A/5/PV.317 General Assembly

Before putting the three draft resolutions of the Third Committee to the vote, I shall recognize the various speakers who wish to explain their votes. I trust that speakers will confine themselves to the seven-minute time limit. The first speaker on my list is the representative of the SovietUnion~ Rights, although in a proclamatory, unsatisfactory and incomplete form. As a result of these inadequacies of the draft covenant, the United Nations, two years after the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, is even further from solving the problem of protecting and ensuring respect for human rights. 7. These circumstances make it incumbent upon the General Assembly not to confine itself to making provisions of an extremely general nature, but to point out these deficiencies to· the Commission on Human Rights and to recommend concrete measures for remedying them. 8. With this object in view, the USSR has submitted the necessary amendments [AjlS76 and Corr.l]. My delegation's vote on draft. resolution I will depend upon the results of the consideration of these amendments. the purpose of which is as follows: 2, Mr. MOROZOV (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian) : The delegation of the USSR wishes to exphin the motives which will guide it in voting on draft resolution I submitted by the Third Committee concerning the future work of the . Commission on Human Rights. . 3. The delegation of the Soviet Union considers that ! the Third Committee's draft does not stress the deficiencies of the draft covenant prepared by the Commission on Human Rights at its sixth session. Not only does it not contain enough concrete provisions which might be used as a basis for the further elaboration of the covenant, but it inclu<1es a number of incorrect proposals, which may mislead those who are to draft the various provisions of the r''Jvenant. 4. It was particularly necessary to point out those deficiencies because the draft covenant on human rights in its present form is an even less consistent and effective document than the Universal Decla..'~aon of HItttnan Rights adopted by the General Assembly in 948 [resolution 217 A (111)]. 5. The delegation of the USSR pointed out at the third session of the General Assembly that. the chief fault of that Declaration was its f6rmal, legalistic char... Monday, 4 December 1950, at lO.45a.m. 9. First, to ensure that all citizens, without distinction~ have an opportunity to take part in tbe government of the State and therefore to abolish all restrictions, based on property, education, or anytbif'.g else, on the right to take part in elections of ca.ndiaates to repr~sentative . organs, and to afford aU citizens the opportunity of occupying any State orpublic office; 10. Secondly, to ensure the right of every peo~1e and every nation to national se1£·determination nnc1.' to the development of their national culture; gani1.ation of a system of scholarships ~d schools; 13. Fifthly, to ensure the right to rest and leisure by providing by law for a reasonable lim.itation of working hours and for periodic holidays with pay: 14. Sixthly~ to introduce social security and sodal in- surance for workers and employees at the expense of the State or at the expense of the employers, in accord- .ance with the laws of each country; 15. Seventhly, to take all the necessary ~c:asures to ensure decent living quarters to every person; 16. Eighthiy, to guarantee the strict observance of trade union rights and to create conditions in which the unhampered activities of trade union organizations (all beeusured; . 17. Ninthly, to ensure that the rights proclaimed in the covenant are not used for purposes hostile to hu- manity and,. in particular, for purposes of war propa- . ganda, for fomentin~ hostility among nations, for incit- ing to racial discrittllnation, or for spreading slanderous nunours; 18. Finally, to provide that the activities of any fascist or- anti..clemocl""cltic organization must be prohibited by law, subject tt,l p(ma1ty. 19. But while the draft resolution submitted by the Third Connnittee (ltnits many of the aforementioned important provi$Sions, itcontams proposals which can serve only to complicate the further elaboration of the covenant. 20. The delegation of the USSR, therefore, cannot yote for proposals such as that the Commission .of Human Rights should be ;llvited to continue to study the qll~$tion of. establishiag a sp~cial system for the fulfilment by federal States of obligations undertaken under the covenant. The Soviet Union delegation can only interpret tr..a.t proposal as an attempt to establish a pretext for not implementing the pro\<isions of the covenant in the future. 21. We are also unable to agree to the proposal, al- legedly intended to facilitate the implementation of the covenant" for the establishment of various international organsJ such as a tonunittee on human rights; such a measure would constitute interference in the internal aftairsof States and a violation of their sovereignty, since the implementation of the provisions of the cove- nant in every State falls entirely within. the domestie jurisdiction of the Stetes signatories to the covenant and must allow for th~ specific ecOfi-~mic, national and other characteristics of each ~ountry. 22.