United States. Dept. of State. Office of Public Co.

Department of State bulletin (Volume v. 56, Jan- Mar 1967) online

. (page 24 of 90)
Online LibraryUnited States. Dept. of State. Office of Public CoDepartment of State bulletin (Volume v. 56, Jan- Mar 1967) → online text (page 24 of 90)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook

' For background, see Bulletin of Dec. 26, 1966,
p. 965.

cussions. The chief product of the com-
mittee's work is a body of proposed regula-
tions on a new unified method of fire
protection, detection, and extinction in
passenger ships to be built in future.

The proposed new method permits two
vai'iants for fire protection, detection, and
extinction in the accommodation and service
spaces of future passenger ships. These
variants may be described broadly as follows:

(a) Within the main zone fire-resist-
ing divisions, such spaces will be subdivided
by incombustible fire-retarding divisions, and
an automatic fire detection and fire alarm
system will be provided.

(b) Within the main zone fire-resist-
ing divisions, such spaces will be subdivided
by incombustible divisions which may have
a lesser degree of fire integrity than is
required for variant (a) above, and an auto-
matic sprinkler and fire detection and fire
alarm system will be provided.

The committee agreed that each of these
variants would provide an equal standard of
fire safety in passenger ships of the future.

The next stage will be consideration of
these proposals by IMCO's Maritime Safety
Committee in February 1967. Amendments
adopted by the Committee would receive final
consideration by the IMCO Assembly in
October 1967.

The United States delegation was headed
by Comdr. Robert I. Price, U.S. Coast

Present Travel Restrictions
Extended Tlirough IVIarch 15

Press release 301 dated December 23

The State Department published in the
Federal Register dated December 16 an
amendment to the passport regulations ex-
tending all present area restrictions until
March 15, 1967, unless modified sooner.

The United States maintains passport
restrictions on travel by American citizens
to five areas: Albania, Cuba, and the



Communist-controlled areas of Korea, China,
and Viet-Nam.

American passports are not valid for
travel to or through these areas. However,
they may be specially validated by the De-
pai'tment of State if the pros])ective traveler
shows that the purpose of his trip justifies
exception to tlie travel ban. The conditions
for such approval are set forth in the new
passport regulations published on October
20, 1966.'

The State Department can apply a travel
ban to a given country in only three situa-
tions: when that country is at war with the
United States, when amied hostilities are in
progress there, or when travel must be re-
stricted in the national interest because it
would seriously impair the conduct of U.S.
foreign affairs.

In years past the State Department
gi-anted only a few excei^tions to its travel
restrictions. Such exceptions as were made
generally were available only to applicants
in a limited number of occupations and pro-
fessions or for travel required for compelling
humanitarian reasons.

Gradually the policies have been revised
and the eligible categories broadened.

Now persons in certain professional and
occupational categories are entitled to special
validation of their passports when the pur-
pose of their travel is directly related to their
professional responsibilities. Included here
are newsmen, doctors and scientists in public
health, scholars with postgraduate degrees,
and American Red Cross representatives.

A second broad "discretionary" category
exists. At his discretion, and judging each
case individually on its merits, the Secretary
of State may make exceptions to the travel
restrictions for persons in cultural, athletic,
commercial, educational, professional, or
other fields or in public affairs, as well as
for persons who will be writing or reporting
for ])ublic media about their travels although
they are not professional reporters.

In these discretionary categories the State

Department will take several factors into
consideration in making its decision. One is
the potential benefit to the United States of
the pi-oposed visit, another the applicant's
need to make the visit, and a third the cur-
rent situation with regard to the area to be

Similar categories and considerations are
applied to resident aliens applying for per-
mission to travel to a restricted area under
22 CFR 46.5(e).

Violation of the travel restrictions — that
is, traveling- to one of the restricted areas
without proper validation or without pass-
port — is grounds for the State Department
to revoke or cancel the violator's passport.
Such infraction may also be punishable un-
der Federal law (8 U.S.C. 1185 and/or 18
U.S.C. 1544).

