Chapter 3
Introduction to International Law
What is a treaty?
3.1 Professor D.P. O'Connell has described the difficulty in defining
a treaty as follows:
There is no general touchstone for determining what is a treaty. Everything
depends upon analysis of the instrument in question, whether its contemplated
goal is juridically significant, whether the language used is indicative
of juridical intent, and whether the signatories acted in a manner consistent
with the view that they intended to enter into binding engagement as
distinct from merely assenting to an ad hoc political aim.[1]
3.2 International law concerning treaties has been partially codified
in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. The treaty was
drafted in two sessions in 1968 and 1969 and came into force internationally
on 27 January 1980. Australia acceded to this treaty on 13 June 1974.
The Convention sets out international agreement on the procedure and consequences
of entering into treaties, reservations to treaties, interpretation of
treaties, termination of treaties and withdrawal from treaties.
3.3 Article 2(1)(a) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
defines a treaty as 'an international agreement concluded between States
in written form and governed by international law, whether embodied in
a single instrument or in two or more related instruments and whatever
its designation.' Like contracts in domestic legal systems, treaties are
binding in accordance with their terms.[2]
3.4 The major distinguishing characteristic of a treaty is that it is
concluded between sovereign nation states with full international personality.[3]
Individuals, or groups without international personality, cannot be parties
to a treaty.[4]
3.5 Under international law, a treaty becomes binding on any nation state
which enters into it.[5] A treaty can, therefore, only be signed or ratified
by an official representative of the nation state. The Vienna Convention
on the Law of Treaties recognises Heads of State, Heads of Government
and Ministers for Foreign Affairs as having the capacity to enter into
treaties on behalf of their nations. In certain cases diplomats or official
representatives to an international conference are also recognised as
having such capacity. Otherwise, a document authorising the person to
enter into the treaty must be provided by the 'competent authority' of
the nation.[6]
3.6 The term 'treaty' is a general one which covers a range of international
instruments, including charters, conventions, covenants, protocols, agreements,
pacts and exchanges of notes.
When do treaties
come into force for a country?
3.7 Bilateral treaties usually come into force upon signature, or at
an agreed date in the future.
3.8 Multilateral treaties, on the other hand, do not usually come into
force upon signature. A second step of 'ratification' or 'accession',
by which parties commit themselves to fulfilling the terms of the treaty,
is required. Even then, a treaty does not usually come into force at an
international level until a certain number of ratifications have been
deposited, depending on the terms of the treaty. Treaties may also stipulate
that any ratification or accession deposited after the treaty has come
into force, will not take effect until a certain period has elapsed.
2.9 An example is article 49 of the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights. It provides that the Covenant shall enter into
force three months after the date of the deposit of the thirty-fifth instrument
of ratification or accession. It further provides that if a country ratifies
or accedes to the Covenant after that date, then it shall enter into force
in respect of that country three months after the date of the deposit
of its instrument of ratification or accession.
What is the
effect of a treaty being signed on behalf of a country?
3.10 'Signature' is the formal term used to show that a party agrees
with the content of an agreement. It does not necessarily signify an intention
to be bound. Its significance, in part, is historical and harks back to
the time when absolute monarchies were the norm, transport and communications
awkward and representatives of states were given 'full powers' meaning
the power to bind their sovereign.
3.11 Whether signature is effective in bringing the treaty into operation
will depend on the intention of the parties.[7] If the parties intend
that they will only be bound by the treaty once they commit the further
act of ratifying the treaty, then signature itself will not bind the parties.
