Part of law says you can’t do anything to him because he’s head of state, others might say he’s a prisoner of war

IHR Treaties

• 
  International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) (1966)
  
  • 
    Codifies rights that generally correspond to American notions of civil rights
    
  • 
    Treaty, not a declaration, so is binding to a degree; has legal ramifications within the signatories’ systems; lawyers can argue a treaty, unlike a declaration
    
  • 
    Much more specific than UDHR
    
  • 
    Reflects 18 years of change 1948-66: Civil Rights Act, repeal of Jim Crow laws in South
    
  • 
    Article 29 of UDHR: suggests these rights aren’t absolute- “in exercise of rights and freedoms,..shall only be subject to limitations as are determined by law soley for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic societies.
    
  • 
    Article 4 of ICCPR: In time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation and the existence of which is officially proclaimed, a state may take measures derogating from their obligations
    
    • 
      Implies that certain rights are more important than others, may not be derogated (such as torture, slavery, imprisonment for debt, ex post facto crimes, freedom of thought, conscience and religion- none of these can be derogated- 416)
      

From Book: 414- ICCPR closely resembles first half of UDHR. ICCPR does not have right to own property in art. 17 of UDHR.

Differences: ICCPR establishes a formal international institution- Human Rights Committee- HR experts to assist in interpretation and implementation of treaty’s provisions, issue comments, receives complaints regarding violations.

ICCPR contains specific provisions applicable to specific rights with regard to when they can be limited (some rights more important than others. UDHR has 1 general statement about limiting

Unlike UDHR, ICCPR has implementation mechanisms that consist of state reporting requirements, HRC comments and recommendations and an optional protocol permiting the Committee to look at individual complaints (419)- these are seen as not as good as European conventions and other inter-american human rights systems- under ICPR states are often late in reorts, pay little attention o recommendations of HRC, optional protocol decisions are not officially binding but persuasive.

Presently there is not much enthusiasm for global international human rights court such as ones suggested in 1947, though there is the ICJ.

(why are gov’t in Europe and Latin American willing to set up these courts but gov’ts generally are not yet ready to establish a global human rights tribunal??)

• 
  International Covenant on Social and Economic Rights (US hasn’t signed).
  
  • 
    US more willing to sign this one (???)
    
  • 
    USSR more willing to sign the other (???)
    
• 
  
  
• 
  Limits on IHR’s- conflicting rights, public safety and public order, morals
  
• 
  IHR and effectiveness- watchdog committees, UNCHR, ECHR, National Courts
  
• 
  -the above are from two slides.
  

Torture Convention (1984) (Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhumane or Degrading Treatment or Punishment)

• 
  Although torture had been prohibited in ICCPR, laid out more specifically here, expands on prohibition in Art. 7 of ICCPR.
  
• 
  Distinction between torture and cruel and unusual punishment, even though in US Const law they overlap
  
  • 
    Treaty between US and Mexico providing for extradition, but Mexico won’t extradite wanted criminals if they face life imprisonment, since they see it as cruel and unusual
    
• 
  Torture: any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, that is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person info or a confession, punishing him for an act or intimidating or coercing him. Doesn’t include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions
  
  • 
    “Lawful”: does this refer to national or international law?
    
  • 
    If national, any country can dodge by saying it’s lawful in their country
    
  • 
    If international, then it’s hollow
    
• 
  Article 2: Each state party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jx: positive actions
  
• 
  Article 2: No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture
  
• 
  Dershowitz op-ed piece: given 9/11, US should consider use of torture to elicit info about potential future attacks
  
• 
  If US violates the treaty, other countries can enforce, but so can US federal judges
  
• 
  Article 4: Each state shall ensure that all acts of torture are offenses under its criminal law
  

Book: 416- requires state parties to present reports on torture, creates expert committee to review reports and make recommendations, optional individual complaints procedure, ** requires states to either prosecute anyone who commits torture and is in their jx or extradite to another state for prosecution.

By 2002- 129 states are party to it, Israel signs on in 1991.

Israel and “Moderate Physical Pressure”, p. 419

• 
  Committee Against Torture: created by the Torture Convention; critical of Israel’s policy
  
• 
  Israel: provides response rejecting opinion of UN, invokes security predicament and particular vulnerability to terrorists; makes distinction between “moderate physical pressure” and torture
  
• 
  Israel cites Ireland v. UK case (from European Court of Human Rights-1978) in its response; case says there might be physical action falling short of torture
  

• 
  Trade-off that runs throughout human rights: how broad should we make the right?
  
• 
  The narrower the right, the more likely it is to be enforced