No further passport will be issued to the
violator until the Secretary of State receives
formal assurance and is satisfied that the
person will not again violate travel restric-

The Department's ix)wer to regulate the
passport field goes back to early days of our
nation and has been i-eflected in congres-
sional legislation for more than a century.

The restrictions help to assure that ordi-
nary American citizens will not become in-
nocent victims of the hostile policies of for-
eign powers in areas where our Government
can offer little protection.

These measures may also have important
effects in promoting the U.S. national in-
terest and achieving our foreign policy goals.
For example, in accordance with the resolu-
tions of the Organization of American
States and the judgment of that body that
the Communist regime in Cuba is openly
committed to subversion in the hemisphere,
U.S. policy toward Cuba has been one of
political, economic, and social isolation. Our
travel restrictions to this area have been
an important element in this policy.

Bulletin of Nov. 7, 1966, p. 723.

JANUARY 16, 1967



U.N. Adopts International Covenants on Human Rights

On December 16 the United Nations Gen-
eral Assembly unanimously adopted the
International Covenant on Economic, Social
and Cultural Rights and the Interyiational
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights with
an optional protocol. Following is a state-
ment made in Committee III (Social,
Humanitarian and Cultural) by U.S. Alter-
nate Representative Patricia R. Harris on
December 12, together with the texts of the
hrcman rights covenants.


U.S. delegation press release 6008

The United States delegation has voted in
favor of the international covenants on
human rights because we beheve that after
20 years of consideration, the United Nations
must, in 1966, move forward in promulgating
a broadly acceptable codification of human

The covenants represent the culmination of
almost 20 years of work on what was de-
signed to be an international bill of rights.
The historical importance of the first step in
that process — the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights ' — is well known. Concluding
steps have been taken by our committee

It is appropriate that preparation of the
covenants has been concluded at the time
when we are about to mark the 18th anni-
versary of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights.

However, while the Universal Declaration

is an authoritative statement of principle, it
is not a binding legal agreement. The inter-
national covenants on himian rights testify to
our efforts to translate the principles set
forth in the Universal Declaration into rights
recognized in law. The importance of such
efforts cannot be overemphasized if we are to
fulfill the hope voiced by Eleanor Roosevelt
when she said that the Universal Declaration
might well become the "international Magna
Carta of all mankind." ^

Nonetheless, the United States delegation
has, from the beginning of our deliberations
on these covenants, voiced doubts about the
formulation of certain ideas, which in their
final form continue to cause us grave con-
cern. I would like to explain our votes and set
forth our understanding of various provisions
in the covenants.

Throughout, the Covenant on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights speaks of "rights"
that in fact are objectives which no govern-
ment, no matter what its human and financial
resources, could implement immediately upon
assuming the obligation to insure them. This
is recognized in ai-ticle 2, paragraph 1, which
contains qualifying language to the effect
that each state party "undertakes to take
steps . . . with a view to achieving progres-
sively the full realization of the rights recog-
nized in the present Covenant by all
appropriate means. . . ."

Article 2, paragraph 1, also speaks of an
undertaking by states parties "to take steps,
individually and through international assist-
ance and co-operation especially economic

' For text, see Bulletin of Dec. 19, 1948, p. 752.

■ Ibid., p. 751.



and technical, to the maximum of its avail-
able resources. . . ." My Government is
liledged to international economic and social
cooperation under the Charter of the United
Nations, and it vigorously suppoi-ts efforts to
cooperate with other nations, particularly
with the developing nations. Its record in ex-
tending assistance through international co-
operation speaks for itself. Article 2, para-
graph 1, however, might be construed by
some to impose a foiTnal legal obligation upon
the states jiarties to give economic, technical,
or other assistance. We must reject such an
interpretation. In our view, it is not appro-
])riate to specify in a covenant on human
rights and in such detail the forms which
international cooperation might take.