3.12 Where a treaty has been signed on behalf of a country, but not yet
ratified, there is an obligation on the part of the signatory country
to proceed to ratification in good faith. The Department of Foreign Affairs
and Trade has advised that it is Australia's policy to adhere to this
duty of good faith and that Australia does not sign treaties without an
intention to ratify them.[8]
3.13 Signature also gives rise to a duty to refrain from acts which would
defeat the object and purpose of a treaty, until such time as a signatory
makes it clear that it is no longer intending to become a party to the
treaty.[9]
Ratification
3.14 Ratification literally means 'confirmation' and in the days of absolute
monarchies the Monarch would 'confirm' his agent's signature. In a formal
sense the act was fairly meaningless and only really added solemnity to
the process. The reverse is the situation in modern treaty making practice.
3.15 Today ratification denotes two distinct acts in the treaty making
process. It has domestic meaning denoting the procedures peculiar to the
country for that country to bind itself. Ratification in this sense for
Australia is the decision by the Governor-General in Council to approve
the Treaty.
3.16 The second sense of ratification is the international act whereby
the country expresses its consent to be bound. In modern treaty practice
this is often a deposit of an instrument of ratification. In Australia
this instrument will be drafted by the legal office of the Department
of Foreign Affairs and Trade. It will express Australia's acceptance of
the terms of the treaty including any qualifications or reservations to
that approval. It will occur after the relevant domestic procedures have
taken place, allowing ratification.
3.17 Ratification is only necessary if the treaty or the parties require
it. In other cases, the treaty will enter into force upon signature.
Accession
3.18 Accession describes the situation where a country was not originally
a signatory to the treaty but subsequently accepts its provisions. 'Acceptance'
and 'approval' also describe the same process. Generally how a country
accedes to a treaty will depend on the treaty itself. Typically it may
involve the deposit of an instrument of accession.[10]
What does
it mean when a country enters a reservation to a treaty?
3.19 Article 2 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
describes a reservation as:
[A] unilateral statement, however phrased or named, made by a country,
when signing, ratifying, accepting, approving or acceding to a treaty,
whereby it purports to exclude or to modify the legal effect of certain
provisions of the treaty in their application to that State.
3.20 Article 19 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
provides that a nation state may not make a reservation if the reservation
is prohibited by the treaty, or if it does not fall within the type of
reservations that the treaty allows, or if the reservation is incompatible
with the object and purpose of the treaty. Many major multilateral treaties
have specific provisions dealing with the type of reservations which are
permissible, and those which are not.
When
can a country withdraw from or denounce a treaty?
3.21 Under customary international law, treaties are legal agreements
which must be obeyed. This is summed up by the Latin maxim: pacta sunt
servanda.[11] A treaty is evidence of the consent of all the parties
to be bound by its provisions. This consent can usually be withdrawn and
this process is generally termed 'denunciation'.[12]
3.22 A treaty may stipulate the terms on which a party can withdraw from,
or denounce, the treaty. For example, the Convention on the Elimination
of All Forms of Racial Discrimination provides that a party may denounce
the Convention by written notification to the Secretary-General of the
United Nations. Denunciation is to take effect one year after the date
of receipt of the notification by the Secretary-General.
3.23 In some cases denunciation is subject to very strict conditions.
For example, the ILO Convention Concerning Discrimination in Respect
of Employment and Occupation 1958 (No. 111) provides in Article
9 that a party to the Convention may denounce it after the expiration
of ten years from the date on which it first came into force, or at intervals
of 10 years thereafter, and that denunciation will take effect from the
date one year after the denunciation is registered.
3.24 If a treaty does not provide for denunciation or withdrawal, article
56 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties provides
that denunciation or withdrawal is not allowed unless it is established
that the parties intended to allow for denunciation or a right of denunciation
or withdrawal may be implied by the nature of the treaty.
3.25 A party may also denounce a treaty if it has the consent of all
the other parties to the treaty. Unilateral denunciation is a fact of
treaty practice although some theoreticians argue that it can only be
done where the treaty has been substantially breached by the other party.[13]
What are
the consequences of a breach of a treaty?