· The 6tlegatio:l of the Soviet Union has therefore submitted its proposal for the modification of tlt~se sections and, should that proposal be rejected, it will vote against sections C and F in the form in which they have been submitted by the Third Committee. 23~ The USSR delegation believes that it cannot be expected that the coyenant should reproduce the prin- ganization, circumstances which prevent many of them at the present time, from settling in a consistent and satisfactory manner the problem of establishing living conditions which are really worthy of human beings. The Soviet Unie!? delegation considers, however, that even so, the Genen\l Assembly can recommend to the Commission on Human Rights that it should include in the covenant the aforementioned minimU1l1 rights, the implementation of which affects millions of people. This is particularly essential because it is impossible otherwise to state seriously that the draft covenant guarantees. real, and not imaginary, human rights. 25. Hence, if the above-mentioned amendments are lrejected and if the proposals rontained in sections C and F are adopted, the dehgation of the USSR will abstain from voting on draft resolution I and will reserve the right to submit, at the appropriate stage in the further elaboration of the draft covenant, its proposals for the radical improvement of that document. 26. Mr. COULSON (United Kingdom) : The United Kingdom delegation feels obliged to vote against draft ~esoluti?n I because we consider it both inadequate and ImpractIcable. . 27. We consider it inadequate because the General Assembly has not, in our view, given a satisfactory answer to the request of the Economic and Social Coun- cil [resolution 303 I (Xl)] to give policy decisions on four important matters. One of these questions was the general adequacy of the measures ofimplement.ation in the draft covenant. Part F of this draft resolution fails to give such an answer. 28. We have two further reasons for considering this . draft resolution b-npracticabIe. One 'is tha,t it instructs the Economic and Social Council to insert artides deal- ing with economic and social rights. With regard to many of these, my delegation has an open mind; but many others we consider cannot possibly be included in this first covenant. The second reason is that we do not think that the COlUmission on Human Rights can do tlte task which the General Assembly is going to ask it to do within the specified time, without skimping its work and so producing a draft which would not be worthy of the United Nations. 29. On the queation of the colonial application clause referred to in draft resolution: !I, I wish to explain. quite simply why we are obliged to vote against. it. It is the first duty of the United Kingdom Government to iog upon the peoples of our territories the responsibility for conducting their own affairs. We shall therefore adhere in the case of the covenant to the normal prac.. tices and procedures which in such matters regulate the constitutional relationship between the United King.. dom and the territories for whose international relations we are responsible. That is" to say, we shall consult them in thIS matter" but not dictate. The process of consultation will take' time, and the effect of a decision by the General Assembly to delete a colonial application . clause front the covenant may be to dela) unduly the United Kingdom Government's accession to the cove.. nant at'-d the application of the covenant to several terri- tories. 11 that were the result, it would be aconsequenc.e of the Assembly's decision and not of any action On the part of the Udted Kingdom Government.

The Australian delegation will abstain in the vote on draft resolution I as a whole for thel'eason that, while we agree with some parts of it, we are opposed to others. This is due not only to our inability to agree with particular parts of the draft resolution but because, more than that, we feel that the·draft resolution is not sufficiently precise in its form to be presented 'to the Commission on Human Rights as an authoritative and binding expression of opinion from the supreme organ of the United Nations. I am sure that many delegations share this, view and believe that the draft resolution is long, repetitive and unwield)T." ,,' , 31. Except in one or two respects, it fails to give the Economic, and Social Council the basic policy decision which the Council sought. Indeed, the draft resolution seems to my delegation to go in the opposite direction and to confide to the Commission the' study of matters extraneous' to the field of human rights as such, and to propose the inclusion of rights which will certainly delay the drafting and final preparation of a covenant. 32. The Commission on Human Rights, is, as we all know, a ,small body of eighteen experts. Certainly it is proper that this Assembly should give it general guid.. ance and lay down policy in broad terms, but it seems to u~ unwise for the General Assembly to go further than this and to butden the Commission with rigid directions on det(ail and, extraneous assignments, and all this at a titn.e when the Commission is nearing the end of a first, though admittedly limited, achievement. 