"Double Standard" Unacceptable

The most discriminatory provision in the
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights is article 2, paragraph 3, which was
adopted by this committee by a vote of 41 in
favor, 38 against, and 21 abstentions. Para-
graph 3 provides that developing countries
may determine the extent to which they
would guarantee the economic rights recog-
nized in the covenant to nonnationals.

The covenant should not contain a pro-
vision such as this, which authorizes in vir-
tually unqualified terms discriminatory
treatment of nonnationals by a certain group
of states parties. Paragraph 3 creates a
vague double standard between developing
and developed countries and is difficult to
reconcile with the spirit of universality of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The
paragraph is also inconsistent with accepted
principles of international law. It runs coun-
ter to the undertaking of states parties in
paragraph 2 of the same article "to guarantee
that the rights enunciated in the present
Covenant will be exercised without dis-
crimination of any kind. . . ."

Furthermore, paragraph 3 seems to imply
that developed countries may not distinguish
between their own nationals and aliens,
whereas there is a generally accepted inter-
national practice to make certain distinctions

between nationals and aliens, with due i-e-
gard to international law.

If such a provision was to be included in
the covenant, it should have recognized that
all states have the right to make the deter-
mination, not merely "developing countries"
— a term, incidentally, not yet defined in the
covenant — and should have reflected the re-
quirement that states parties, in making such
a determination, have due regard to inter-
national law.

Madam Chairman, I have already men-
tioned the narrow vote by which paragraph
3 of article 2 was adopted. My delegation
voted against the paragraph in this commit-
tee, and we still find it unacceptable.

My delegation wishes also to point out that
we have a continuing concern about article
25 of the Covenant on Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights, which is repeated as article
47 of the Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights. My Government fully supports the
principle expressed therein, namely, that
peiTnanent sovereignty over natural wealth
and resources is an inherent right of all
peoples and an essential element of the
sovereign equality of states. However, article
1, paragraph 2, of the covenant provides the
effective substantive formulation on this
question, and it cannot be impaired by article
25, as many other delegations have said, in-
cluding some of the sponsors of article 25.
In addition, this repetition of the principle
of article 1, paragraph 2, has no valid place
among the implementation clauses.

Madam Chairman, we joined other dele-
gations in voting in favor of the civil and
political covenant and the optional protocol
annexed thereto. This vital document defines
civil and political rights and obligations
which states undertake to respect and insure
upon becoming parties to the covenant. Its
implementation machinery provides for in-
suring respect for the covenant in three ways:
states parties are to submit reports for con-
sideration by the Human Rights Committee
established under the covenant; a conciliation
mechanism is available to assist in settling
differences among states parties regarding
respect for the covenant, provided that the

JANUARY 16, 1967


states parties concerned have made a declara-
tion accepting the procedure; and the optional
protocol enables a state paity to agree that
individuals subject to its jurisdiction may
submit communications to the Human Rights
Committee established by the covenant re-
garding alleged violations by that state of the
rights set forth in the covenant.

My delegation voted for the optional proto-
col because we think that those states parties
to the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
which are prepared to do so should have the
opportunity to accept the right of individual
petition beyond their national frontiers.

Freedom of Speech in U.S.

We applaud many of the provisions of the
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, par-
ticularly the confii-mation of the right to lib-
erty and security of person, the right to a free
and fair trial, and freedom of association.

On the other hand, article 20 of that
covenant provides for the prohibition by law
of "any propaganda for war" and "any advo-
cacy of national, racial, or religious hatred
that constitutes incitement to discrimination,
hostility or violence."

