Site navigation

Change font size: SmallerLargerReload

About the Australian Human Rights Commission navigation

Introducing human rights law

Speech by Chris Sidoti, Human Rights Commissioner, Hanoi, Vietnam, 2 May, 1997

Introduction

International law deals with many matters of importance to everyday life: access to the water of rivers for navigation, irrigation and drinking; transport by sea and air; environmental protection; the arrest and extradition of those accused or convicted of crimes. International law provides protection in international life and locally.

Human rights constitute a body of law, part of international law that, to a greater or lesser extent, is reflected in the domestic law of individual countries. This body of law is a set of legal principles and rules just like any other body of law. It creates entitlements and obligations for states and individuals.

The origins of human rights law

The origins of human rights law can be traced back to ethical and philosophical positions thousands of years old, found in cultures of great difference and diversity. The legal origins lie in significant legal developments over the course of a thousand years and in many countries.

For Australian law we find aspects of human rights in the law we inherited from England. The Magna Carta of 1215 is primarily about the rights of barons, particularly about the rights of barons against the king. By sheer coincidence it also dealt a little with the rights of ordinary people. The Bill of Rights of 1688 is primarily about the rights of one house of the British Parliament, the House of Commons. Like the Magna Carta it is an accommodation a contract between the sovereign and a house of parliament. Again, it contains a little bit about individual rights but not very much. Nonetheless these two foundations of English law are rightly seen as significant advancements in human rights because they deal with some limited rights of particular individuals against the sovereign.

A much fuller expression of human rights is not found in British law but first in the law arising from the French Revolution, the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen of 1789 and second, shortly after that, in the amendments to the United States Constitution during the 1790s. In these two documents we find the first expression in law of human rights as rights that are universal in their application to all citizens and not just to the aristocracy or members of parliament.

Significantly the most important advances in law arose not from domestic experience of individual states but from international experiences, two particular international traumas.

The first trauma was World War I. The trench warfare in western Europe and the gassings provoked a desire among nations to regulate what was permissible and what impermissible in warfare. Major international conferences after the War led to the development of international humanitarian law and to more prescriptive laws governing the conduct of war. New treaties set out in particular what one combatant could do to another combatant and what they could not do. These developments, although very important, were limited to international warfare.

The trauma of World War II, most particularly the Holocaust in Europe and the mass murder of civilians in East Asia, resulted in the most rapid development of international human rights law. Indeed what happened in Europe and East Asia during this War generated the enormous and still growing body of international law dealing with human rights.

The basis of human rights law

As human rights law has developed it has become based upon a radical understanding of the human person and of the relationship of the individual to the community. In the Magna Carta and the English Bill of Rights of 1688 rights were granted by the sovereign. Now in both international law and domestic law human rights are not simply created or granted. They are recognized or declared. They exist as inherent in our human dignity. They are not subject to the whims of governments. They are not dependent on what governments might say or what parliaments might do. They are grounded fundamentally in the basic dignity and equality of each human person. The role of governments and parliaments is to protect the rights to which we are each entitled. And that role, of course, is at the core of human rights debate today.

International law recognizes human rights in three principal ways: treaty law, the law generated through the United Nations and customary international law.

Treaties

Treaty obligations

Treaties are binding international agreements. They are not merely expressions of good will or statements of aspiration or intention. A treaty is rather like a contract between states, between the nations that are parties to the treaty.

Becoming a party to a treaty is a legal process. A state might sign an international treaty and later ratify it. Signing a treaty means that the state expresses an intention to accept in the future all the obligations arising under the treaty and in the meantime refrains from doing anything inconsistent with these anticipated obligations. However, the state is not immediately bound by the treaty. Ratifying a treaty means the state becomes a party to the treaty, one of the contracting states, and it is bound by the treaty's obligations.

(If you want to be really technical, a state can also accede to a treaty. Accession replaces the two-stage process of signing and ratifying a treaty that is already in effect. A state can accede to the treaty and is immediately bound by it. Signature, ratification and accession have different meanings and consequences but they are often used incorrectly.)

International treaties impose binding obligations on states that are parties to them. States undertake to do certain things. They accept responsibilities towards each other, mutual obligations. Because a treaty is a contract, one party to the contract can call other parties to the contract to account for their actions.