33. Section, B of ~the draft resolution requires the Commission to take into consideration the inclusion in the covenant of economic, soCial and cultural rights, and that is a section of which we approve., But then, again, section E contall\1S an express directive to the Commission to include such rights in the covenant. The basis of this latter directive was in essence those proposals which would seem to have been reasonably pro.. vided for und~1" section 1\\. The net result of such de- , cisions, as we see it, is that the Commission will be making no immediate headway in its work. 34. Australia by no means contests the importance of. the rights whicf1 are not included in the present eighteen articles, but We do recognize that for lour years now the Commission has been working on the formulation ....... careful treatment it merited. Accordingly, we shall vote against section F as itnow stands. , 36. Another specific objection we have to the draft resolution is in respect of section D, where there is a directive to the Commission to study the whole questionof self-determination, We shall abstain on this clause because we consider that self-determination is more in the nature, of a group political right, not the sort of individual right with which the Commission is competent to deal. . ' . 3i'. We shall vote for sections G and H, which con.. ce1.'t1 procedural1l1atters. 38~ Finally, my delegation is concerned about the omission of a colonial app1ic~tion clause, for this means that no real account has been taken of the constitutional dmk:ulties which will face certain countries in the application of the covenant to the territories for which they are' responsible. Therefore' we shall vote against draft resolution II. ' 39. As to draft resolution III, we shall ask that it should be voted upon in two parts, because we wish the words "and interested organizations," in the last paragraph, to be omitted., We beli~ve that such report... ing is for governments ,and, not for organizations. We shall vote against that par~graphas it stands, and if it is included we shall abstain on the vote on draft resolution III asa whole. If those words are omitted, we shall vote ' in favour of draft resolutionrn. 40. Although obliged to vote against parts of the text before us and to abstailt"on draft resolution I as a whole so long as the sections we,object to remain in it, the Australian' Government will continue to work to find common ground with other delegations, at,the next session, so that the long efforts of the United Nauons to draft and approve its first covenant on human rights will be successful. " 41. Mr. NORIEGA (Mexico) (translated from Spanish) : I explained in the Third Committee? on be... half of my delegation, why J had voted in 'favour of words~ in all matters connected with labour conditions. The task of fhe Internationid Labour Organisation is to bring about conditions for workers which are as uniform as possible throughout the world, in order to check the kind of competition whi~h is injurious to the very life of the worker; hence the reservations to the conventions established by that agency were not accepted prior to the revision of its Constitution. 48. , It was at the time when the Constitution of the International Labour Organisation was revised that the so-called federal clause made its first appearance on the international scene. The result will be that the conventions of the International labour Organisation will not be uniformly implemented; they will be implemented partially in some States and in their entirety in others, according to the views or convenience of a particular gover11l11ent and to the extent that that government deems it advisable. This, of course, entirely destroys the operative force of a convention. 49. I have referred in detail to the repercussions of the federal clause on the implementation of conventions regarding labour because the covenant on human rights must also include economic and social rights, 50. Technically, the inclusion of a federal clause in the covenant on human rights would result in inequality between, on the one hand, non-federal States and federal States which automatically incorporate the provisions of a covenant in their national legislation and, on the other hand, those federal States which use the federal clause as a pretext for not implementing the covenant in its entirety thfoughout their territories. 51. I should like, therefore, to point out to those who hope that the covenant will be universally implemented that, if the federal clause is included, there will be many States whichg in view of the privileged position of federal States which take advantage of the federal clause, will think twice before signing, ratifying or acceding to such a document. 52. You all know that the so-called colonial clause has been diminated from the covenant. I do not intend to recapitulate here the noble and humane reasons on which this decision of the Third Committee was based. However, if a comparative study is made of the two clauses, the federal and the colonial, it will be seen that their character and purpose are identical, since in both cases it is left to the federal State or to the mother country to decide whether or not to make a convention applicable to any part of the territories under its jurisdiction and responsibility. 53. The difficulty which the Commission on Human Rights encounters in studying this matter and in arriving at a solution agreeable to all who ~Lre in favour of the federal clause has already been proved by two successive failures to draw up an agreed text. I referred, in the discussion in the Third Committee, to the difficulty experienced by the Third and Sixth Com M mittees, at the preceding session of the General Assembly, in approving a federal clause; in point of fact, no text could be approved a year ago. 54. This difficulty in which the Co~mission on Human Rights is going to find itself will be ,even greater, given the scope of draft resolution II [A/1559 and CO". 