Amnesty International and its Self-Imposed Limited Mandate
| Date | 01 March 1994 |
| Published date | 01 March 1994 |
| Author | Peter R. Baehr |
| DOI | 10.1177/016934419401200102 |
| Subject Matter | Part A: Article |
Part A: Articles
Amnesty International and its Self-Imposed Limited Mandate *
Peter R.
Baehr
**
'Amnesty, whether it likes it or not,
is the single dominantforce in the
entire field. It is the single dominant
force in the entire field, more
representative and more influential than
most
of
the other groups put together. ,1
Abstract
This article deals with the development
of
the self-imposed limited mandate
of
Amnesty
International and the considerations which are taken into account. The organization has
gradually expanded its field
of
attention. It is suggested in this article that, although
expanded, the mandate still remains 'limited' and in line with the principles as envisaged
when the organization was founded in 1961. An important expansion or re-interpretation
of
the mandate took place at the International Council meeting in 1991. The article deals
with the meaning
of
the mandate, the criteria which have to be met, the users
of
the
mandate, and deals with three pertinent illustrations
of
mandate debates: the violence
clause, political non-governmental entities and homosexuality.
1. Introduction
Amnesty International is today the largest international non-governmental organization in
the field
of
human rights in the world. It has more than 1,100,000 members, subscribers
and regular donors in over 150 countries and territories and over 6,000 volunteer groups
in over 74 countries. There are nationally organized sections in 48 countries, 27 of them
in Latin America, Africa, Asia and the Middle East. The International Secretariat in
London has more than 290 staff from more than 50 countries. The international budget
for 1992 was over £13,260,000.2
*This article is based on a paper that was presented at the conference on 'Human Rights in a New World
Order' sponsored by the Institute of Law, Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences and the Human Rights
Committee, International Political Science Association, in Prague, June 9-13, 1992. The author wants to
thank Herman Burgers, Roland Kadefors, Edy Kaufman, Michael McClintock, Jose Zalaguett and the
participants to the conference for their comments. All views expressed in this paper are strictly those of
the author.
** Professor of Human Rights at Utrecht University and the University of Leyden and Director of the
Netherlands Institute of Human Rights.
Philip Alston,
'The
Fortieth Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: A Time More for
Reflection than for Celebration', in: Jan Berting et al, (eds.), Human Rights in a Pluralist World:
Individuals and Collectivities, Meckler, Westport/London 1990, p. 10.
2 Amnesty International, Facts and Figures about Amnesty International and its Work/or Human Rights,
London, 24 June 1992 (AI Index: ORG 10/04/92).
5
NQHR
1/1994
The origin of the organization should by now be well-known." It started with an
article in The Observer by a London lawyer, Peter Benenson, calling for an 'Appeal for
Amnesty 1961' urging Governments to release persons who were being held in jail
because their political or religious views differed from those of their Governments. In the
article the notion of 'prisoners of conscience' was introduced and defined as follows: 'Any
person who is physically restrained (by imprisonment or otherwise) from expressing (in
any form of words or symbols) any opinion which he honestly holds and which does not
advocate or condone personal violence." The listed aims of the Appeal were the follo-
wing:
1. To work impartially for the release of those imprisoned for their opinions.
2. To seek for them a fair and public trial.
3. To enlarge the Right of Asylum and help political refugees to find work.
4. To urge effective international machinery to guarantee freedom of opinion.
The appeal elicited many reactions in Great Britain and other parts of the world and
eventually led to the founding of the organization as it is known today. The mandate of
the organization, which originally strongly emphasized the freeing of prisoners of
conscience, was broadened in subsequent years to include the fight against torture or other
cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment as well as the death penalty. But,
remaining faithful to its origin, the organization has always preferred to keep its mandate
limited in nature rather than to have it cover a fuller spectrum
of
human rights. The basic
premise has always been of a highly practical nature: to be effective within a clearly
defined area - working for the release of prisoners of conscience - and thus to contribute
to the struggle for freedom of expression.
The mandate is contained in the International Statute." It is based on the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and the moral consciousness of the members of Amnesty
International.6The Statute may be amended by the International Council, which
represents the international membership and which nowadays meets once every two years,
by a majority of two thirds of the votes cast.7The Council can also, by ordinary
majority, adopt resolutions to further specify or interpret the Statute. The meeting of the
International Council, held in Yokohama, Japan, 31 August - 7 September 1991, paid a
relatively large amount of time and attention to mandate issues. It had the report of a
Mandate Review Committee, which had been established four years before, on its agenda,
and it adopted 29 decisions dealing with 'strategy', largely covering the mandate of the
organization.8
3 See for example:
Egan
Larsen, A Flame in Barbed Wire: The StOlY
of
Amnesty International, Frederick
Muller
Ltd.,
London 1978. A more conceptual approach is found in: Edy Kaufman, 'Prisoners of
Conscience: The Shaping of A New Human Rights Concept', Human Rights Quarterly, vol. 13:3 (August
1991), pp. 339-367.
4 Peter Benenson,
'The
Forgotten Prisoners', The Observer, May 28, 1961.
5 Statute
of
Amnesty International as amended by the 20th International Council, meeting in Yokohama,
Japan, 31 August - 7 September 1991. For the text of Article 1 ('Object and Mandate') see Appendix.
6
For
example, Amnesty's positions on the death penalty and on conscientious objection go beyond the
Universal Declaration.
7 Statute
of
Amnesty International, Article 43.
8 The most recent International Council Meeting in Boston, 6-14 August 1993, left the mandate basically
unchanged. One of
its
major decisions in this field was to oppose in principle the practice of forcible exile
when it is imposed as a formal measure. It also decided to instruct the International Executive Committee
to consider Amnesty International's concerns regarding female genital mutilation and to present
6
To continue reading
Request your trial