The United Nations Charter

The first framework for international human rights treaty law is found in the United Nations Charter itself. The Charter is like the constitution of the United Nations. In a number of different articles it provides that the United Nations' role is to encourage and promote respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It says that the United Nations should not impose any restrictions on the eligibility of people to participate in the international community. It gives the General Assembly of the UN responsibilities, functions and powers including assisting the realization of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all. It describes the purpose of the UN as universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms.

Article 1 defines one of the UN's objectives to be

"... promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion".

Article 8 states that

"the United Nations shall place no restrictions on the eligibility of men and women to participate in any capacity and under conditions of equality in its principal and subsidiary organs. . . ".

Article 13 states that the responsibilities, functions and powers of the General Assembly shall include

"assisting in the realisation of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all. . . "

Article 55 describes the purposes of the UN in international cooperation including

"universal respect for, and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without discrimination as to race, sex, language, or religion".

So through this most central and fundamental of international agreements, the United Nations Charter, nations that become members of the UN commit themselves to the UN framework of human rights.

Human rights treaties

Within that framework there are a number of different types of human rights treaties. First are two foundational treaties that form two of the three elements of the International Bill of Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Civil and political rights are principally the rights commonly known as civil liberties: the rights to take part in the political process, to vote and to demonstrate; the right to privacy; the right to marry and found a family; the rights to due process within the courts and fair trial; the right to be presumed innocent until and unless found guilty; the right not to be discriminated against; freedom of expression and of the media; freedom of religion and belief. Economic, social and cultural rights include the right to work; the right to an education; the right to health care; the right to a decent standard of living and to social security; the right to maintain one's own culture and to be involved in cultural life and activity; the right to respect for and maintenance of language; the right to be a social participant in the community.

One of the great and continuing tragedies of international human rights law is that there are two separate covenants, one dealing with civil and political rights and one dealing with economic, social and cultural rights. The development of two international covenants is a product of the Cold War. Although the Cold War is long gone and almost forgotten its legacy in international human rights law is the division between the two categories of rights. The covenants were drafted in the 1950s and 1960s. The United States and the Western Bloc were strong supporters of defending civil and political rights but they were not very keen on economic, social and cultural rights. The Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc thought economic, social and cultural rights wonderful but preferred to ignore civil and political rights. The drafting process began with the objective of having one treaty but it split, with each bloc promoting the treaty of particular interest to it. Both were approved by the General Assembly in 1966, after almost 20 years of negotiation. States were asked to become parties to both. But the early signing and ratifications reflected very much the Cold War division. To Australia's credit it was one of the first Western countries to be a party to both of those international covenants. And to Vietnam's credit it was one of the first socialist countries to be a party to both.

In addition to these two foundational documents there are human rights treaties that deal with the rights of specific groups dealing for example with racial discrimination, discrimination against women, the rights of the child. There are also treaties that deal with specific issues: torture, apartheid, genocide. Finally, there are human rights treaties that deal with particular regions: the European Convention on Human Rights, the African Charter of Human and Peoples' Rights and the American Human Rights Convention. There is no regional human rights treaty or arrangement in our part of the world, the Asia-Pacific region.

The basic universal treaties have now received enormously wide ratifications by the nations of the world. This indicates the extent to which these rights are recognized and respected, at least on paper. Ratifications and signatures at 30 June 1996 were:

Monitoring compliance

One of the difficulties in international law is how to secure compliance by states with their obligations. There is no international police force that chases after recalcitrant states. The best that can be done at this stage is to ensure that the treaties contain mechanisms for accountability and supervision of state compliance. The human rights treaties have these.

First, each human rights treaty provides that states parties must report periodically to a monitoring committee established by the treaty on how it is observing the treaty. The members of the treaty committee are elected by the states that are parties to the treaty. They are usually individuals eminent in the area covered by the treaty. They are elected in their own right, not as representatives of their nation, although it goes without saying that politics plays an important part in the electoral process. Australia is extraordinarily honoured in having an Australian on each of the two most important human rights committees, Professor Philip Alston on the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and Justice Elizabeth Evatt on the Human Rights Committee that handles civil and political rights.