3.26 A breach of international law has different consequences as compared
to a breach of domestic law. There is no international court that can
compel parties to appear before it. This is in contrast to the consequences
of a breach of domestic law where domestic courts can compel parties to
appear before them. In international law disputes, such as the breach
of a treaty, political pressure and diplomatic negotiations are relied
upon as important ways to resolve disputes and encourage compliance with
treaty obligations.[14]
3.27 The International Court of Justice in the Hague adjudicates disputes
between countries on international law matters. All members of the United
Nations are members of the Statute of the International Court of Justice
and there is also provision in the Statute for other countries to become
parties to it.
3.28 However, the International Court of Justice only has jurisdiction
over a matter if parties consent to its jurisdiction. Under art.36(2)
of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, countries can declare
that they recognise the jurisdiction of the Court. Australia has made
an unconditional declaration under art.36(2) of the Statute of the International
Court of Justice. Indonesia has not made such a declaration. Accordingly,
in the East Timor dispute, Portugal took action in the International Court
of Justice against Australia, rather than Indonesia, because the Court
did not have any jurisdiction to bind Indonesia.[15]
3.29 Article 94(1) of the United Nations Charter provides that in cases
where the International Court of Justice has jurisdiction, the decision
of the Court is binding on the parties to the case. However, it has been
the case that defendant countries have boycotted the Court's proceedings
or not complied with judgments of the Court.[16] Article 94(2) of the
United Nations Charter provides that in cases where judgments of the Court
are breached, the other party may seek the assistance of the United Nations
Security Council to enforce the Court's judgment. For example, the Council
may recommend the implementation of economic sanctions against the nation
in breach of the Court's judgment.[17]
3.30 Some treaties provide their own enforcement procedures.[18] For
example, an arbitration mechanism was included in the bilateral Australia/United
States Air Transport Agreement. In 1993, Australia triggered this arbitration
mechanism in relation to the dispute concerning the US airline, Northwest
Airlines. Although the dispute was settled, it has been argued that 'the
triggering of arbitration was a motivating force in reaching settlement.'[19]
Customary international
law
3.31 Customary international law consists of international custom as
evidenced by a general practice accepted as law.[20] For a practice to
be accepted as an international customary law, the particular practice
must be observed by the great majority of nation states and there must
also be evidence that the practice is accepted as a matter of legal right
or obligation.[21]
3.32 Provisions in a treaty may become customary international law and
therefore become binding even on nations which are not parties to the
treaty. This may happen where customary international law develops to
embrace the new norm included in a treaty, that is, where the great majority
of states enter the treaty and abide by the provisions.[22] Of course
where a treaty merely codifies existing customary international law the
provisions may already be binding on states not party to the treaty.[23]
3.33 There is some authority that customary international law may form
part of the common law of Australia. The Hon. Elizabeth Evatt described
the position as follows:
[C]ustomary rules and particularly principles of human rights, such
as the principle against genocide and so on, are part of customary international
law. As such, they would be accepted as part of the common law. Naturally
as such, they can be overruled by legislation, as any part of the common
law can. But we should not think of international law as being an entirely
separate thing from the law of Australia. Some parts of it we would
recognise.[24]
Treaties
and the federal system
3.34 Whether internal limitations on a country's treaty making capacity
will actually affect that country's treaty making capacity on the international
plane is uncertain. Some contend that constitutional limitations will
limit treaty making capacity on the international sphere whereas the alternate
view is that a country is bound irrespective of its internal limitations
so long as the consent was given by an agent properly authorised by international
law.[25]
3.35 The problem most commonly arises in federations, with treaties which
demand that parties legislate in a certain way, when the federal government
of the particular country is not constitutionally competent to fulfil
the obligation.
3.36 Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
provides that: 'A party may not invoke the provisions of its internal
law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty'. An exception
is provided for in article 46 which states:
1 ) A State may not invoke the fact that its consent to be bound by
a treaty has been expressed in violation of a provision of its internal
law regarding competence to conclude treaties as invalidating its consent
unless that violation was manifest and concerned a rule of its internal
law of fundamental importance.
