Description of Documents and Literature
| Published date | 01 December 1993 |
| DOI | 10.1177/016934419301100416 |
| Date | 01 December 1993 |
| Subject Matter | Part D: Documentation |
NQHR
4/1993
After all, neither Pakistan, South Korea nor Malawi were underany international obligation
not to apply and
enforce
capital punishment.
Recent
State practice, e.g. action taken for
the protection
of
human
rights in the context
of
bilateral development cooperation, may
have provided better examples of diplomatic action on behalf
of
foreign nationals. More
convincing is, however, the argument that all European and North American States, in
the framework
of
recent
CSCE documents, and all ACP States, in accepting the Lome N
Convention, have rejected the domestic jurisdiction defence by explicitly accepting the
principle
of
international accountability for human rights violations. This argument does,
however, not apply to those Asian, Arabic and
Latin
American States which, as the Vienna
World Conference
of
Human
Rights has drastically shown, most vigorously still object
to accusations
of
human
rights violations as interference with their internal affairs.
In chapter 2, Kammingaanalyzes the development of accountability toward international
organizations, in particular the League
of
Nations and the United Nations, As other authors
have done before, he considers the case of Chile as a watershed in overcoming the domestic
jurisdiction argument. I do not agree, however, with his assertion that a precise definition
of
the concept
of
'a
consistent pattern
of
gross violations' was not any more needed 'since
the political organs of
the
United States have on numerous occasions demonstrated that
they do not consider themselves restricted by this category' (p. 118).
It
is true that thematic
procedures of the Commission on Human Rights dealing with alleged violations
of
customary
international law (e.g. torture, disappearances, summary executions) may take action on
individual cases. Any country-oriented resolution or action
of
the Commission (in particular
the appointment
of
aSpecial Rapporteur) does, however, still presuppose the alleged
existence of a consistent pattern
of
gross violations of human rights in accordance with
ECOSOC Resolution 1235 (XLll). It is unfortunate that Kamminga's study does not give
more thought on this controversial concept in the light of recent practice.
In chapter 3, the author relates his findings to the doctrine of State responsibility,
as currently being developed by the International
Court
ofJustice and the International Law
Commission, As pointed outabove-hisconclusionsare weUbalanced,convincingandbased
on a sound methodological approach as well as a thorough analysis
of
the relevant theory
and practice. He clearly proves that States may be legally held accountable for any violation
of their international
human
rights obligations by other States, either individually or in the
framework
of
international organizations. With this, he provides a solid basis for further
studies on how the international community could or should ensure that offending States
are forced in practice to actually comply with their international obligations.
DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENTS AND LITERATURE
Academic freedom 2: a human rights report.
John Daniel
...
[et al.] (eds.).
London;-Geneva: Zed Books; World University Service, 1993. - 168 p.
ISBN:1-85649-219-2
Hb
This volume -the second in the series- provides an up-to-date account
of
the situation in
Burma, Lebanon, Malawi, Palestine (The Occupied Territories), Paraguay, Sri Lanka, Sudan
and Swaziland. This cross-section
of
countries includes instances
of
civil war, ethnic strife,
national repression, military rule, personalised dictatorship, religious fundamentalism and
royal autocracy that all have their effect on theeducational system of the countries concerned.
The
introductionprovides an overview of the situation in universities worldwide, including
522
To continue reading
Request your trial