Under each human rights treaty a state must report every specified number of years to the treaty committee. The committee receives the report and examines the representatives of the state in person over a day or two. In these examinations the committee normally relies a great deal on the knowledge of its members and information from non-government organizations. It has no independent investigative arm and therefore requires this kind of assistance to be able to cross-examine the state before it. Certainly the committee cannot and does not simply rely upon what the state says about its own record.

This process of reporting and examination can be quite a challenging exercise. Many countries are very active during the six months before their cross-examination trying to address issues where they fear criticism. There have been many instances where countries have changed their laws at the time of their examination to avoid criticism by the treaty committee. But, of course, other countries are quite prepared to go before a committee and ignore the views of the committee members and indeed of the rest of the world. Nonetheless this system of reporting and monitoring is one mechanism of accountability.

Some of the treaties provide a second mechanism for compliance. Two treaties (the ICCPR and the CAT) provide that states can make declarations under the treaty to accept the jurisdiction of the treaty committee to receive and determine complaints of violation of the treaty. States that have made a declaration can lodge with the treaty committee a complaint against the activities of another state that has made a declaration. Australia has made declarations under both treaties. It can now lodge a complaint against another country that has made the declaration and can have complaints lodged against it. On 30 June 1996, 42 countries had made declarations under the ICCPR and 35 countries under CAT. Vietnam has not made a declaration under the ICCPR and is not a party to CAT.

Three treaties (the ICCPR, in its First Optional Protocol, CERD and CAT) provide a third mechanism for compliance. They enable individuals to complain to the treaty committee against their own countries for violations of human rights. Again, this is an optional extra. States do not have to accept this additional responsibility but many do. Australia now has a perfect record. It has made the necessary commitment under each of the treaties where the mechanism is provided. As a result an Australian citizen, Nick Toonen, was able to complain to the UN Human Rights Committee about the Tasmanian laws that penalise male homosexual activity. That was possible only because Australia agreed to accept the jurisdiction of that committee to hear complaints of violations of Australia's obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Nick Toonen lodged his complaint the day Australia's declaration became effective. The committee sought submissions from Australia and issued its opinion on the complaint. It found that the Tasmanian law was contrary to Australia's human rights obligations under the Covenant. The Australian Parliament changed the law in response to the Committee's finding. On 30 June 1996, 89 countries were party to the First Optional Protocol, and 34 countries had made declarations under CAT and 20 countries had made declarations under CERD.

Law generated through the United Nations

The second source of international human rights law is law generated by the United Nations system. The UN approves a large number of declarations and other statements that concern human rights. These statements are not treaties and so they do not have parties to them, they are not signed or ratified and their legal effect is more uncertain. They may not, for example, bind states and they have no mechanisms for monitoring observance. However, as they are products of the UN system they are at least highly influential and there is an argument that compliance is a necessary consequence of UN membership.

The most fundamental document on human rights, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, is a product of the UN system. It is the third and final component of the International Bill of Rights. It is not a treaty. It was adopted in 1948 by way of a declaration of the UN General Assembly. It includes within itself civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights. It preceded (just) the Cold War conflicts that led later to the division of rights in the two Covenants, as I have described. Fortunately, to counter the tragedy of this division in the Covenants, the Universal Declaration itself provides a clear statement of the indivisibility of rights.

Since 1948 and the Universal Declaration there have been many other declarations on human rights passed by the General Assembly. There are declarations dealing with the rights of people with disabilities, people with intellectual disabilities, ethnic and cultural minorities and migrant workers, with the right to development, with violence against women and others. They are declarations of the General Assembly, normally passed by consensus after years of negotiation.

There are also UN statements of lesser status, called principles or guidelines or rules. In recent years the UN Commission on Human Rights and the General Assembly have passed principles dealing with the rights of the mentally ill and of older persons. There are also rules providing standards for the treatment of prisoners and others in detention and for juvenile justice.

Finally there are resolutions of the Security Council and the General Assembly, of the UN Commission on Human Rights and of other UN organs on particular human rights cases.

Customary international law

The third source of human rights law is customary international law. It is not set down in any particular documents or codes of rules. It exists and develops as identified and accepted by international lawyers and tribunals from time to time. Customary international law is associated with state practice. A rule is identified on the basis that states act that way and do so out of a sense of obligation. From the accepted behaviour of states towards each other tribunals and international forums can deduce a binding rule of customary international law. This source of international law has long been accepted. The law against piracy, for example, is very ancient customary international law. Customary international law now includes human rights.