2 ) A violation is manifest if it would be objectively evident to any
State conducting itself in the matter in accordance with normal practice
and in good faith.
3.37 The problems arising from federal systems are sometimes dealt with
explicitly in treaties in the form of a federal clause. An example is
the following clause from article 34 of the UNESCO Convention Concerning
the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage:
The following provisions shall apply to those State Parties to this
Convention which have a federal or non-unitary constitutional system:
(a) with regard to the provisions of this Convention, the implementation
of which comes under the legal jurisdiction of the federal or central
legislative power, the obligations of the federal or central government
shall be the same as for those States Parties which are not federal
States;
(b) with regard to the provisions of this Convention, the implementation
of which comes under the legal jurisdiction of individual constituent
States, countries, provinces or cantons that are not obliged by the
constitutional system of the federation to take legislative measures,
the federal government shall inform the competent authorities of such
States, countries, provinces, or cantons of the said provisions, with
its recommendation for their adoption.[26]
3.38 Federal clauses have become less popular in the last two decades.
Many non-federal countries see them as mere excuses for avoiding treaty
obligations.[27] Accordingly, it is more difficult to get other countries
to agree to insert a federal clause in a multilateral treaty. The only
option for a federation, then, is to express its federal limitations by
way of reservation.
3.39 An example of the difficulties involved in achieving federal clauses
in treaties is the case of the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights. During the course of the Covenant's negotiation,
the United States, Australia and India recommended that a federal clause
be included. Other countries objected 'on the grounds that it gave the
federal authority a wide discretion to avoid responsibility and left non-federal
states in doubt as to the legal obligations of federal states under the
treaty.'[28] The Soviet Union proposed the insertion of a clause stating
that the Covenant shall apply to all parts of federal states, regardless
of their internal divisions of power. This proposal was accepted and became
article 50 of the Covenant, which provides:
The provisions of the present Covenant shall extend to all parts of
federal States without any limitation or exception.
3.40 When Australia ratified the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights in 1980, it included a reservation which explained
the federal system of government in Australia, and stated:
...the implementation of those provisions of the Covenant over whose
subject matter the federal authorities exercise legislative executive
and judicial jurisdiction will be a matter for those authorities; and
the implementation of those provisions of the Covenant over whose subject
matter the authorities of the constituent states exercise legislative,
executive and judicial jurisdiction will be a matter for those authorities;
and where a provision has both federal and state aspects, its implementation
will accordingly be a matter for the respective constitutionally appropriate
authorities...[29]
3.41 This reservation was controversial and drew international criticism.[30]
The reservation was withdrawn by the Commonwealth Government in 1984,
and replaced by a 'federal statement'.
3.42 The United States of America also issued an 'understanding' at the
time that it ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights. This 'understanding' has also been the subject of some criticism.[31]
3.43 The issue of whether federal clauses are viable and appropriate
is discussed in Chapter 13 of this report.
The United Nations
3.44 International organisations play an important role in international
law. They are established by treaties between countries and have independent
legal personality.[32] Many such organisations exist today. Two major
international organisations are the United Nations and the International
Labour Organisation.
3.45 The United Nations is made up of six principal organs, the General
Assembly, the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council, the Trusteeship
Council, the Secretariat and the International Court of Justice. There
are also a range of other United Nations organs, such as the United Nations
High Commission for Refugees and the World Food Council.
3.46 The United Nations system also comprises a number of specialised
agencies and other autonomous organisations, including the International
Telecommunications Union and the World Intellectual Property Organization.[33]
3.47 The Charter of the United Nations was signed on 26 June 1945 at
the San Francisco Conference on International Organisation and came into
force on 24 October 1945.[34] The United Nations General Assembly is the
main representative body of the United Nations. It consists of all Member
States, each of which has one vote. The regular session of United Nations
General Assembly begins each year on the third Tuesday of September and
usually continues until mid-December.
