The Soviet-Bloc's View of the Implementation of Human Rights Accords

Abstract

That governments ought to be internationally accountable for the way they treat individuals under their jurisdiction has been one of the most fundamental assumptions of the post-World War 11 effort to promote and protect human rights. Events immediately before and during World War 11 demonstrated how governments may manipulate their own laws and thereby undertake actions of unspeakably heinous proportions. This experience precipitated the post-war efforts to limit the authority of states the treatment of their citizens. These efforts, however, necessitated a revised view of state sovereignty. While the sovereignty of states would continue to be respected and governments would continue to be primarily in charge of human rights matters, a new element, that of accountability, would be introduced into the area of human rights. Thus, state sovereignty would no longer be absolute, if indeed it had ever been that, and the actions of states regard to human rights would, at some threshold level, be subject to supranational or supervision and accountability. This new aspect of accountability was soon labelled international implementation, and it was accorded an integral position the global strategy for the promotion and protection of human rights.' It is important to note that human rights are commonly, and most often can only be, implemented through the socio-legal systems of states. By design, the International Bill of Rights is to be implemented through the systems of states. This aspect, which may be called domestic implementation, is, reality, vital for the protection of human rights. International bodies do not as yet have the authority to reach into states, bypassing the governments concerned, to promote human rights