One of the principles embodied in the Uni-
versal Declaration of Human Rights and in
the covenant is freedom of speech. It is the
view of the United States that article 20 of
the covenant does not obligate a state to take
any action that would i)rohibit its citizens
from freely and fully expressing their views
on any subject, no matter how obnoxious they
may be or whether they are in accord with
government policy or not. The United States
Supreme Court has emphasized the distinc-
tion between "advocacy of abstract doctrine
and advocacy directed at promoting unlawi'ul
action." In our view, therefore, a state should
not act under article 20 unless the dissemina-
tion of the obnoxious ideas mentioned therein
is accompanied by, or threatens imminently
to promote, illegal acts. Under our law, there
must be an imminent danger of illegal action
before speech becomes unlaud'ul. We have
similar problems with articles 19 and 21,
which fall below the standards established by

our Constitution and the Universal Declara-
tion of Human Rights.

Article 5, common to both covenants, ex-
pressly provides that there shall be no re-
striction upon or derogation from any of the
fundamental human rights recognized or
existing in any state on the pretext that the
covenant does not recognize such rights or
that it recognizes them to a lesser extent. My
Government is particularly pleased with the
inclusion of these provisions, since the consti-
tutional protection of human rights in the
United States is truly extensive and compre-
hensive, in large measure l>ecause of the con-
stant vigilance of our citizens. In respect of
many rights guaranteed in the covenant, the
standard established by law in the United
States is higher than that in the covenant,
and no action under this covenant could re-
strict the enjoyment of any right enjoyed in
the United States.

The United States understands that none
of the three instruments which the committee
has adopted would impose an obligation on
any state party to take measures not fully
consistent with its own constitutional guaran-
tees or with established constitutional
framework of federal-state relationships.

To summarize the position of my delega-
tion, I would say simply that, in each instance
where we question these instruments, our
concern is that they do not go far enough in
protecting the rights of all individuals. Our
fear is that some may see opportunities for
and support of discriminatory action detri-
mental to the achievement of the very rights
guaranteed in the covenants.

Madam Chairman, there can be no doubt,
whatever may be the concern which any of
us may express about particular portions of
these instruments, that we are participating
in an historic moment. The adoption of these
covenants and the protocol by this committee
will stand as a watershed of human rights

My delegation is convinced that we face a
new day in which no government and no
people can be free of a sense of obligation to
meet the demands of the standards of human
freedom enumerated in these covenants. The



United States has from its inception imposed
upon itself the highest standards, and we
welcome the opportunity both to test and to
enhance that standard in the context of the
promulgation of the human rights covenants.
Although none of our votes, including that
of my delegation, carries any implication
with regard to signature or ratification of the
covenants, it can safely be said that the com-
pletion of these covenants and, hopefully,
their early entry into force will add a new
dimension to the protection of the rights of


International Covenant on Economic, Social
and Cultural Rights


The States Parties to the present Covenant,

Considering that, in accordance with the principles
proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations,
recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal
and inalienable rights of all members of the human
family is the foundation of freedom, justice and
peace in the world.

Recognizing that these rights derive from the in-
herent dignity of the human person.

Recognizing that, in accordance with the Univer-
sal Declaration of Human Rights, the ideal of free
human beings enjoying freedom from fear and want
can only be achieved if conditions are created
whereby everyone may enjoy his economic, social and
cultural rights, as well as his civil and political

Considering the obligation of States under the
Charter of the United Nations to promote universal
respect for, and observance of, human rights and

Realizing that the individual, having duties to
other individuals and to the community to which he
belongs, is under a responsibility to strive for the
promotion and observance of the rights recognized
in the present Covenant,

Agree upon the following articles:

Part I
Article 1
1. ^11 peoples have the right of self-determination.
By virtue of the right they freely determine their

' U.N. doc. A/RES/2200 (XXI) (Annex) ; adopted
by the General Assembly on Dec. 16.

political status and freely pursue their economic,
social and cultural development.

