Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T08:20:28.347Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Protection of Human Rights by the Organization of American States

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2017

José A. Cabranes
José A. Cabranes*
Affiliation:
Of the New York Bar
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

On December 16, 1966, the General Assembly approved three agreements designed to establish a global system of enforceable treaty obligations with respect to fundamental human rights. These agreements are the second part of the “international bill of rights” proposed at the San Francisco Conference. Eighteen years separated the adoption of these agreements—the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights—and the approval in 1948 of the first part of the projected United Nations program for the protection of human rights, the non-binding Universal declaration of Human Rights.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 62 , Issue 4 , October 1968 , pp. 889 - 908
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1968

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 The best and most exhaustive study of the protection of human rights under international law, and of the origins of the United Nations’ program for the protection of human rights, remains that of the late Sir Hersch Lauterpacht, International Law and Human Eights (1950). For an incisive, and abbreviated, study of the human rights program of the world organization, see McDougal and Bebr, “Human Rights in the United Nations,” 58 A.J.I.L. 603 (1964).

2 General Assembly Res. 2200 (XXI) of Dec. 16, 1966, U.N. Doc. A/RES/2200 (XXI), reprinted in 61 A.J.I.L. 861 (1967).

3 The first part of the international bill of rights was completed with the adoption and proclamation in 1948 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights “ a s a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations.” The Declaration reaffirmed the commitment of the world organization to a r61e in the prescription of norms to which its Member states ought to adhere. Although it was not intended as a “ b i n d i n g “ legal obligation upon Members of the organization, it has nonetheless “gained considerable authority as a general guide to the content of fundamental rights and freedoms as understood by members of the United Nations, and it is important as providing a connecting link between different concepts of human rights in different parts of the world.” Brierly, The Law of Nations 294 (Waldock, 6th ed., 1963). A similar view has been expressed by Messrs. McDougal and Bebr: “Despite its lack of stafus as enforceable treaty obligation or even as ‘authoritative interpretation’ of such obligation, and despite the imprecision of some of its language, this Declaration has, because of its authoritative community origin and eloquent formulation of the growing common demands of peoples throughout the world, exercised an important influence on subsequent decision-making and prescribing in many world arenas. Its future influence may, because of the increasing importance of General Assembly resolutions as a source of customary law, be even greater.“ McDougal and Bebr, loc. tit. note 1 above, at 614-615. See also Schwelb, Human Rights and the International Community: The Roots and Growth of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948-1963 (1964), and “The Influence of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on International and National Law,” 1959 A.S.I.L. Proceedings 217.

4 For a recent expression of this view, see the remarks of Mr. G. W. Haight, in opposition to United States acceptance of the Covenants, at the 1968 annual meeting of the American Society of International Law, 1968 A.S.I.L. Proceedings 96- 103; and see also Kunz, “Present-Day Efforts at International Protection of Human Eights: A General Analytical and Critical Introduction,” 1951 ibid. 109, 117. The inadequacy of this doctrine of domestic jurisdiction, and its basic incompatibility with the basic purposes of international law, the stated goals of World War I I and the United Nations Charter, is discussed at length in Lauterpacht, op. cit. note 1 above, at Chs. 1-10, and summarized in McDougal and Bebr, loc. cit. note 1 above, at 608-611.

5 Some of these states apparently shared the view of one eminent authority that “over-elaboration and doctrinaire approaches to controversial issues deprived [the United Nations’] efforts of any chance of success.” Brierly, op. cit. note 3 above. Cf. Robertson, The Law of International Institutions in Europe 53, 57 (1961). The efforts to enforce human rights through regional institutions is also attributable to the more general belief in regional organizations as an important and possibly necessary intermediate stage between nationalism and a mature internationalism. The view has been well stated by Lord Boothby: “On the purely practical plane, regional organization is an essential prelude to any kind of global organization. You must build, on firm foundations, from the bottom upward.” Quoted in Claude, Swords Into Plowshares: The Problems and Progress of International Organization 97 (1964 ed.).

6 The European Convention for the Protection of Human Eights and Fundamental Freedoms was opened for signature in Borne on Nov. 4, 1950, and entered into force on Sept. 3, 1953. Dr. Eobertson reported in 1966 that it had been ratified by fifteen states (all of the members of the Council of Europe except France, Switzerland and Malta), and that the right of individual petition had been accepted by eleven of these states, of which ten had accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Eights. Eobertson, European Institutions 46-49 (2nd ed., 1966).

