of the provisions of the Peace Treaty of Versailles of 1919 regarding freedom of navigation of the Niemen (1 Hackworth's Digest of International Law (1940), pp. 201–202).Google Scholar

22 See, for instance, the modalities accompanying the recognition of Serbia and Rumania by the Powers represented at the Congress of Berlin (Parliamentary Papers (1878). LXXXIII. 391 [C. 2083]. Enclosures in No. 20, pp. 106–107 and in No. 26, p. 144).Google Scholar

23 Palmerston to General Hamilton (Texas), October 18th, 1840 (29 British and Foreign Stale Papers, p. 617).Google Scholar

24 Palmerston to Bloomfield (St. Petersburgh), March 28th, 1848: “The Government of Great Britain is in the habit of acknowledging any government established in a foreign State when such government shall appear to be firmly and permanently established.” (l.c. in note 7 above, p. 159Google Scholar). See further Smith, H. A., Creal Britain and the Lav of Nations (vol. I, 1932), p. 106et seq.Google Scholar

25 See, for instance, Lord Derby's speech on Spain in the House of Lords on March 8th, 1875 (Hansard, 3rd Series, vol. 222, col. 1382).Google Scholar

26 Protocol of the Proceedings of the Crimea Conference,February 11th 1945 (Cmd. 7088 [1847], p. 4).Google Scholar

In the case of Finland, Great Britain considered in 1918 the holding of elections as proof of Finland's independence and held out hopes that recognition would follow such elections (Foreign Relations, 1918 [Russia], vol. II, p. 739el seq.).Google Scholar

27 March 30th, 1861 (52 British and Foreign State Papers, p. 237).Google Scholar

28 See, for instance, the Despatch from the Earl of Malmesbury to Sir Bulwer, H. (Florence), May 29th 1882Google Scholar (42 ibid., p. 531).

29 Despatch from the Earl of Clarendon to Petrie, G. G. (Naples), October 10th, 1856Google Scholar (46 ibid., p. 773).

On the rupture of diplomatic relations with Serbia, following the murder of the King and Queen of Serbia in 1903, see British Documents on the Origins of the World War, 1898–1914, vol. IV, p. 124et seqGoogle Scholar. and Smith, , l.c. in note 24 above, p. 229et seq.Google Scholar

30 Russell, Lord to the Elliott, Hon. H. (Naples), July 6th, 1859Google Scholar (51 British and Foreign State Papers, pp. 1336–1337).Google Scholar

It was made clear in the same Despatch that Britain did not intend to interfere with the internal affairs of The Two Sicilies, but merely wished to make clear the indispensable conditions on which British “moral” and “material” support to the reigning dynasty depended (ibid., p. 1339).

31 See, for example. Article 14 of the Treaty of Peace and Alliance between the Commonwealth and Portugal, July 10th, 1654: “Forasmuch as the Rights of Commerce and Peace would be null and void, if the People of the Republick of England should be disturbed for Conscience sake, while they pass to and from the Kingdoms and Dominions of the said King of Portugal, or reside there for the sake of exchanging their wares, … therefore, within the limits of the Article, freedom of religion was granted to the English merchants.

32 See below under note 36.

33 See further l.c. in note 9 above.

34 See, for instance, Keaton, G. W., The Development of Extraterritoriality in China (2 vols., 1928).Google Scholar

35 Cf., for instance, Article 18 of the Treaty with the Chiefs of the Timmanees, February 13th, 1841 (40 British and Foreign State Papers, p. 894).Google Scholar

36 See, for instance, the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce, and Navigation between Colombia and the United Kingdom, February 16th, 1866 (Foreign Office, Handbook of Commercial Treaties (1931) p. 118ef seq.).Google Scholar

37 See the list of conventions enumerated in the present writer's Manual of International Lars (1947), p. 243.Google Scholar

38 18 British and Foreign State Papers, p. 670.Google Scholar

39 Article 13 (11 Hertslet's Commercial Treaties, p. 86).Google Scholar

40 Adler, C. and Margalith, A. M., With Firmness in the Right. American Diplomatic Action affecting Jems 1840–1945 (1946), p. 106.Google Scholar

41 Viscount Palmerston to Mr. Villiers (Madrid), December 12th, 1835 (24 British and Foreign State Papers, p. 188).Google Scholar

42 38 ibid., p. 940.