I have described the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a foundational document. But it is not a binding treaty and when adopted it did not create binding obligations. There is much debate about whether the Declaration can now be considered part of customary international law whether the Declaration has passed beyond being simply an expression of opinion from the General Assembly to being binding on all nations. My view is that it has, in its entirety, that the Universal Declaration is now binding on all the nations of the world.

The Universal Declaration was one of the earliest pronouncements of the General Assembly. It was made within the context of the UN Charter itself, which includes a commitment from members of the UN to promote human rights. It describes itself as a 'common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations'. That is, the Declaration itself proclaims its universality. It is described elsewhere in similar terms. In the Teheran Proclamation of the First World Conference on Human Rights in 1968 and the Vienna Declaration of the Second World Conference on Human Rights in 1993 the Universal Declaration was said to be a commitment of all nations with which they are obliged to comply. Article 2 of the Tehran Proclamation, made by 85 nations, says

"The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states a common understanding of the peoples of the world concerning the inalienable and inviolable rights of all members of the human family and constitutes an obligation for the members of the international community.

The Vienna Declaration, made by 176 nations, emphasizes again that the Universal Declaration 'constitutes a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations'. The Vienna Declaration, in Article 1, asserts

"The World Conference on Human Rights reaffirms the solemn commitment of all States to fulfil their obligations to promote universal respect for, and observance and protection of, all human rights and fundamental freedoms for all in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, other instruments relating to human rights, and international law. The universal nature of these rights and freedoms is beyond question.

In this framework, enhancement of international cooperation in the field of human rights is essential for the full achievement of the purposes of the United Nations.

Human rights and fundamental freedoms are the birthright of all human beings; their protection and promotion is the first responsibility of Governments."

I find no doubt that the Universal Declaration is now international law that binds all nations whether or not they have signed any or all of the human rights treaties.

Let me explain the significance of this. Although most nations have ratified most human rights treaties, many have not. For states parties discussing human rights, there is a common basis for the discussions, the treaties the states have signed. It is more difficult working with those that are outside the human rights treaty system. However if the Universal Declaration has become part of customary international law binding all nations it is the basis of mutual obligations between states. Nations can be held accountable for their compliance or non-compliance with it. Because the Universal Declaration is now binding customary international law nations can properly expect each other to comply with it. When discussing a human rights issue or an individual human rights case with a country that has not ratified the major treaties, we can still, say, "You are a member of the international community and a member of the United Nations. You have to comply with the provisions of this Declaration. Please explain why you are in violation of the Declaration in the way you are treating a particular citizen or particular citizens."

I consider it arguable that many others of these treaties, principles and declarations, or at least some of their provisions, have also passed into binding customary international law. There are strong arguments that the two foundational covenants on civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights are also now part of customary law but that is more controversial and many would disagree. But slowly, certainly, the human rights obligations expressed in international instruments are finding their way into the common law of nations and nations are bound to comply with them. We can quite validly complain when they do not.

Issues in human rights law

There are four significant issues in international debates about human rights law:

I propose to deal with each in turn.

Universality

The universality of human rights is contested by some states. This argument is often associated with statements about cultural relativism, that is, that human rights law is Western derived and appropriate only in a European cultural context and that it is contrary to Asian values and cultures.

One part of this position is that the Universal Declaration was drafted and adopted when there were only 56 members in the United Nations. Now there are almost 200 member states. But those 56 members in 1948 represented many cultural traditions, excepting notably African cultures. They adopted the Declaration by 48 votes to nil, with 8 abstentions. The committee that drafted the Declaration had nine members including the Soviet Union, China, Chile and Lebanon.

The argument for universality, however does not depend on the composition of the UN in 1948. We can point also to the fact that another 150 nations have joined the UN since, aware of the centrality of the Universal Declaration within the UN system. We can point to the fact that the majority of the world's nations, from all continents and all political, economic, social and cultural systems and traditions, have ratified human rights treaties. And we can point to regular re-affirmation of the universality of human rights. Let me quote again Article 1 of the Vienna Declaration made by 176 nations.

