HUMAN RIGHTS REVISITED: THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS UNDER THE INTERNATIONAL COVENANT O! CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS When you expand the civil rights yiraggle 10 the level of human rights, you can then take the case of the black man in this country before the nations in the United Na world court. But the only level ‘human rights. Civil rights keeps you under his restrictions, under his jurisdiction. Civil rights keeps you in his pocket. . . expand the civil rights struggle 10 the level of\human rights, take it into the United Nations, where our African prothers can throw their weight om our side, where our Latin-American brothers ca thro er weight on our side, and where 809 million Chinamen are siting there waiting to throw their weight|on our side. Malcolm|X! December 10, 1978 marked the thirtieth anniversary] of the adoption of the Universal Declarqtion of Human Rights| by the United Nations? In anticipation of this anniversary the Economic and Social Council and the Genefal Assembly joined in recom- mending a general review of existing United Nations approaches to the promotion and observance of Human rights. ‘This article reviews the development of the Universal tion of Human Rights to dete promise of universal respect for and fundamental freedoms has \d observance of hum: fulfilled by the adoptic versity; Ph.D, 1975, American University, J.D. 1977. i. Matcoum X, Matcoum X Speaks 23 (1966), ar cited in Bilder, Re- Thang Inter. national Human Rights: Some Basic 5. }969 Wis. L. Rev. 171, 183 2.19)(1969). 2. UN, Doc. A/811 (December 10, 1965)| The United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by|a vote of 48 in favor and 0 Eight States abstained — Byelorussian SS.R., Jovakia, Poland, Saudi Arabia, Ukraine SS.R, USSR. Union of South Aftica and Ys 3. United Nations Office of Public Rights. U.N. Doc, OPI/621, at 166 (1978).1980 Human Riowrs Refisrren. 451 International Convention on Civil and| Political Rights.“ The and Political Covenant will also be exdmined, for, as one comrhen- tator remarked, the United Nations human rights instruments have “received much less systematic scholgrly attention than have the ‘comparable endeavours of various regipnal and specialized organi- zations.”* I. Historical PeqsPective A. The Status of the Individual in International Law The Treaty of Westphalia in 1948|ushered in an international order based on the sovereignty and Sqvercign equality of nation- states.© Under this system the individual was not recognized as possessing any rights, while the nation/state retained complete dis- cretion as to the way in which it treated|both its nationals and state- less persons, This Westphalian view of]the individual as having no rights or standing under international|law has, up until recently, dominated jurisprudential thinking,” ‘4. UN. Doc. A/PV. 1496, Provisional. The Cdvenant was unanimously adoptad on December 16, 1966, 106 in favor and 0 against 5. Buergenthal, Zmernational and Regional Human Rights Law and Instinatons: Examples of Their Interaction, 12 TeX. INT'L LJ. 321] 321 (197). Individual inte HuMAN Rigi To INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM (L. Kut NATIONAL LAW AND HUMAN RIGHTS (1950); THE IN Riciers (E. Luard ed, 1967); J, Manirais, THe Rict ‘Anson trans. 1943); HUMAN RIGHTS (A, Melden ed. Concern Wir Human Ricttts (1974); HUMAN TowaL Law (A. Robertson ed. 1968); A. Ronen’ (1972); E. Scrtwetn, HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE I (oF Human Riowrs (P. Vallat ed. 1972), V. VAN STATES, AND WoRLD Comountry (1970). 6. See Lane, Demanding Human Rights: A sta L. Rev. 269 (1978). 7. LL Oppenitn, IireRNaTionat Law: A Trpavise § 292, a 641 (8h ed. H.482 ‘Cauirornia WESTERN Ine The orthodox positivist doctrine tion that only states are subjects| cases in which individuals seem t tional law, the predominant view] enjoyed not by virtue of a right the individual, but by reason of of which the individual is a nati als have no rights under internati they can have no focus standi other international agencies.® NATIONAL LAW JOURNAL of international law. In derive benefits under in Inas been that such benefi fhich international law gi right appertaining to the al law, it seems to follow, c¢ international tribunals Vol 10 been explicit in the affitma- are to tate al. Similarly, if individu- (that and ‘The traditional status of the individual in international law is recognized by Oppenheim. ‘Since the Law of Nations is individual states, and not of solely and exclusively. . . are This means that the Law of Nat conduct of States, and not of human being ... is never di Law? But what is the real position of individuals in International if they are not subjects thereof? they are objects of the Law of N Since the individual can nev tional law, the individual can only tional treaty indirectly, through individual's nation-state. [T]he traditional theory has relation between international can never be subjects of internat cording to that view, the rules of immediate effect, without a pre the municipal law of the State. Traditionally, alien residents accordance with the “minimum only individuals recognized as haj 5.G. Bzenoror, PROTECTION oF HUMAN Ricifrs UNDER Tie Law (1964), eral agreement that a state may assume legal obi international agreement. See Case Concerning) [1928-30] PCJ. Ser. B., No. 15. 8H, LAUTERPACHT, supra note 5, at 68, ‘on the common conse dual human beings, subjects of International jons is a law for internati citizens. . . . An indi ly a subject of Internat The answer can only be {tions.'° Tr be “the subject” of tain rights through an act of “transformation’ aq municipal law. If indivi al rights and duties then| gations towards individuals by Ithe Jurisdiction of the Courts the possibility of any dee (ternational law can aye ace 9. LL. Oprennein, INTERNATIONAL Law: A TREATISE, para. (3, at 2021 (A.D. McNair ed. 1928). 10. Zd para. 290, at 521. U1, HL Lauranpacnr, sypre note 5, at 8