2. All peoples may, for their own ends, freely dis-
pose of their natural wealth and resources without
prejudice to any obligations arising out of interna-
tional economic co-operation, based upon the princi-
ple of mutual benefit, and international law. In no
case may a people be deprived of its own means of

3. The States Parties to the pre.sent Covenant, in-
cluding those having responsibility for the adminis-
tration of Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories,
shall promote the realization of the right of self-
determination, and shall respect that right, in con-
formity with the provisions of the United Nations

Part II
Article 2

1. Each State Party to the present Covenant un-
dertakes to take steps, individually and through in-
ternational assistance and co-operation especially
economic and technical, to the maximum of its avail-
able resources, with a view to achieving progres-
sively the full realization of the rights recognized in
the present Covenant by all appropriate means,
including particularly the adoption of legislative

2. The States Parties to the present Covenant
undertake to guarantee that the rights enunciated
in the present Covenant will be exercised without
discrimination of any kind as to race, colour, sex,
language, religion, political or other opinion, na-
tional or social origin, property, birth or other sta-

3. Developing countries, with due regard to human
rights and their national economy, may determine
to what extent they would guarantee the economic
rights recognized in the present Covenant to non-

Article 3
The States Parties to the present Covenant under-
take to ensure the equal right of men and women
to the enjoyment of all economic, social and cultural
rights set forth in this Covenant.

Article U
The States Parties to the present Covenant recog-
nize that in the enjoyment of those rights provided
by the State in conformity with the present Cove-
nant, the State may subject such rights only to such
limitations as are determined by law only in so far
as this may be compatible with the nature of these
rights and solely for the purpose of promoting the
general welfare in a democratic society.

Article 5
1. Nothing in the present Covenant may be inter-
preted as implying for any State, group or person,
any right to engage in any activity or to perform

JANUARY 16, 1967


any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights
or freedoms recognized herein, or at their limitation
to a greater extent than is provided for in the pres-
ent Covenant.

2. No restriction upon or derogation from any of
the fundamental human rights recognized or existing
in any country in virtue of law, conventions, regula-
tions or custom shall be admitted on the pretext that
the present Covenant does not recognize such rights
or that it recognizes them to a lesser extent.

Part III

Article G

1. The States Parties to the present Covenant
recognize the right to work, which includes the right
of everyone to the opportunity to gain his living by
work which he freely chooses or accepts, and will
take appropriate steps to safeguard this right.

2. The steps to be taken by a State Party to the
present Covenant to achieve the full realization of
this right shall include technical and vocational guid-
ance and training programmes, policies and tech-
niques to achieve steady economic, social and cul-
tural development and full and productive employ-
ment under conditions safeguarding fundamental
political and economic freedoms to the individual.

Article 7
The States Parties to the present Covenant recog-
nize the right of everyone to the enjoyment of just
and favourable conditions of work, which ensure, in

(a) Remuneration which provides all workers as
a minimum vdth:

(i) Fair wages and equal remuneration for work
of equal value without distinction of any kind, in
particular women being guaranteed conditions of
work not inferior to those enjoyed by men, with
equal pay for equal work ; and

(ii) A decent living for themselves and their
families in accordance with the provisions of the
present Covenant;

(b) Safe and healthy working conditions;

(c) Equal opportunity for everyone to be pro-
moted in his employment to an appropriate higher
level, subject to no considerations other than those
of seniority and competence;

(d) Rest, leisure and reasonable limitation of
working hours and periodic holidays with pay, as
well as remuneration for public holidays.

Article 8
1. The States Parties to the present Covenant
undertake to ensure :

(a) The right of everyone to form trade unions
and join the trade union of his choice subject only
to the rules of the organization concerned, for the
promotion and protection of his economic and social

interests. No restrictions may be placed on the exer-
cise of this right other than those prescribed by law
and which are necessary in a democratic society in
the interests of national security or public order or
for the protection of the rights and freedom of

(b) The right of trade unions to establish na-

Online LibraryUnited States. Dept. of State. Office of Public CoDepartment of State bulletin (Volume v. 56, Jan- Mar 1967) → online text (page 24 of 90)