1], for under this draft resolution, which refers to the elimination of the colonial clause, federal States which are responsible for Non-Self-Governing Territories will automatically be deprived of the benefits of a federal clause. The text of draft resolution II runs as follows: "The provisions of the present Covenant shall e.xtend to or be applicable equally to a signatory metropolitan State and to all the territories, be they non-seU-governing, trust, or colonial territories, which are being administered or governed by such metropolitan State/' This makes it perfectly clear that federal States which are responsible for Non-Self-Gov.. erning Territories or Trust Territories will not be able to avail themselves of the federal clause. 55. I do not know how th~ Commission on Human Rights can'produce a text ~,,·hich would be in direct cuntradiction with the text I have just read. 56. Mr. ALTMAN (Poland) (translated from French) : I should like to explain my delegation's vote on draft resolution I and on the amendments submitted by the USSR delegation [A/1576 and Corr.1]. 59. The ~t>olish delegation is of the opinion that the rights included in the first eighteen articles of the draft covenant should be supplemented by the inclusion of such very elementary rights as the right of every citizen to take part in the government of the State, the opportunity to elect candidates and to stand for election to all government bodies, and the opportunity to hold any State or public office. Without such very elementary rights there is no effective guarantee of enjoyment of the other rights included in the draft covenant. 60. The right of every people and every nation to self-determination on a national scale, and· the right of national minorities to use their mother tongue and have their own educational institutions and national cultures, are equally elementary. 61. \Ve are of the opinion that the present wording of the first eighteen articles should be changed so that, while guaranteeing to every person his right to freedom of expression, assembly, public demonstration, parading, etc., there would be a clear statement that these rights could not be used for war propaganda or to incite racial discrimination or hatred among peoples, and that the propagation. of fascist ideas in any manner would be prohibited by law. 62. Only if the question is dealt with in this way will there be conformity with the spirit and purposes of the Charter and with the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights approved by the General Assembly on 10 December 1948 [tresolution 217 A (Ill)]. 63. The Third Committee decided to include economic, social and cultural rights in the covenant. That goes on the credit side of the Committee's work. On the other hand, the Committee refused to give precise instructions to the Commission on Human Rights as to the formulation of the elementary rights in the fields' just mentioned. Vve believe that this is a very serious shortcoming in section E of draft resolution I submitted by the Third Committee to the General Assembly, and we believe that this shortcoming must be remedied by amplifying this section. It must deal with the right to work, the free choice of employment, the right to rest and leisure, . the right to housing' wcrthy of a human being, the right to social security, trade union rights, would weaken it. 68. With respect to the implementation of the covenant, we demand direct responsibility on the part of States rather than an indirect procedure which would in fact hinder the application of the compulsory provisions of the covenant. 69. In our opinion, the General Assembly must correct the shortcomings of draft resolution 1. It can do so by accepting the amendments submitted by the USSR delegation. The Polish delegation will vote in favour of those amendments. If they are not adopted, it will abstain from voting on draft resolution I asa whole. 70. Mr. DEMCHENKO (Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic) (translated from Russian): The delegation of the Ukrainian SSR will explain how it propos.es to vote on the draft resolution. 71. The question of the draft covenant on human rights and measures for its implementation was placed on the agenda of the current session of the General Assembly because the'. Commission on Human Rights~ which had been drafting the covenant, had reached an impasse. The Economic and Social Council accordingly submitted a number of questions to the Gen~ral Assembly, the answers to which were to guide the Commission in its future work. . 72. A detailed examination of the draft resolutionsulr mitted by the Third Committee shows that, so far fromgiving dear and precise instructions to the Commission, the draft contains a number of basically wrong provisions which, if adopted by the General Assembly. could misdirect the endeavours of the Commission in preparing the covenant. 