"The World Conference on Human Rights reaffirms the solemn commitment of all States to fulfil their obligations to promote universal respect for, and observance and protection of, all human rights and fundamental freedoms for all in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, Other instruments relating to human rights, and international law. The universal nature of these rights and freedoms is beyond question.

In this framework, enhancement of international cooperation in the field of human rights is essential for the full achievement of the purposes of the United Nations.

Human rights and fundamental freedoms are the birthright of all human beings; their protection and promotion is the first responsibility of Governments."

Article 5 of the Vienna Declaration is even more explicit.

"All human rights are universal, indivisible and interdependent and interrelated. The international community must treat human rights globally in a fair and equal manner, on the same footing, and with the same emphasis. While the significance of national and regional particularities and various historical, cultural and religious backgrounds must be borne in mind, it is the duty of States, regardless of their political, economic and cultural systems, to promote and protect all human rights and fundamental freedoms."

The second argument about universality is that human rights can be interpreted and applied in different ways in different regions and nations. This view is evident in statements to the Vienna World Conference by a number of countries and in statements since then, especially by some prominent leaders from our region.

Certainly there is room for variation in the measures taken to protect human rights. Article 2 in both the International Covenants recognises this. Article 2 obliges states 'to adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to the rights recognised....'

However, differences in measures of protection are not differences in interpretation and application. There can no longer be any doubt about the universality of human rights. They transcend political, economic, cultural, religious and ideological divisions. They stand as a common statement of what it means to be human.

Indivisibility

The second argument is about indivisibility. Some states give priority to some rights over other rights or even accept some categories of human rights while rejecting other categories. This approach is reflected, as I have said, in the adoption of two covenants, one on civil and political rights and one on economic, social and cultural rights.

That division continues in a few cases. The United States, for example, has ratified the ICCPR but not the ICESCR. And China has clearly argued for a hierarchy of human rights. Its White Paper on Human Rights says:

"it is a simple truth that, for any country or nation, the right to subsistence is the most important of all human rights, without which all other rights are out of the question. "

And China told the Vienna World Conference on Human Rights:

"For the vast rights of developing countries, to respect and protect human rights is first and foremost to ensure the full realisation of the rights to subsistence and development. The argument that human rights is the precondition for development is unfounded. When poverty and lack of adequate food and clothing are commonplace and people's basic needs are not guaranteed, priority should be given to economic development. Otherwise, human rights are completely out of the question."

But this argument too is now closed.

The Teheran Proclamation in 1968 said, in Article 13,

"Since human rights and fundamental freedoms are indivisible, the full realisation of civil and political rights without the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights is impossible. The achievement of lasting progress in the implementation of human rights is dependent upon sound and effective national and international policies of economic and social development."

The Vienna Declaration in 1993 said in Article 5,

"All human rights are universal, indivisible and interdependent and interrelated. The international community must treat human rights globally in a fair and equal manner, on the same footing, and with the same emphasis. While the significance of national and regional particularities and various historical, cultural and religious backgrounds must be borne in mind, it is the duty of States, regardless of their political, economic and cultural systems, to promote and protect all human rights and fundamental freedoms"

Finally, the great majority of the world's nations, including Vietnam and Australia, have ratified both the ICCPR and the ICESCR.

Virtually all nations now accept human rights law as indivisible and equally binding on nations.

National sovereignty

The third issue concerns the relationship between human rights law and national sovereignty.

Countries that have had to struggle for their independence, especially from colonial domination, are understandably and properly committed to protecting their national sovereignty. Many older independent states are equally protective of their sovereignty. In both cases human rights law can at times seem like an unjustified intrusion by the international community on national sovereignty.

Clearly there can be tension between the two. This is even evident in the Vienna Declaration itself. The World Conference says

"the promotion and protection of human rights is a matter of priority for the international community."

Article 4 says unequivocally of the Vienna Declaration:

"The promotion and protection of all human rights and fundamental freedoms must be considered as a priority objective of the United Nations in accordance with its purposes and principles, in particular the purpose of international cooperation. In the framework of these purposes and principles, the promotion and protection of all human rights is a legitimate concern of the international community. The organs and specialised agencies related to human rights should therefore further enhance the coordination of their activities based on the consistent and objective application of international human rights instruments."

