Most governors have broad authority to nominate officials to serve in state executive branch positions—many of whom will be included in the governor’s advisory committee, known as the “cabinet.” Governors may be empowered as well to make appointments to state judgeships. Frequently, these appointments are subject to confirmation by one or both houses of the state legislature. While often pro forma in nature, the confirmation process with respect to executive branch appointments can be used by legislatures to expand their influence on governors and their policies. Accordingly, many governors consult with key legislators before making formal nominations. Show
For state by state information on the methods of selecting state officials, see “Selected State Administrative Officials: Methods of Selection” (Table 4.10, The Book of the States 2019, source: The Council of State Governments). Boards and CommissionsThe roles played by boards and commissions vary considerably by state and by program. In some states appointed boards have the primary responsibility for individual programs and agencies and are responsible for the selection of department and agency heads. This is particularly true in the field of education, but boards still retain responsibility for a broad range of other programs in fields such as labor, transportation and health and human services. In many states the members of these boards are named or nominated by the governor. And in many of these cases, board members are subject to confirmation by one or both houses of the legislature. Other boards play more limited regulatory or advisory roles. In most states boards oversee the licensing and regulation of numerous professions and business areas. In other states they advise the governor on areas of importance such as the environment and economic development. While the elimination and/or consolidation of boards and commissions is a common focus of government efficiency and government reorganization initiatives, they still play a prominent role in state government, providing opportunities to address the concerns of special interests and to reward political supporters. Executive Branch Positions Independently SelectedA large number of states provide for the independent selection of certain executive branch positions. Most noteworthy among these positions are lieutenant governor, secretary of state, attorney general, and treasurer. The position of lieutenant governor exists in the overwhelming majority of states, where the position is most often filled by popular statewide election and jointly with the governor, although in a small number of cases the role of lieutenant governor is assigned by state law to another position in either the executive or legislative branch (e.g., secretary of state or leader of the senate). The positions of secretary of state, attorney general, and treasurer are all subject to statewide popular election in the majority of states, and at least one of the three is elected in most of the remaining states. Governors generally have limited authority in the appointment of state comptrollers and pre and post audit department heads. Governors’ appointment powers are also limited with regard to the heads of state education and higher education agencies. The education department head is independently elected statewide in 14 states and is appointed—independent of gubernatorial approval—by a board or agency head in 20 states and two territories. In most states and territories, the higher education head is appointed by a board independent of gubernatorial approval. A number of states also provide for the statewide election of one or more other department heads, among them public utility regulators and the heads of agriculture, labor, and natural resources departments. As with governors, other statewide elected positions may be subject to age, citizenship, and state residency requirements, as well as term limits. For state by state data on the joint election of governors and lieutenant governors, see “The Governors” (Table 4.1, The Book of the States 2019, source: The Council of State Governments). For state by state information on the methods of selecting state officials, see “Selected State Administrative Officials: Methods of Selection” (Table 4.10, The Book of the States 2019, source: The Council of State Governments). For state by state information on eligibility requirements for state officials, see “Constitutional and Statutory Provisions for Number of Consecutive Terms of Elected State Officials” (Table 4.9, The Book of the States 2019, source: The Council of State Governments). CabinetsState cabinets, which serve as advisory councils to the nation’s governors, generally are made up of officials appointed by the governor to head state departments and agencies, and in some cases top-level staff in the governor’s immediate office. In most states the cabinet fulfills two functions:
In a number of states, governors have created sub-cabinets to bring together agencies to address issues such as the needs of children. Forty-four states and all of the commonwealths and territories have cabinets and/or sub-cabinets. Cabinets themselves may have their origin in law, tradition, and/or the governor’s discretion. Cabinet membership may be a product of appointment to a specific office or be subject to selection by the governor. Cabinet size, and the frequency of cabinet meetings and formality and extent to which a governor uses his or her cabinet for advice and assistance, varies among the states, commonwealths, and territories. For state by state information on cabinets, see “State Cabinet Systems” (Table 4.6, The Book of the States 2019, source: The Council of State Governments).