73. The Third Committee's draft resolution, for. instance, contains no indication that the first eitlhteen articles of the covenant drafted by the CommiSSIon on Human Rights are unsatisfactory both as regards the enumeration of the rights to be included in the covenant and as regards the effective .guarantee of the rights referred to in those articles. As we ·know, the first eighteen articles of' the covenant contain no . reference to most important human rights-the right to l employment, recreation, social insurance, education, I ·1 the USSR amendment to section C, for which the delegation of the Ukrainian SSR will vote. If that amendment is rejected, it will vote against section C. 77. With regard to se don F of the draft resolution of the Third Committee, which contains a recommendation concerning the so-called implementation of the provisions of the covenant, the delegation of the Ukrainian SSR considers that this recommendation is.based on an erroneous concept of the methods and procedures to be used in implementing the provisions of the covenant "and that it is therefore mistaken. In our opinion, the implementation of the provisions of the covenant ia a matter which is entirely within the domestic juri"dic':~bt.. uf every State party to the covenant. That !)rl~f'}ple should, as the USSR amendment proposes, .be expressed in the preamble to the draft resolution of the Third Committee. 78. The delegation of the Ukrainian SSR supports the proposal of the Soviet Union that articles 19 to 41 should be deleted from the covenant drafted by the Commission on Human Rights on the ground that they have no connexion with measures for the implementation of the provisions of the covenant and aim at permitting interference in the domestic affairs of sovereign States. 79. In the opinion of the delegation of the Ukrainian SSR, the Commission on Human Rights can successfully carry out its task of preparing a covenant on human rights only if the General Assembly adopts a and, if those amendments are not adopted by the Gen.. eral Assembly, it will abstain from voting on the draft resolution submitted by the Third Committee. 80. Mr. DE LACHARRIERE (France) (wan$lated from French): As I may speak for only a limited time, 1 shall confine the explanatIons of mJ~ delegation to the first-a.nd most important-of th.e draft resobtions re.. ferred to us by the Third Committee. 81. This lengthy draft most certainly contains a number of quite acceptable things in favour of which my delegation would be prepared to vote. 82. Nevertheless, taken as a whole, the text has some serious defects. In the first piace, it is wordy and vague in form, and contains a number of repetitions, loosely connected proposals and p<?orly draftea phrases; some of the statements made in it are <)uite superfluous and; at times, the text is sheer verbIage. But even more serious than the superfluous statements are the contradictions to be found in the text before us. 83. Inelegance of style is accompanied by incoherence of thought. The most flagrant example of this is to be found in the contradiction between section B and sec.. tion E. In the former, the problem of economic and social rights is resolved in one way, in the latter, in another. Section B provides that the views on the subject contained in the Yugoslav and Soviet Union proposals should be transmitted to the Commission for discussion and decision; that is one solution. Yet sec.. tion E provides for the adoption in full of the Yugoslav proposal; that is another solution, which is clearly in contradiction with the first. 84. Such incoherence naturally weakens the draft resolution. At the same time, the draft includes provisions which are dangerous because they are the outcome of over-ambition. Immediately, at a single stroke of the pen, all rights-economic, social, cultural-are to .be included in the first draft covenant, as though the sub.. ject were not vast and complex, and as thou~h it were not obvious that to do so makes it almost Impossible for the Commission on Human Rights to carry out its task if, that is, it is expected to do serious work. There is no right with which the Commission is not called upon to deal, even the right of peoples to selfdetermination, although we all know that that right involves an extremely broad political principle already covered by other provisions, by those of the Charter itself which define the powers of the various organs of the United Nations, Including the Security Council andthe Trusteeship Council. 85. On the one hand, the covenant is overloaded in this most unwise fashion; on the other hand, we are unpleasantly surprised to find that, with resr3,rd to im.. plementation, the draft resolution is very-weak--extremely weak-empty and, indeed, practically useless. 86. All the various proposals concerning implemen.. tation made in the Third Committee are referrea to the Commission on Human Rights pen-men, despit~ their divergent nature, despite the fact that they have not been discussed, despite the fact that the conflicting views on" this subject have not been reconciled-in vanity of a resolution such as this would, perhaps, be justified if it simply met the intentions of governments which wished to pay a harmless tribute to the human rights proclaimed in the Charter, a verbal tribute which could be very strong but which safeguarded the traditional policy of not allowi~g individuals' access to the international community. I cannot believe that that would be the intention of any delegation. Yet that is practically the only construction that can be placed on the empty and controversial draft resolution now before us. The