Article 2 of the Vienna Declaration deals with the right to self-determination and the difficulty in accommodating that right alongside national sovereignty.

There are two points to be made here, however. First, accepting human rights treaties is not inconsistent with sovereignty but an exercise of sovereignty. States decide to ratify treaties, to become part of the UN, to accept the jurisdiction of treaty monitoring committees and to implement treaties in domestic law. Far from being in conflict with sovereignty these steps are all exercises of sovereignty. They can even involve sovereign acts to limit the scope of sovereignty.

Second, human rights are inherent and inalienable. They exist as entitlements regardless of what states and governments may think or want. We must acknowledge, therefore, that they do place limits on the legitimate exercise of power by the states. There are many other limits on the exercise of state power including weather, natural resources and the international economy. At least their limit is voluntarily accepted, not imposed. And it is directed towards promoting and protecting human dignity, rather than constraining or violating it.

The state, the group and individual

The final issue concerns the relationship between the state, the group and the individual. Much of human rights law asserts and protects the right of the individual against the state. But it is wrong to see human rights only as relating to individual rights. The individual is always seen as a member of a community. The state, which should be the democratic expression of the will of the community, is seen as the guarantor and protector of the rights of the individuals who constitute the community.

Human rights law recognises many group rights. Most notable is the right to self-determination itself, expressed in Article 1 of both Covenants. The ICESCR deals with many group rights, including the cultural and language rights of minorities. The Declaration on the Right to Development is entirely devoted to a collective right. The Vienna Declaration reiterated this right and dealt as well with human rights and the external debt burden of many countries.

The regional treaty for Africa, the African Charter of Human and People's Rights, confronted this issue directly. In a clear statement that is fully consistent with universal human rights standards, the Charter expresses the relationships between the individual, the group and the state in terms of individual rights and people's rights.

The key to this issue is the right of the individual to participate fully in the life of the community. Article 8 of the Vienna Declaration expresses this.

"Democracy, development and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms are interdependent and mutually reinforcing. Democracy is based on the freely expressed will of the people to determine their own political, economic, social and cultural systems and their full participation in all aspects of their lives. In the context of the above, the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms at the national and international level should be universal and conducted without conditions attached. The international community should support the strengthening and promotion of democracy, development and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms in the entire world."

Non-government organisations are a principal means of participation, particularly for the promotion of human rights. Indeed the Vienna Declaration in Article 38 saw them as having collective rights.

"Non-governmental organisations and their members genuinely involved in the field of human rights should enjoy the rights and freedoms recognised in the universal declaration of human rights and the protection of the national law."

It asserted their significant role in human rights protection.

"The World Conference on Human Rights recognises the important role of nongovernmental organisations in the promotion of all human rights and in humanitarian activities at notional, regional and international levels. The World Conference on Human Rights appreciates their contribution to increasing public awareness of human rights issues, to the conduct of education, training and research in this field, and to the promotion and protection of all human rights and fundamental freedoms. While recognising that the primary responsibility foe standard setting lies with States, the conference also appreciates the contribution of non-governmental organisations to this process."

The future

The central position human rights occupy in international law and international relations is recent. We often forget that and expect too much. It took centuries for nations to develop their own criminal laws and to establish effective police services to ensure the safety of their citizens. Indeed many nations are still struggling to do so. International human rights law is barely 50 years old. The marvel to me is not that its effectiveness remains so limited but that it is as effective as it is. In 50 years the nations of the world have in fact developed a comprehensive body of international law that recognizes the fundamental equality, dignity and rights of each human person. They have also established in the United Nations system the rudiments of an international legal process through which breaches of rights can be examined and, at times, action taken to address them. Clearly there is still much to do but let us not forget that much has already been accomplished.

The future, I am sure, will see further development of these initiatives. Already the debate has changed from one which focuses on whether a country has any right to raise these issues to one that sees states being required to give an account of themselves and their actions to the international community. Already there are treaty monitoring processes. These will be improved. Already there are complaints procedures. These will become more effective. Already there are international courts to try some types of crimes. These can be and will be extended.

We should be impatient, however. People should not have to wait centuries for the development of an effective international system to protect human rights and ensure justice. Human rights law is now in good shape. The next challenge is to develop effective mechanisms for its implementation and enforcement.

Last updated 1 December 2001