7 Art. 1 (d) of the Statute of the Council of Europe provides that “ [m]atters relating to National Defense do not fall within the scope of the Council of Europe.“ The Statute is reproduced in Robertson, op. cit. note 5 above, at 272. For succinct accounts of the functions and aims of the Council of Europe, see Robertson, ibid, at 33-64, and Bowett, The Law of International Institutions 139-149 (1964 ed.).

8 See Inter-American Institute of International Legal Studies, The Inter-American System: Its Development and Strengthening 39-40 (1966); and Scheman, “The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights,” 59 A.J.I.L. 335 (1965).

9 The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has cited as a “ resolution on human r i g h t s “ the “Convention Relative to the Rights of Aliens,” signed at the Second International Conference of American States, held in Mexico City in 1901- 1902. The purpose of this convention was to codify the Calvo Doctrine and its limitations upon the right of diplomatic intervention in behalf of nationals in cases of denial of justice, or, as the Commission has described it, “ t o regulate the status of aliens resident in the various American States and to control the recourse of aliens to diplomatic approaches against the governments of the States in which they resided.“ Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report of the Organization of American States to the International Conference on Human Rights, 1968, O.A.S. Official Records, OBA/Ser.L/V/II.18, Doc. 24 (English) (Dec. 26, 1967), pp. 5-6. The United States, it may be noted, did not accept the Convention Relative to the Rights of Aliens. See The International Conferences of American States, 1889-1928, at 90-91 (1931).

10 Res. XL, in Report of the Delegation of the United States of America to the Inter- American Conference on Problems of War and Peace 108 (1946). This passage is quoted at length in Inter-American Juridical Committee, Report to the Inter-American Council of Jurists Concerning Resolution XXXI of the Bogota Conference (Inter- American Court to Protect the Rights of Man), reprinted in Anuario Juridico Interamericano, 1949, at 298 (1950).

11 Ibid.

12 The international law of state responsibility for injury to aliens constituted, in the words of the eminent Cuban jurist, Francisco V. Garcia Amador (a past member of the International Law Commission and now a member of the Secretariat of the O.A.S.), “unjustified discrimination with respect to native and other individuals who, like stateless persons are not in a position to enjoy such protection.” Garcia Amador, ” S t a t e Eesponsibility in the Light of the New Trends of International Law,” 49 A.J.I.L. 339, 344 (1955). Some Latin American jurists, such as Dr. Garcia Amador, have suggested elimination of this “unjustified discrimination” by the interpretation and application of the formula “ ‘international standard of justice’ in the light of the (essential) human rights which have been internationally recognized.” Hid. This view is consistent with the principle of equal treatment for nationals and aliens traditionally espoused by Latin American states and jurists. See, for example, the majority view expressed by the Inter-American Juridical Committee, Contribution of the American Continent to the Principles of International Law that Govern the Responsibility of the State, O.A.S. Official Records, OEA/Ser.I/VI.2 (English), CI.I-78 (Sept. 1965). The principle of equal treatment is the core of the Calvo Doctrine, which Latin American jurists generally regard as part of the broader doctrine of non-intervention. It is not clear, however, whether those Latin American jurists who favor the creation of international procedures for the protection of human rights as a means of eliminating the need for diplomatic interposition in behalf of citizens abroad are fully prepared to accept the consequent abandonment of the “national standard of justice” formula, or to accept the resulting impingement upon national sovereignty and the doctrine of non-intervention. See, for example, the view adopted in 1960 by the Inter-American Juridical Committee, note 13 below.

13 An exception is the report of the Inter-American Juridical Committee which asserted that collective action in defense of democratic institutions was contrary to the doctrine of non-intervention embodied in Art. 15 of the O.A.S. Charter. Inter- American Juridical Committee, Study on the Juridical Relationship between Respect for Human Rights and the Exercise of Democracy, Doc. CIJ-52 at 15-16 (1960), cited by Sandifer and Scheman, The Foundation of Freedom: The Interrelationship between Democracy and Human Rights 115 (1966). In response to this view, Messrs. Sandifer and Scheman (both of whom have been intimately associated with the recent human rights program of the O.A.S., and, in particular, with the work of the Inter- American Commission on Human Eights) have written: “Numerous states, sensitive to the abuses of past history, seek, at almost any cost, to preserve the principles of nonintervention and self-determination as essential to the maintenance of national identity. It is patent, however, that if collective action is unavailable to preserve democratic institutions, and states remain free to violate human rights within their own borders, no international declarations or conventions can be meaningful.” (Ibid, at 115-116. Emphasis added.) Compare the views of Dr. Garcia Amador, loc. cit. note 12 above, and those of Professor Sir Humphrey Waldock, the first President of the European Commission on Human Eights, below at note 53. Por some perceptive comments on the apparent reluctance to recognize the conflict between non-intervention and the protection of human rights and the promotion of democratic institutions by the inter-American system, see Ball, “Issue for the Americas: Non-intervention v. Human Eights and the Preservation of Democratic Institutions,” 15 International Organization 21 (1961).