PROMOTING HUMAN RIGHTS - GOOD GOVERNANCE, THE RULE OF LAW AND DEMOCRACYPACIFIC JUDICIAL CONFERENCE, VANUATU 26-30 JULY 2005, The Hon John von Doussa QC, President, Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission1
Universal Declaration of Human Rights2
The Hon Justice M Kirby3 The theme of this conference concerns human rights. As an introduction to that theme, this paper outlines recent activities intended to foster the promotion and enjoyment of human rights internationally and, more particularly, in the Pacific region and then addresses several current issues. The judiciary has not been included in many of these activities, even though its role is crucial in the recognition, protection and enjoyment of human rights. It would be a fascinating philosophical exercise to go back in time to ascertain the genesis of the notions of democracy, human rights and the rule of law. Modern attempts to understand their interrelationship seem to throw up a "chicken and egg" debate. I propose to bypass that debate and simply start from the proposition that each stands separately but is related to, and dependent upon, the others. A moment's reflection shows that the quality and enjoyment of each builds on the strength of the other two. The Origins of International Human RightsThe establishment of the United Nations (UN) in 1945 ushered in a new period of respect for human rights. Its Charter does not, however, contain a comprehensive Bill of Rights. Instead, contemporary human rights law is based upon the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), which was drafted by the Commission on Human Rights (CHR)4 in 1947, and adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 10 December, 1948.5 The UDHR sets out, in succinct terms, the fundamental rights and freedoms that all human beings, regardless of race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, ethnicity and national background are entitled to enjoy. In one form or another, these rights have been recognised for centuries but it was not until the creation of the Universal Declaration that they were comprehensively codified with the support and agreement of the international community. These rights are not just a construct based on Western ideals. They have deep roots in the traditions of all peoples. The drafters of the Declaration drew upon the principles enshrined in national laws and constitutions. They referred not only to common law systems of justice but also to civil law countries and socialist systems.6 They did so in order to make certain its universal application. The rights enshrined in the UDHR have been further articulated in subsequent conventions. In 1966, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights7 (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights8 (ICESCR) were adopted by the General Assembly. Together, the Declaration, conventions and their optional protocols9 constitute an International Bill of Rights. Other major human rights treaties dealing with specific subject matters have also been enacted. They include the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD);10 Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW);11 the Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT);12 the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CROC);13 and the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families (MWC).14 Conventions addressing the rights of Indigenous peoples and disabled persons are in the process of being negotiated. Schedule 1 of this paper summarises the substantive provisions of the seven core international human rights treaties. Schedule 2 shows which Pacific States have ratified them. Ratifications by France are also shown. Pacific Island States have a very low record of ratification of these treaties. Nevertheless, all states are subject to customary international law.15 There are differing views whether all of the rights embodied in the UDHR have, through their widespread and consistent international acknowledgement, become part of customary international law. Nevertheless, it is now generally accepted that some rules, at least, have become custom; namely, the prohibitions against slavery, torture, arbitrary detention, and systematic racial discrimination. Consequently, these prohibitions are binding on all states, regardless of whether they have ratified the specific treaties mentioned above.16 Whilst States are bound in international law by the treaties they have signed and by international custom, human rights so recognised do not become part of the domestic law of some States, including common law countries, until those States have enacted them into domestic law. Of course, this is not necessary if human rights are already enshrined in the State's Constitution. Schedule 3 summarises the fundamental rights and freedoms that are constitutionally entrenched in Pacific Island States. Many principles in the International Bill of Rights reflect the meaning and content of the notions of the rule of law and democracy. The rule of law is expressed in the provisions which assert that all are equal before the law and are entitled, without discrimination, to the equal protection of the law. It is also embodied by the principle that no one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with their rights and freedoms.17 Democratic principles are inherent in the right to self-determination, the right of freedom of peaceful assembly and association and the right to take part in the government of the country directly or through freely chosen representatives.18 UN Human Rights RegimeEach major human rights treaty contains a supervisory mechanism, according to which States are required to lodge periodic "country reports". The reports describe the legislative, administrative and judicial