French delegation is therefore unable to accept the proposed text. 91. France, from the very beginning, has given its ardent and purposeful support to the building up of the great international edifice of human rights; it has pursued that task with a conviction which I would almost call personal and which goes back to the Declaration on the Rights of Man, which it drew up in 1789, not for French nationals alone but for the citizens of the whole world; it desires that the principles embodied in the Charter should really be put mto practice. It is for all these reasons that the French delegation will not vote in favour of the draft resolution now before us. 92. Mr. CASSIMATIS (Greece) (tr:ansluted from French): In voting on the three draft resolutions subhear, in the interventions of the United States del1egation. a certain accent and a vague hope of evasion of the provisions prohibiting discrimination. All of us being equal, great or small, we cannot act :~. 'Jt the introduction are regarded in those articles solely from one incH.. vidualistic point of view; they are concerned only with questions of procedure, omitting this primary and essential condition for the effectiveness of the measures in .question. The provisions on implementation should be binding and should force the States to act in accordance with the obligations they have undertaken by the very act of ratifying the covenant by adapting their legislations to include all the rights of individuals. listed in the covenant. 109. I do not wish to pile up arguments for this clearand fil'1u attitude, which any State with a clear conft science in regard to human rights can take, because we think it is the simplest, most effective and most logical way of implementing an international covenant. 110. The often quoted authority on international law, Professor Lauterpacht, states in chapter XVI of his. book International Law and Human Rights: "The preoccupation with the enforcement of the Bill of Rights ought not to conceal the fact that the most. effective way of giving reality to it is through the normal activity of national courts and other organs applying the law of the land." 111. For these reasons, the Czechoslovak delegation finds that the proposal of the delegation of the Soviet Union [A/1576 and Corr. 1] for the deletion of articles 19 to 41 from the draft international covenant on human rights, since their inclusion would constitute an 2ttempt at intervention in the domestic affairs of States and would encroach on their sovereignty, is the best solution of this problem, which ('~n be settled by the mere fact of ratification of the covenant by a signatory State and by the incorporation of the provisions of the covenant in the legislation of that State. 112. The Czechoslovak delegat~oll, therefore, will support the amendments proTJosed by the USSR delega.. tion. Should those amendments not be accepted, the Czechoslovak delegation feels that it will not be in a position to vote for draft resolution I as a whole, and will abstain from voting. . 113. Mr. AZKOUL (Lebanon) (translated from French): At first sight the draft resolution submitted to us by the Third Committee seems progressive, for it invites the Commission on Human Rights to go for" ward with its work. My delegation, and all those who have closely followed the progress of the Commission's work are aware, however, that this draft is an-obstacle to the advancement of work on human rights ;,md is,. indeed, a step backwards. 114. The question of the proclamation and observ" ance of human rights has a long history in the United bum~.n rights. , 116. When it had completed the first document-the Universal Declaration of Human Rights-the Commission hegan work on the international covenant on 11uman rights. Facing the real issues and exatnining them carefully, we again found that the covenant, too, was nebulous. At first, it was to have included all the rights stipulated in the Dec1aratioltl, regardless of the special circumstances,. conditions or characteristics ques~ed to draft the first eighteen articles and then leave them aside and start work on the otherartic1es; or that the Commission should .be requested to complete the first eighteen articles and transmit them to us for adoption and presentation to States for signature, and then immediately start work on the other articles. 122. As my delegation is anxious that the United Nations should make progress in its study of human rights, it can only vote in favour of the second alternative, that is, not to shelve the first eighteen articles and wait indefinitely-perhaps until the othet's are drafted -but to refer them immediately to the General As... sembly so that we may have a first covenant straightaway and others later, Instead of trying to include every.. thing in a single covenant which could never be concluded.' . 123, Having to choose between these twoaltematives, my delegation will vote in favour of preparing, first, a covenant devoted to personal rights, and then of start- , ing, immediately and without delay, on the drafting of covenants concerning the other human rights, until one day we have the full list of those rights, which would then be safeguarded in an effective and practical manner. 