14 The Charter of the O.A.S. is reprinted at 46 A.J.I.L. Supp. 43 (1952). The doctrine of non-intervention is embodied in Arts. 15 and 17.

15 Declaration of Santiago, Fifth Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs, Santiago, Chile, Aug. 12-18, 1959, reprinted in 55 A.J.I.L. 537, 538 (1961).

16 Res. VIII, Fifth Meeting of Consultation, reprinted in Inter-American Institute of International Legal Studies, The Inter-American System: Its Development and Strengthening 41 (1966). Res. VIII is more recently reprinted in the report of the regional agency to the International Conference on Human Rights (1968), op. cit. note 9 above, at 108-109.

17 The American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man was adopted at the Ninth International Conference of American States, Bogota, Colombia (1948). Por the text of the American Declaration, see 43 A.J.I.L. Supp. 133 (1949). The Statute of the Commission, as approved by the O.A.S. Council on May 25, 1960, and amended on June 8, 1960, and by Bes. XXII of the Second Special Inter-American Conference (1965), is available in Inter-American Commission on Human Eights, O.A.S. Official Records, OEA/Ser.L/V/II/14 (English), Doc. 33 (April 19, 1966).

18 Art. 9 of the Statute of the Inter-American Commission on Human Eights, loc. cit. note 17 above, at 3-4. The Commission is composed of seven members who are nationals of the member states of the Organization of American States and “who shall be persons of high moral character and recognized competence in the field of human rights.” (Art. 3 [a] of Statute.) The seven members are elected in their personal capacity by the Council of the O.A.S. from a list of panels of three persons proposed by each government of a member state (Art. 4 [ a ] ) . Only one national of any one state may be elected to membership in the Commission (Art. 4 [d]), and members may be re-elected (Art. 4 [e]). The members, who are elected for a fouryear term, elect a Chairman and Vice Chairman from their number by an absolute majority vote. The Chairman and Vice Chairman serve a two-year term, and may be re-elected only once (Art. 6). See Council of the O.A.S., Amendment to Art. 6 of the Statute of the Inter-American Commission on Human Eights, Council Series, OEA/Ser. G/III/C-sa-664(3) (English) (April 24, 1968).

19 The Commission has described the procedure of receiving petitions from individuals as one “firmly rooted in actual practice … since the Commission was established, [and one which] warrants … retention … in the new stage of protection of human rights under the future Convention.” Inter-American Commission on Human Eights, Opinion on the Draft Convention on Human Eights Approved by the Inter-American Council of Jurists (Part Two), O.A.S. Official Eecords, OEA/Ser.L/V/ 11,16, Doc. 8 (English) Eev. (April 24, 1967), p. 6. See also, Inter-American Com mission on Human Eights, Report of the Organization of American States to the International Conference on Human Rights, 1968, O.A.S. Official Records, OEA/ Ser.L/V/II.18, Doe. 24 (English) (Dec. 26, 1967), p. 59, and Sandifer, The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in the Dominican Republic, June 1965 to June 1966, prepared for the Hammarskjőld Forum on the Dominican Crisis (May 2, 1966) and published by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, O.A.S. Official Records, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.14, Doc. 13 (English) (April 15, 1966), pp. 7-9, 23. The process by which the Commission has claimed its present powers is described in Thomas and Thomas, “The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights,” 20 Southwestern Law J. 282 (1965); Sandifer, “Human Rights in the Inter-American System,” 11 Howard Law J. 508, 516-524 (1965); and Cabranes, “Human Rights and Non-intervention in the Inter-American System,” 65 Mich. Law Rev. 1147, 1166-1173 (1967).

20 Sandifer, The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in the Dominican Republic, June 1965 to June 1966, op. cit. note 19 above, at 9.

21 O.A.S., Tenth Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs, Doc. 39 (English) Rev. Corr. (1965), reprinted in 59 A.J.I.L. 987 (1965) and 4 Int. Legal Materials 594 (1965).