measures taken by the State to comply with its obligations under the convention. These reports are considered by "Treaty Bodies", which are committees established pursuant to the provisions of the treaty for the purpose of monitoring state compliance.19 Reports issued by Treaty Bodies are, at times, critical of a State. If a State is found to have neglected its responsibilities, the Treaty Body will make recommendations to help that State remedy the deficit. The functional commissions of the UN have also established a number of mechanisms to assist the promotion and protection of human rights. These are referred to as "special procedures". They include periodic debates before the CHR on country situations and the appointment of thematic rapporteurs and working groups. The special procedures recognise that "domestic" human rights issues are now legitimate matters for international scrutiny.20 Optional protocols to the ICCPR, ICERD, CEDAW and CAT provide a mechanism for individuals to lodge complaints, known as "communications", with the Treaty Body, alleging a violation of their rights under the Convention. These communications are carefully considered by the relevant treaty body and result in the publication of a "Finding". There is no machinery to enforce a Finding if it is adverse to a State. Instead, the system relies upon the State being prepared to act on the Finding and any recommendation therein. There are also human rights regimes, with supervisory mechanisms, in certain regions around the world. The UN divides the world into four geographic zones: the Africas, the Americas, Europe and the Asia Pacific region - the latter being all States east of Europe and west of the Americas (from Palestine to the American west coast). Each region, other than the Asia Pacific, has a human rights body to which complaints of non-compliance may be made by individuals against the State.21 The point has now been reached where international law and the international community have established wide-ranging human rights standards which touch upon most aspects of government and human endeavour. However, the stark reality is that established norms are not being implemented in many parts of the world and are not enjoyed by the members of many minority ethnic and social groups. Human rights only have meaning when they can be enjoyed in a practical sense. This was emphasised by the present High Commissioner for Human Rights, Madame Louise Arbour, who observed in her Opening Address at the 61st Session of the CHR that the UN has spent the last 60 years establishing human rights norms and the time has now come to concentrate on their implementation.22 The Secretary-General has tried to reform the United Nations in order to achieve this goal. In his first reform program in 1997,23 human rights were integrated into the work of the whole organisation. His second reform program called for stronger links between international standards, international human rights machinery and UN activities undertaken at the country level. He encouraged more attention to human rights protection work while, at the same time, maintaining the UN's traditional commitment to human rights promotion, capacity and infrastructure building. To this end, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) co-convened a major international seminar in September 2004 with the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) focusing on practical measures to ensure effective implementation of good governance practices for the promotion of human rights at the national level.24 The seminar was attended by 138 people from 73 countries. In a statement summarising the outcome of the seminar, the Chairman, Mr Lee Sun-jin, observed:
The Seoul Seminar on Good Governance was followed by an International Roundtable of National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs) in Suva, Fiji on 13-15 December 2004. The Roundtable was convened to consider the role of NHRIs in ensuring good governance and the promotion and protection of human rights. It was organised by OHCHR and hosted by the Fijian Human Rights Commission. Although it was an international roundtable, it is significant that OHCHR chose to hold it in the Pacific.25 National Human Rights InstitutionsBoth the Secretary-General of the UN and the High Commissioner for Human Rights have said that NHRIs are one of the principle vehicles for the promotion and protection of human rights.26 To be an accredited NHRI, an organisation must comply with the "Paris Principles".27 The key minimum criteria are:
The accreditation process is carried out by the International Co-ordinating Committee of National Institutions (ICC). This body meets annually. An accredited NHRI will have the power:
It must be recognised that NHRIs are not the only form of national human rights mechanism. Such mechanisms may come in various shapes and sizes and may be established under the Parliament, Executive or Judiciary. They may have mandates of varying widths and enjoy differing degrees of independence from government. Besides a NHRI, there could be a national advisory commission on human rights, a national anti-discrimination commission, or an ombudsman. Generally, however, these mechanisms have more retricted mandates than a NHRI. This topic is taken up later in this paper. The importance of NHRIs in the UN system has recently been emphasised by the Secretary-General. In a report published in March 2005,28 he recommended that NHRIs be given greater participatory rights in the CHR. At the 61st Meeting of the CHR, the member States resolved to permit accredited NHRIs to speak under all agenda items. They also supported NHRI engagement in all the subsidiary bodies of the Commission. At present, there are three NHRIs in the Pacific: Australia, Fiji