124. Therefore we shall at least abstain from voting on the decisions taken by the Third Committee, and shall vote against the amendments proposed by the Soviet Union, because both the Third Committee's pro.. posals and the USSR amendments would retard the work done by the Commission on· Human Rights in this field, and prejudice the progress already made. 125. Mr. GARCIA BAUER (Guatemala) (translated from Spanish) : '1Nhen the draft resolution on the covenant on human rights submitted by the Third Com.. mittee is put to the vote as a whole, my delegation will support it. I should like, however, to make a few comments on certain paragraphs of that draft. 126. My delegation has given serious consideration to section C,·concerning a federal clause•. Such a clause is clearly contrary to traditional legal doctrine. But my delegation has also carefuUyexamined the argumenta raised by some delegations, and chiefly by the United States delegation, concerning the serious difficulties of implementing a covenant in all the States of a federation. ~istinguis~ing a covenan~ from a declaration. Little by little a number of clear Ideas have emerged out of the nebulous idea of an allQembracing covenant. 117. The first is that it is impossible to include in the covenant, immediately and simultaneously, all the rights enunciated in t.lte Declaration. The second is that it is necessary to take into account the specific character of the covenant, which distinguishes it in nature and in scope fro111 the Declaration. The third is that there must be several covenants and documents, each concerned with a particular category of rights. The fourth is that the first task must be to draft the articles or rights which are the easiest to formulate and the most likely to be accepted immediately by the international com.. munity, the rights which require the least contribution from other. United Nations organs and the specialized agencies; Acc.ordingly the Commission on Human Rights envisaged a first covenant devoted to personal rights. 118. The Third Committee's decision thus amounts to requesting the Commission on Human Rights to turn back to the nebulous, the confused and the vague, in other words, to something which can be neither acmeved.nor implemented. What is general can have no ~!ty unless it is reduced to its separate" specific and dlsttnct component parts. 119. Draft resolution I submitted by the Third Committee invites the Commission on Human Rights to disregard its own experience and all the difficulties it encountered during its practical study of the question of the covenant on human rights, to forget the special nature of the .covenant-an international contract to be signed voluntarily by nations-and to forget that economic, social and cultural rights differ from personal ~nd civil rights in the sense that their implementation Implies the existence of economic, political and social conditions which do not depend merely on the will.of authorities or governments. The draft resolution asks Us to forget realities and return to the first vague and nebulous generalizations. 120. This tendency, which does· not take sufficient account of the need for a covenant signed by the largest 131~ My delegation ,attaches the greatest importance to sectionFt on the implementation of human rights; it would have liked the Assembly to give a more definite reply to the question of the Commission on Human Rights ,concerning that point. Nevertheless, despite the indefinite character of the reply and the form in which it is made, my'delfegation is prepared to support that section. We know that the Commission on Human Rights will examine the General Assembly's recommendations with its customary care, and will take the most appropriate dedsions. 132. Draft resolution II concerns the so-called colonial clause; ,the Guatemalan delegation will support that draft. We hav~ a1ways opposed the colonial clause. We do not s~e any reason why the provisions of the c(wenant shol:tld not be applicable to all States, whether self-governing or not; States which have difficulties in ratifying th~ covenant on behalf of non-self-governing territories which they administer have other ways of achieving the desired result, without there being any need for a colonial clause. The Guatemalan delegation took the same attitude with regard to that clause when other documents were being discussed. 133. My delegation, as it explained in the Third Committee, strongly supports draft resolution HI, in which all States and interested organizations are invited to adopt 10 December of each year as "Human Rights Day" and observe that day to, celebrate the proclamation of the 'Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the General Assembly on 10 December 1948. 134. We shall vote against the USSR amendment [A/157& and Corr. 1] calling for the insertion, between the third and fcurth recitals in draft resolution I, of a recital to the effect that the implementation of the pro.. 143. The draJt resolution under discussion must be substantially amended and amplified by including in it the concrete proposals contained in the amendments proposed by the Soviet Union to sections B, C, E, and F as well as to the preamble of the draft resolution. The delegation of the Byelorussian SSR supports those amendments and will vote for their inclusion in the draft resolution. We support them because they give clear instructions for the future work of the Commission on Human Rights and are calculated to speed up the elaboration of the draft covenant, which Rhould contain not only a proclamation of the fundamental rights and freedoms of citizens, but also guarantees that every State, in accordance with its partiCUlar internal circumstances, will observe those rights. 