22 O.A.S., Tenth Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs, Situation Regarding Human Rights in the Dominican Republic (Preliminary Report), OEA/Ser. L/V/II.12, Doc. 2 Rev. (June 23, 1965), p. 1.

23 The Commission certified that no reports of human rights violations during the balloting had been received. See Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights on Its Activities in the Dominican Republic (September 1, 1965, to July 6, 1966), OEA/Ser.L/V/II.15, Doc. 6 Rev. (English) (Oct. 28, 1966), p. 30; and Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, 20 Sandifer, The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in the Dominican Republic, June 1965 to June 1966, op. cit. note 19 above, at 9. 21 O.A.S., Tenth Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs, Doc. 39 (English) Rev. Corr. (1965), reprinted in 59 A.J.I.L. 987 (1965) and 4 Int. Legal Materials 594 (1965). 22 O.A.S., Tenth Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs, Situation Regarding Human Rights in the Dominican Republic (Preliminary Report), OEA/Ser. L/V/II.12, Doc. 2 Rev. (June 23, 1965), p. 1. 23 The Commission certified that no reports of human rights violations during the balloting had been received. See Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights on Its Activities in the Dominican Republic (September 1, 1965, to July 6, 1966), OEA/Ser.L/V/II.15, Doc. 6 Rev. (English) (Oct. 28, 1966), p. 30; and Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report of the Organization of American States to the International Conference on Human Eights, 1968, op. cit. note 9 above, at 55.

24 Sandifer, The Inter-American Commission on Human Eights in the Dominican Republic, June 1965 to June 1966, op. cit. note 19 above, at 22.

25 Ibid, at 23.

26 Second Special Inter-American Conference, Eio de Janeiro, Brazil, Nov. 17-30, 1965, Final Act, Ees. XXII, reprinted in 60 A.J.I.L. 445, 458 (1966). This authority has now been incorporated in the Commission's Statute, op. cit. note 17 above.

27 Arts. 51 and 112, Protocol of Amendment to the Charter of the Organization of American States, 6 Int. Legal Materials 310, at 325, 342. See also Inter-American Commission on Human Bights, op. cit. note 9 above, at 3-4.

28 Res. V I I I of the Fifth Meeting of Consultation, loo. eit. note 16 above.

29 The text of the draft convention on human rights prepared by the Inter-American Council of Jurists is available in Second Special Inter-American Conference, Eio de Janeiro, O.A.S. Official Becords, OEA/Ser.E/XIII.l (English), Doc. 7 (March 1, 1965). This document is appended to Council of the O.A.S., Report on a Consultation with the Member States Regarding the Draft Convention on Human Rights, Submitted by the Committee on Juridical-Political Affairs, Council Series, OEA/Ser.G/IV, C-i-787 (English) Rev. 3 (June 7, 1967). 29a Note, however, that Art. 24 (3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Eights provides that “[e]very child has the right to acquire nationality.“

30 General Assembly Ees. 2200 (XXI), loc. cit. note 2 above, at 879.

31 Art. 31 reads as follows: “The States shall guarantee the right to private property, and its individual or collective use shall be subject to the interests of society, with respect at all times for the dignity of the individual and the inherent needs of family life. “Expropriation shall be legal in cases of public utility or social interest, in which case compensation will be made.“ Compare Art. 1 of the First Protocol (1952) to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Eights and Fundamental Freedoms, European Treaty Series, No. 9, reprinted in Myers, “Human Eights in Europe,” 48 A.J.I.L. 299, 301 (1954). See Schwelb, “ T h e Protection of the Eight of Property of Nationals Under the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights,” 13 A. J. Comp. Law 518 (1964).

32 European Treaty Series, No. 5, reprinted in 45 A.J.I.L. Supp. 24 (1951). The text of the European Convention appears also in Robertson, Human Rights in Europe 179 ff. (1963).

33 See Art. 64 of the European Convention, 45 ibid, at 37-38. The absence of a specific provision on reservations in the International Covenants on Human Eights does not preclude their admissibility under the general principles of international law. It is the traditional view that, “ [s]ubject to the maintenance of the principle of [unanimous] consent, the law is neutral on the matter and permits the parties to adopt any machinery regarded by them as acceptable, either by way of advance provision in the treaty itself or for obtaining assent to reservations made at the time of signature, accession or ratification.” McNair, The Law of Treaties 162 (1961).

