An Article by Article Commentary on the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966)

《公民权利和政治权利国际公约》逐条评论（1966）

• 批准号: AH/F004613/1
• 负责人: Dominic McGoldrick
• 金额: $ 4.4万
• 依托单位: University of Liverpool
• 依托单位国家: 英国
• 项目类别: Research Grant
• 财政年份: 2007
• 资助国家: 英国
• 起止时间: 2007 至 无数据
• 项目状态: 已结题
• 来源: https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=AH%2FF004613%2F1
• 关键词: Article; Commentary; International; Covenant; Civil

Historically, civil and political rights in Europe have achieved a high degree of normative specificity because of jurisprudence under the European Convention on Human Rights (1950). Cold-war divisions and ideological conflicts hindered the development of a wider, more 'universal' human rights jurisprudence. The Covenant (and its partner Covenant on economic and social rights) were not completed until 1966 and did not enter into force until 1976. Since the end of the cold war and with the gradual spread of democracy there has a reduction in the intensity of the ideological conflicts over international human rights. This has been accompanied by the steady bureaucratization and institutionalization of human rights through the activities of the international human rights treaty bodies. The most developed treaty organ within the system is the Human Rights Committee (HRC), the independent implementing body under the Covenant. The HRC is composed of 18 independent experts from the states parties. The Covenant and the individual petition system under its First Optional Protocol (OP1) thus provide the most advanced model for a universal human rights system. 160 states have accepted the Covenant and 109 of those have accepted the individual petition system. Very significantly, both the Covenant and OP1 have been accepted by states from all continents of the world. They are thus less open to 'euro-centric' criticisms. The Covenant has been used as the starting point for the development of other instruments, eg on minority rights and arbitrary detention. It is also widely used in international society as the international benchmark for judging the human rights performance of states, even of non-states parties. Since 1976 the HRC has issued hundreds of 'Concluding Observations' on the human rights performance of states parties, 31 'General Comments' on specific articles of the Covenant giving detailed guidance on their interpretation, and approximately 1500 decisions under the individual petitions procedure under OP1. The interpretation and application of the provisions of OP1 has continued apace and is of general significance for the international law of human rights as individual petitions systems continue to spread and develop. The Commentary will provide an exhaustive, systematic, practical, article-by-article, legal analysis of the Covenant and the individual petitions system. Most of the substantive articles of the Covenant have now been subjected to detailed scrutiny by states, the HRC and academics. It is now possible to present the law of the Covenant in the form of a jurisprudential code that is, for most practical purposes, accepted by states as the most authoritative interpretation of it. That code is part of the wider international human rights law context and theory. It is necessary to assess how much of the jurisprudence under the Covenant has itself become the dominant part of human rights theory and practice. The Covenant is often taken to be the leading standard in the international law on civil and political rights. In dealing with major contemporary human rights issues, for example, Guantanamo Bay, Islamic Headscarves, restrictions and derogations on rights introduced as part of the 'war on terrorism', irregular renditions, the extradition of persons to States where they may be at risk of torture, the Danish cartoons ridiculing the Islamic religion, the Covenant is usually the first point of reference in terms of normative standards. In practice that has meant that the jurisprudence of the HRC is the first point of reference for what those standards mean.

从历史上看，由于《欧洲人权公约》（1950年）下的判例，欧洲的公民权利和政治权利在规范上具有高度的特殊性。冷战分裂和意识形态冲突阻碍了更广泛、更“普遍”的人权法理学的发展。《公约》（及其伙伴《经济和社会权利公约》）直到1966年才完成，直到1976年才生效。自冷战结束以来，随着民主的逐步普及，国际人权方面的意识形态冲突的激烈程度有所降低。与此同时，通过国际人权条约机构的活动，人权不断官僚化和制度化。联合国系统内最发达的条约机构是人权事务委员会，它是《公约》的独立执行机构。人权理事会由来自缔约国的18名独立专家组成。因此，《公约》及其《第一项任择议定书》规定的个人请愿制度为普遍人权制度提供了最先进的模式。160个国家接受了《公约》，其中109个国家接受了个人请愿制度。非常重要的是，《公约》和《任择议定书》第一项均已为世界各大洲的国家所接受。因此，他们对“以欧洲为中心”的批评不那么开放。《公约》被用作制定其他文书的起点，例如关于少数群体权利和任意拘留的文书。它也被国际社会广泛使用，作为评判国家甚至非缔约国人权表现的国际基准。自1976年以来，人权理事会就缔约国的人权表现发表了数百份“结论性意见”，就《公约》的具体条款发表了31份“一般性意见”，对这些条款的解释提供了详细的指导，并根据《任择议定书》第一项下的个人请愿程序作出了大约1500项决定。随着个人请愿制度的继续推广和发展，对执行部分第1段规定的解释和适用继续迅速进行，对国际人权法具有普遍意义。评注将对《公约》和个人请愿制度进行详尽、系统、实际、逐条的法律的分析。《公约》的大多数实质性条款现在都受到各国、人权委员会和学术界的详细审查。现在，《公约》的法律可以以审慎准则的形式提出，就大多数实际目的而言，这种准则被各国接受为对《公约》的最权威解释，是更广泛的国际人权法背景和理论的一部分。有必要评估《公约》规定的判例本身有多少已成为人权理论和实践的主导部分。《公约》往往被视为关于公民权利和政治权利的国际法的主要标准。在处理重大的当代人权问题时，例如关塔那摩湾、伊斯兰头巾、作为“反恐战争”的一部分对权利的限制和减损、非正常引渡、将人引渡到他们可能遭受酷刑的国家、丹麦漫画亵渎伊斯兰教等，《公约》通常是规范标准的第一个参照点。在实践中，这意味着人权理事会的判例是这些标准含义的第一个参照点。