43 When Captain Jenkins was examined at the bar of the House of Commons and asked by a member what he thought when he found himself in the hands of the barbarian who had cut off one of his ears, he replied: “I recommended my soul to God and my cause to my country.” (Smollett, T., The History of England from the Revolution of 1688 (vol. 6, 1811), Note D to vol. 3).Google Scholar

44 Viscount Templewood, Ambassador on Special Mission (1946), p. 201Google Scholar. See further ibid. on the case of Mr. Apfel who had to suffer two years imprisonment in “mediaeval conditions.”

45 See, for instance, the case of the assault by a Brazilian police guard on three officers of H. M. S. Forle (1262–54 British and Foreign State Papers, p. 691).Google Scholar

46 See, for instance, the case of the plunder of H. M. S. Prince of Wales on the coast of Brazil (1881—ibid., pp. 589–590 and 685).

47 Opinion of the Advocate and Solicitor-General of Malmesbury in the case of the Cagliari, April 13th, 1858Google Scholar (48 ibid., p. 468).

48 Palmerston to Napier, Lord, September 22nd, 1846Google Scholar (40 ibid., p. 824). See also the Queen's Speech on the Opening of Parliament, February 1st, 1849 (37 ibid., p. 1.).

49 See, for instance, Palmerston to Consul-General Dawkins, C. G. (Venice), April 5th, 1848Google Scholar (37 ibid., p. 964).

50 Bulwer, H. L. to the Spanish Foreign Minister, April 16th, 1848Google Scholar (38 ibid., p. 962).

51 See, for instance, Palmerston to Bulwer, April 20th, 1848 (ibid., pp. 954–955).

52 See, for instance, Palmerston's Note to the Spanish Minister in London of June 12th. 1848 (38 ibid., pp. 1047–1048).

53 See, for instance, the Protocol of the London Conference on the Greek Question, February 20th, 1830 (17 ibid., p. 203) or the Despatch from the Earl of Aberdeen to Sir Stratford Canning (Constantinople), October 4th, 1843 (32 ibid., p. 905).

54 Reference is made here to the Anglo-Dutch Treaty of 1824.

55 Viscount Leveson to the Glasgow East India Association, May 27, 1841 (31 ibid., p. 257).

56 L.c. in note 1 above.

57 Ibid., p. 4.

58 See Power Politics, l.c. in note 2 above.

59 See further 1 Year Book of World Affairs, pp. 330–322.Google Scholar

60 See further the present writer's Judgment of Nuremberg (21 Tulane Lav ReViett. 1947, p. 351et seq.).Google Scholar

62 Note from the British Minister to Bulgaria to the Bulgarian Government, September 25th, 1947.

63 For a full treatment of the position under the Charter of the United Nations, see Brunei, R., La Guarantee Internationale des Droits de l'Homme d'apres la Charte de San Francisco (1947), p. 127et seq.Google Scholar

64 Milton, John, The Doctrine and Discipline of Divorce (3 Prose Works [ed. St. John, J. A.], p. 178).Google Scholar

65 2 Cambridge History of British Foreign Policy (1923), p. 632.Google Scholar

The problem has been put in a nutshell in a recent leading article in The Times (December 1st, 1947): “No advantage can be gained by glossing over differences in the desire to discover here and now a set of formulas vague enough and innocuous enough to obtain universal assent.”

61 Note from the British Political Representative in Bulgaria to the Bulgarian Minister for Foreign Affairs, September 11th, 1947.