34 Second Special Inter-American Conference, Eio de Janiero, Brazil, Nov. 17-30, 1965, Pinal Act, Bes. XXIV, OEA/Ser.C/1.13 (English).

35 Inter-American Commission on Human Eights, Opinion on the Draft Convention on Human Eights Approved by the Inter-American Council of Jurists (Part Two), OEA/Ser. L/V/II.16, Doc. 8 (English) Eev. (April 24, 1967), pp. 1-4.

36 Ibid, at 1.

37 Ibid.

38 Ibid, at 2.

39 Ibid, at 5.

40 The Commission's proposed amendment to the draft convention read as follows: “The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, created by the Fifth Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs, shall continue to have the structure, organization and functions conferred upon it by the Statutes approved by the Council of the Organization of American States, as recognized and expanded by Resolution XXII of the Second Special Inter-American Conference, and shall also have the powers herein assignated [sic] to it for the accomplishment of the purposes of the Convention.” Ibid, at 6. By July, 1968, nine of twenty-one active Members of the O.A.S. were reported to have deposited instruments of ratification of the Protocol of Buenos Aires.

41 Council of the O.A.S., op. cit. note 29 above, at 2.

42 The four Members of the O.A.S. which were reported to have signed the International Covenants on Economic, Social and Cultural Eights and on Civil and Political Eights are Colombia, Costa Rica, Honduras and Uruguay.

43 Ibid, at 3.

44 Ibid. at 4.

45 Ibid.

46 The statements of Argentina and Brazil are available in Council of the O.A.S., Observations of the Governments Regarding the Draft Convention on Human Rights, Council Series, OBA/Ser.G/V, C-d-1519 (English) Add. 3 (Sept. 15, 1967), and ib5 Add. 8 (Nov. 17, 1967).

47 Council of the O.A.S., op. cit. note 29 above, at 4.

48 Council of the O.A.S., op. cit. note 46 above, Add. 2 (Sept. 13, 1967).

49 Council of the O.A.S., op. cit. note 46 above, Add. 6 (Oct. 3, 1967) (Uruguay), and Add. 7 (Oct. 19, 1967) (Venezuela).

50 Under an earlier administration, and under a different policy toward international agreements on human rights, the United States on several occasions noted the reservation of its position with respect to the proposed regional convention. A statement to that effect was made by the United States with respect to Bes. VIII of the Fifth Meeting of Consultation in 1959, loc. cit. note 16 above, and again in that year at the time of the adoption by the Inter-American Council of Jurists (IACJ) of the draft regional convention. See the statement of the United States following the text of the draft convention, in Council of the O.A.S., op. cit. note 29 above, at 46. In its answer to the consultation of the Council of the O.A.S. in 1967, however, the United States asserted that it ‘ ‘ contemplates the possibility of the coexistence and coordination of UN and regional conventions on the same rights.'! Consejo de la Organización de Estados Americanos, Serie del Consejo, Observaciones de los Gobiernos Eelativas al Proyecto de Convención Sobre Dereclios Humanos, OEA/Ser.G/V, C-d-1519 (inglés-españiol) (7 septiembre 1967), p. 1. 50 a On June 12, 1968, the Council of the O.A.S. adopted another resolution calling upon non-responding governments to reply to the consultation of June 7, 1967. It also asked the Inter-American Commission on Human Eights to prepare a draft of the Inter-American Convention on Human Eights, based upon its proposed amendments and modifications, which would be “ i n harmony with the International Covenants of the United Nations … “ This latest resolution on the subject requires that, after consideration by the Council of the O.A.S., the revised draft will be placed before the governments of the Member States. The latter will be expected to make appropriate observations within three months of the date the draft is presented to them by the Council. Thirty days after the expiration of this three-month period the Council is to convoke an Inter-American Specialized Conference, to be held preferably during 1968 (International Human Eights Year), to consider the draft and the observations and amendments put forward by governments and to decide whether to approve and sign a regional convention on human rights. Consejo de la Organización de Estados Americanos, Serie del Consejo, Informe de la Comisión de Asuntos Jurídieo- Politicos Eeferente al Proyecto de Convenci6n Sobre Derechos Humanos, OEA/Ser.G/ IV,C-i-837 (espafiol) Eev. 3 (12 junio 1968).