144. The representative of Greece, speaking from this rostrum, was frightened by the clear and concrete proposals contained in the USSR amendments. He considered that they were unreal,. propagandistic, and demagogic, and he also said that the Greek people enjoyed all rights. The representatives to the General Assembly and the peoples of the world are, I am sure, aware of the rights enjoyed by the Greek people. They are the rights of the monarcho-fascist regime, the unlimited right to terrorize, to imprison people and keep them in concentration camps and to execute innocent people without trial. The representative of Greece believes that these rights, the tights to oppress the people, are precisely what the people need. That is why he considers that Greece serves as an international example in respect of the observance of human rights. The Greek representative's statement merely serves to confirm the views of many dele.gations on the kind of covenant on human !rights they would like to have, namely, a covenant whicl) would include eloquc..~t declarations of human rights, but which would not enable the peoples to enjoy those rights. 145. By adopting the Soviet Union amendinents, the General Assembly will not only substantially improve the draft resolution before us, but will supply all the necessary recommendations for drafting a covenant on human rights which will meet the needs and aspirations of the vast majority of humanity. 146. That is why the delegation of the Byelorussia,p SSR will vote for the inclusion of these amendments in the draft resolution submitted by the Third Committee. If these amendments are not adopted by the Ash The jir$t paragraph wdSadopted by 51 votes to none, with 6 abstentions. -- 153; The PRESIDENT (translated from French): I now put the second paragraph of section A to the vote. The second paragraph 'was aJopted by 56 'tIotes to 1~ 154. The PRESIDENT (tr(mslated from French): r put section A as a whole to the vote. Section A was adopted by 53 'i/otes to 1} with 5 ab$tentions. Section D was adopted by 30 votes to 9, with 13 abstentions. 160. The PRESIDENT (translated from French) : With regard. to section E, the Soviet Union delegation has submitted an amendment [A/1576, parag,#aph 4] comprising thirteen paragraphs to sub-paragraph (a), as well as an amendment [A/1576, paragraph 5] to subparagraph (b). Does the USSR delegation wish me to put· these paragraphs to the vote separately or as a whole? 161. Mr. MALIK (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) : As a whole. The amendments were rejected by 41 votes to 6, with 6 abstentions. 162. The PRESIDENT (translated from French) : I put section E, as drafted by the Third Committee, to the vote. Section E was adopted by 35 votes to 9, with 7 abstentions.

The USSR delegation has submitted an amendment [A/1576., paragraph 6] to section F. I put that amendment to the vote. The amendment was rejected by 43 votes to 5, with 9 abstentions. 164. The PRESIDENT (translated from French): I put section F, Cl$ drafted by the Third Committee to the vote. Section F ,was adopted by 31 votes to 14, with 9 abstehtions. 167. Mr. NORIEGA (Mexico)' (translated from Spanish) : I propose tJ speak not as Rapporteur, but in order to explain my vote. 168. My delc:gation desir-es that the official record of tbis meeting of the General Assembly should make it absolutely clear that Mexico has 'not been inconsistent in voting in favour of the first amendment of the Soviet Union, which reads: "Recognizing that the implementation of the provisions of the Covenant on Human Rights falls entirely within the domestic jurisdiction of States", and in abstaining from voting on the amendment to section F, which reads: "Considers that articles 19 to 41 of the draft covenant should be deleted, since their inclusion would constitute an attempt at intervention in the domestic affairs of ~tates and an encroachment on their sovereignty". 169. I am sure that all the delegations here present agree that the implementation of the provisions of the international covenant on human rights is a matter which is solely within the domestic jurisdiction of States; indeed, as signatories to the covenant, they assume responsibility for ensuring its implementation in their territories. It is clear that because of that responsibility, the question of the extent to which States desire to co-operate with othe:- signatory States in ensuring the. widest possible observcmce of the rights recognized in the covenant is a question which must be decided by each State individually, as an act of national sovereignty. 170. The PRESIDENT (translated from French) : I shall put draft resolutions I and II as a whole to the vote in succession. Draft resolution I as a whole was adopted by 38 votes to 7, with 12 abstentions. Draft resolution 11 was adopted by 36 votes to 11, with 8 abstentions. 171. The PRESIDENT (translated j'lom French): We shall now go on to vote on draft resolution Ill. 172. The Australian delegation proposes that the words "and interested organizaticr.s" ~hottld be deleted from the last r::n'agraph of the draft resolution. The beginning of th\'~ last paragraph of draft r~solution III, thus amell.J.r:d, would read: "Invites all States to re" port annually.·. . ".