and New Zealand.29 These NHRIs are members of a regional organisation, the Asia Pacific Forum of National Human Rights Institutions (APF).30 The APF was founded in 1996 to provide practical support, technical assistance and co-operation to NHRIs, civil society and governments.31 There are presently 15 members of the APF, comprising 12 full members32 and 3 associate members.33 The APF has an independent, very active Secretariat with substantial funding34 and an Advisory Commission of Jurists.35 The establishment of an NHRI is a matter for the legislature of each State and the structure of a particular institution will reflect that State's constitution, local laws and judicial and administrative system. Many States have established a NHRI in order to comply with their obligations under international conventions to provide effective remedies for human rights violations.36 The Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) was established for this purpose.37 Regional Activities for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights in the PacificInterest in the promotion and protection of human rights in the Pacific region is not new. LawAsia undertook a major project in the late 1980s to encourage the Pacific States to agree to adopt a Pacific Charter of Human Rights. The Human Rights Committee of LawAsia held a conference on the question in Fiji in April 1985, following which a drafting committee was convened. The work of the drafting committee was reviewed and considered at seminars conducted by LawAsia in 1987, 1989 and 1990. The outcome38 was a draft model treaty based on the African Charter of Human and Peoples' Rights which established the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights. The proposed treaty recognised wide-ranging rights, including all basic civil and political rights (most of which are already contained in the constitutions of the Pacific States), as well as economic, social and cultural rights, and the rights of peoples including Indigenous peoples. The draft also included sets of duties for the government and individuals as members of society. Finally, the draft proposed a Pacific Human Rights Commission which would supervise the Charter and deal with complaints about human rights violations. The treaty has not been adopted by the Pacific States. However, as I will mention later in this paper, it has recently been raised again for discussion. In the conclusions of the UN's 12th Annual Workshop on Regional Framework for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights in the Asia Pacific Region,39 the Governments of the region recognised:
The Pacific Islands Forum (PIF)40 has also repeatedly expressed a strong commitment to achieving regional co-operation on human rights and good governance. At their annual meeting in 2003, the Pacific Islands Forum leaders agreed to carry out a review of the Forum and its Secretariat. An Eminent Persons' Group41 was established to review the forum. It was tasked with providing a fresh mandate and vision for the Pacific Islands Forum and an improved capacity within the Forum to enable it to provide leadership on regional co-operation and integration. In its report delivered to a Special Leaders' Retreat in April 2004, the Eminent Persons' Group recommended that:
In April 2004, the Forum Leaders adopted the "Auckland Declaration", in which they endorsed the recommendations of the Eminent Persons' Group, including the recommendation regarding the establishment of human rights machinery and noted that this may be done in consultation with the APF.43 On 1-3rd June 2004, a "Pacific Island Human Rights Consultation" (the 2004 Suva Consultation) was held in Suva, Fiji. This Consultation was organised by the OHCHR, APF, UNDP and the Commonwealth Secretariat and was hosted by the Fijian Human Rights Commission. Participants in the Consultation included representatives of the Governments of Fiji, Kiribati, Nauru, New Zealand, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Tonga, Vanuatu and Australia. Representatives of non-governmental organisations also attended from 16 States, as well as representatives from OHCHR, UNDP, UNICEF, UNESCO, the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat, the Commonwealth Secretariat and the NHRIs of Australia, Fiji and New Zealand. There were over 80 participants in all. In the Concluding Statement the participants reaffirmed that: 44
To that end the participants welcomed the decision of the Pacific Island Leaders to encourage the development of national human rights machinery with the possible engagement of the APF and the support of the OHCHR and other UN agencies. In the course of the Consultation, many participants stressed the importance of understanding the Pacific as a region distinct from Asia. Participants expressed the view that customary law should not take precedence over international human rights law but that human rights programs and rights-based interventions must be delivered in a culturally appropriate manner. The participants recommended that for each real or perceived conflict between culture and rights, careful analysis, wide consultation and an inclusive national decision-making process should be undertaken.45 The Concluding Statement also noted the crucial need for an OHCHR presence in the Pacific. It requested the appointment of an OHCHR human rights adviser to provide full-time technical co-operation and needs assessment, as well as to assist Pacific States to address and provide effective responses to human rights problems. Since the 2004 Suva Consultation, the OHCHR has taken steps to establish a sub-regional office in Fiji. The selection process for the representative has concluded and it is anticipated that the office will open in mid-2005. As a follow up to the recommendations of the Eminent Persons' Group, the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat, in co-operation with the APF, held a Regional Workshop on National Human Rights Mechanisms in Nadi, Fiji, on 28 February - 1 March 2005 (the 2005 Nadi Workshop). The Justice and Foreign Affairs Ministries were to be the principle participants. There were representatives of 13 of the Forum States, though not always at Ministerial level and, in addition, there were representatives of the office of the UNHCHR, the UNDP and other UN agencies, along with representatives from regional NGO's working in the human rights field. The Outcome Statement records that the workshop identified a range of challenges facing Forum countries in the promotion and protection of human rights. These include:
The workshop recognised that the primary responsibility for promoting, protecting and monitoring human rights at the national level lies with national governments. It also identified a number of issues that need to be considered by governments if they are planning to establish national human rights machinery including:
The Outcome Statement is notable for its failure to make any express reference to the pivotal role of the judiciary and the legal profession which supports it. It is respectfully suggested that this is a serious omission. The judiciary and the legal profession fulfil important roles in standard setting, in detecting and remedying human rights violations and in promoting understanding about the content and importance of human rights and about the community's responsibility to respect them. The judiciary and the legal profession must be active in these matters and must engage with the good governance debate which is occurring. IssuesThe following comments are intended to raise issues which seem to require further discussion. I do not attempt to offer definitive solutions. 1. Ratification of Human Rights ConventionsIt will be evident from this paper that both UN agencies and the 2004 Suva Consultation urge Pacific Island States to accede to all the major human rights conventions. These exhortations need to recognise that the Island States, generally speaking, have comprehensive fundamental human rights provisions already embedded in their constitutions which, at a domestic level, are likely to provide similar protection to that which would follow from accession to international treaties. As the Outcome Statement of the 2005 Nadi Regional Workshop recognised, there are resource implications which would arise in implementing State obligations under the Conventions and in meeting the reporting obligations. 2. Establishment of a NHRIThere would also be resource implications in establishing an NHRI. However, before a NHRI is dismissed from consideration on economic grounds, or on the basis that there are other institutions, such as an ombudsman, which fulfil similar functions, detailed consideration of the benefits of a well-resourced NHRI is necessary.46 Those benefits are likely to include:
If, however, a State is considering establishing an alternative form of human rights mechanism, it is critical that it provides individuals with the ability to seek redress for violations of human rights by private individuals and entities. 3. Public educationAs the Outcomes Statement of the 2005 Nadi Workshop recognised, a substantial obstacle in the development of human rights in the Pacific is the lack of understanding of human rights principles and their relevance. This is already a problem facing the constitutionally enshrined rights in Pacific States. Litigation to enforce human rights, the reasons for judgments, publication of the judgments and media coverage of the case are all powerful educative tools that assist in improving understanding of human rights principles in the community. Whatever human rights mechanisms are adopted, there must be a heavy emphasis on education and promotion. In this respect, the role of civil society organisations (NGOs) is important and their role should be formally recognised. A criticism of many good governance programs is that they address the "supply side" and do not give adequate consideration to the needs of citizens whose "demand" they should be answering. Consequently, development programs tend to reflect a "top-down" approach to administrative reform and restructuring and do not prioritise the needs and concerns of the poor and marginalised. This approach detracts from the sense of ownership and participation that communities should feel for development programs. Since civil society organisations are generally established to promote the interests of the common citizen, they are better suited at planning and delivering "bottom up" programs, including the delivery of human rights information.47 The Outcomes Statement of the 2004 Suva Consultations supports the provision of funds for these purposes.48 4. Access to Justice.However comprehensive the law and the breadth of the mandate of human rights mechanisms, rights can only be enjoyed when there is a realistic means of investigation and enforcement. A strong, independent legal profession is important to this process. Effective, well resourced offices for the Public Solicitor and the Public Prosecutor are critical to the efficient functioning of the legal system and to the rule of law in general. Strengthening the capacity of the judiciary and the legal aid system should be a high priority on national budget agendas. 