51 Art. 5, par. 2 (a), of the Optional Protocol, General Assembly Res. 2200 (XXI), loc. cit. note 2 above, at 888.

52 See Art. 51 of the draft convention on human rights, in Council of the O.A.S., Report on a Consultation with the Member States Regarding the Draft Convention on Human Rights, Submitted by the Committee on Juridical-Political Affairs, OEA/ Ser.G/IV, C-i-787 (English) Rev. 3 (June 7, 1967), p. 32. However, this requirement of abstention would be applied only to cases involving “petitions lodged by one of the Contracting States” under an amendment to the regional convention proposed in 1967 by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. See Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Opinion on the Draft Convention on Human Rights Approved by the Inter-American Council of Jurists (Part Two), OEA/Ser.Ii/V/II.16, Doc. 8 (English) Rev. (April 24, 1967), p. 8.

53 Professor C. H. M. Waldoek, address at the World Exhibition in Brussels, Sept. 3, 1958, reprinted in “The European Convention for the Protection of Human Eights and Fundamental Freedoms,” 34 Brit. Yr. Bk. Int. Law 356, 362 (1958).

54 Speaking at a symposium on the role of the American regional agency in the Cuban crisis of 1962, Mr. Abram Chayes, then Legal Adviser of the Department of State, asserted: “NATO and SEATO and the “Warsaw Pact are organized to exercise collective self-defense, within the term that is referred to in Article 51 [of the United Nations Charter]. But the OAS is much more than a defense organization; it is kind of a junior grade U.N. in the sense that it exercises within its regional sphere all of the kinds of activities that the U.N. engages in, world-wide … [NATO, SEATO, and the Warsaw Pact] are defensive organizations, almost pure and simple, whereas the OAS is a structure designed to deal on a broad scale with the problems of international living in the hemisphere.” Eemarks of Mr. Abram Chayes in “The Inter-American System and the Cuban Crisis,” Background Papers and Proceedings of the Third Hammarskjőld Forum 37 (Tondel ed., 1964).

55 Mr. Chayes has expressed the view that the paralysis of the political organs of the United Nations would permit the O.A.S., among other agencies, to fill the void left by the United Nations’ inaction. See Chayes, loc. cit. at 47.

56 The present author has considered these concomitant developments in Cabranes, loc. cit. note 19 above.

57 The Charter clearly identifies the observance of human rights with the achievement of peace among members of the world community. See, for example, Art. 55. That the promotion of human rights is one of the major purposes of the world organization is confirmed also by the terms of the preamble to the Charter and by many of its substantive provisions. On the significance of these provisions, see Lauterpacht, op. cit. note 1 above, Ch. 9; McDougal and Bebr, loc. cit. note 1 above, at 612-613; and Schwelb, “The United Nations and Human Eights,” 11 Howard Law J. 356, 363 (1965).

58 The Commission on Human Eights of the United Nations recently expressed its belief that “ i t is timely to give encouragement to the formation of regional commissions on human rights within or outside the United Nations system.” Res. 6 (XXIII), Commission on Human Rights, U.N. ECOSOC, 42nd Sess., Official Records, Supp. No. 6 at 125, 126 (E/4322, E/CN.4/940) (1967). It did so in a resolution establishing an ad hoc Study Group “ t o study in all its aspects the proposal to establish regional commissions on human rights within the United Nations family… . “ The report of this Study Group reveals a wide divergence of opinion on the question of regional commissions on human rights. Some representatives expressed the view that the promotion and protection of human rights required a universal and centralized approach through the United Nations, and others favored the establishment of regional commissions within the United Nations structure or outside of it. Some expressed concern with the affiliation of existing regional human rights commissions with political regional organizations, and others expressed the belief that there should be no formal link between the United Nations and a regional commission, and especially no hierarchical link. There was apparently a widespread recognition of the value of some sort of regional action, but considerable disagreement with regard to the structure and institutional affiliation of any such regional undertaking. See Report of the Ad Hoe Study Group Established under Resolution 6 (XXIII) of the Commission on Human Rights, Commission on Human Rights, 24th Sess., U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/966 (Jan. 26, 1968). At its 24th Session in early 1968, the Commission on Human Eights requested the Secretary General to transmit the report of the ad hoe study group to Member states and to regional inter-governmental organizations for their comments on the question of regional commissions on human rights. The Commission also decided to consider the question at its 25th Session in 1969, as a matter of priority. Res. 7 (XXIV), Commission on Human Rights, U.N. ECOSOC, 44th Sess., Official Records, Supp. No. 4 at 152-153 (E/4475, E/CN.4/972) (1968).

A correction has been issued for this article:

Errata