5. Perceived Conflicts between International Standards and Cultural Rights and PracticesThe relationship between customary law and international human rights standards continues to be contentious. A simple solution to the problem, sometimes suggested, would be to accept that international human rights law can be modified to suit local traditions. Conventions make provision for the right of everyone to take part in cultural life49 and for minority groups to enjoy their own culture in community with other members of their group.50 However, these provisions do not permit modification of the fundamental rights otherwise recognised.51 Local modification of these rights is not acceptable to the UN community. Moreover, many fundamental rights are already enshrined in the constitutions of Pacific States and those rights, as a matter of domestic law, cannot be modified without lawful constitutional amendment. Much of this debate centres on the rights of women and children. Those groups comprise a substantial part, if not a majority, of each community. The practical reality is that they will not accept modification of their rights. They will expect their full protection under the law.52 When issues of perceived conflict arise, the first, most important step, is to research the scope and content of the relevant international standard, the applicable constitutional and statutory provisions and the postulated customary right. That exercise, in itself, is likely to highlight reasons why the latter must give way to the former. This exercise is also likely to demonstrate areas where more education and understanding in the community is necessary to explain why traditional custom has been overtaken by time and other factors. In this way, the limited sense of "ownership" and awareness of human rights, which was noted in the Outcomes Statement of the 2005 Nadi Workshop, may be overcome. An important step in developing materials for research of this kind is now under way in the New Zealand Law Commission, which has received a reference to review and analyse the interface between custom and human rights in Pacific Island countries. 6. A Sub-Regional Human Rights BodyReference has already been made to the work of LawAsia in the late 1980's in drafting a proposed Pacific Charter of Human Rights. The possibility of such a development was expressly raised by the CEO of the Fijian Ministry of Foreign Affairs at the 2005 Nadi Workshop. He indicated that Fiji would support the development of a regional human rights commission and, subsequently, a regional human rights court. The political and other obstacles to this outcome, it might be thought, would be long and difficult to overcome. In the meantime, it would be regrettable if this long term possibility delayed individual States considering ratification of the major human rights conventions. One reason advanced for this wide-reaching and ambitions proposal, was that it could pre-empt the need for Pacific States to ratify individual human rights conventions. However, a Pacific Human Rights Charter, or some other treaty which would be necessary to establish a regional human rights commission or court, would require each participating State to sign and ratify it. There is one further possible obstacle to Pacific States participating in a regional human rights commission or court. The promoters intend that a regional body would have power to hear and determine human rights complaints, and to bring down a decision that would bind the State and the complainant. There must be a serious question about the legal and constitutional capacity of a State to cede adjudicative functions, in the nature of judicial power, to a third party where the State constitution vests the judicial power in a constitutional court structure and does not provide for that structure to be qualified by legislative or executive action which vests power in another body to make a decision that could override the State's courts. Such a problem could be overcome by constitutional amendment but that, in itself, may be a very difficult path. 7. A Comprehensive Pacific RegimeThere is one further dimension to a regional commission or other human rights body, which does not appear to have been canvassed in recent consultations. That is the position of the French Pacific Islands, in particular New Caledonia and Tahiti which, apart from their geographical relationship, have close trading and tourist relationships with their other Pacific neighbours. Should not the administration of these islands be included in discussions, and their positions recognised and accommodated? ConclusionDiscussion at this Conference is likely to identify other issues that need to be considered, as well as expanding on the comments I have already made. I am confident that the discussion will demonstrate the point that the judiciary has a lot to offer in the ongoing debate. The way forward may be slow, but the momentum for the establishment of human rights mechanisms in the Pacific region should be maintained. As I hope the foregoing discussion has illustrated, I think two matters stand out as the priority ones. The first is the pressing need for programs to inform communities, from political and business leaders to the grass roots of the electorate, and especially those who suffer disadvantage and inequality, about the nature, scope and benefits of the protection of human rights principles. In this exercise NGOs in civil society are a valuable avenue for promulgating information - but they need funding support. But probably the best way of all for promoting the importance of human rights principles, and in assisting in the presentation of education programs would be a NHRI. The establishment of NHRIs in States that do not have one should be an important goal. SCHEDULE 153: Substantive provisions of the seven core international human rights treaties
SCHEDULE 2: RATIFICATION OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS INSTRUMENTS BY PACIFIC ISLAND NATIONS
Note: (a) = acceded; (s) = succeeded; and (sig) = signatory. SCHEDULE 3 - CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS
Endbnotes
|