3.48 The fundamental objective of the United Nations Charter is the goal
of ensuring international peace and security - 'saving succeeding generations
from the scourge of war' as stated in the Preamble.[35]
3.49 Human rights were also recognised as important under the Charter
of the United Nations. Article 13 of the United Nations Charter provides
that one of the functions of the General Assembly is to initiate studies
and make recommendations for the purpose of:
[P]romoting international cooperation in the economic, social, cultural,
educational, and health fields, and assisting in the realisation of
human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as
to race, sex, language, or religion.[36]
3.50 The United Nations Security Council has primary responsibility for
the maintenance of international peace and security,[37] a function which
encompasses the peaceful settlement of disputes and responses to acts
threatening international peace and security. It is important to note
that the Security Council has wide-ranging enforcement powers, including
the power to authorise sanctions, embargoes and all other necessary means
(including the use of force) for the purpose of maintaining or restoring
international peace and security.[38]
3.51 The United Nations has a number of functional bodies. Under Article
62 of the United Nations Charter, the Economic and Social Council
may make recommendations for the purpose of promoting respect for, and
observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all. It may also
prepare draft conventions for submission to the General Assembly and call
international conferences on human rights matters.[39]
3.52 The United Nations Commission on Human Rights was established by
the Economic and Social Council in 1946. It meets annually in Geneva and
may also be convened in order to consider urgent situations. It is the
main body dealing with human rights and has a wide mandate to deal with
any matter relating to human rights including the consideration of country
situations and also standard setting activities, including the preparation
of draft treaties on human rights. Australia is currently a member of
the UN Commission on Human Rights.
The International
Labour Organisation
3.53 Membership of the International Labour Organisation (ILO) is open
only to nation states which are recognised as such in international law.
In practice most members of the United Nations are also members of the
ILO.[40]
3.54 The International Labour Conference (ILC) meets annually,
usually in Geneva. It is composed of representatives of each of the members
of the Organisation. Each member nation is entitled to a delegation of
four comprising two Government representatives, and one representative
each of employers and workers in the country concerned. The employers'
and workers' delegates are appointed by governments in consultation with
the representative industrial organisations in their respective countries.
In Australia, these comprise the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry
(ACCI) and the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU).
3.55 One of the principal functions of the ILC is the adoption of formal
instruments establishing international labour standards. These instruments
take the form of Conventions and Recommendations. The ILC has general
oversight over the operation of the Organisation, including approval of
its budget.[41]
3.56 The Governing Body of the ILO is composed of twenty-eight
government representatives, 14 workers' representatives and 14 employers'
representatives. The Governing Body meets in Geneva three times a year.
It is responsible for the planning and direction of the work of the organisation
on a day-to-day basis.
3.57 With the exception of two terms (1960-63 and 1969-72), Australia
has been a government member of the Governing Body since 1945, and has
provided the Chairman of the Governing Body on two occasions, 1975 and
1989. In addition to the Government, both the President of the ACTU and
the Executive Director of the ACCI are presently members of the governing
Body (1993-95).[42]
3.58 Article 24 of the ILO Constitution allows for representations to
be initiated by workers' or employers' associations in cases of alleged
non-observance by members of their ILO obligations. In addition a special
procedure in relation to complaints concerning infringements of the right
to freedom of association has been in place since 1950. There are over
300 international labour conventions and recommendations.[43]
Endnotes:
- D. P. O'Connell, International
Law, Vol. 1, 2nd ed., Stevens and Sons, London, 1970: p 205.
- I. Shearer, 'The implications of
non-treaty law making customary law and its implications', unpublished
paper delivered at the Australia in a Global Context: The United
Nations and Law Making for the 21st Century Conference, Australian
National University, May 1995.
- 'International personality' exists
where there is general international recognition that a country, body
or organisation has the legal capacity to enter into international relations.
Apart from nation states, some international organisations such as the
United Nations have been recognised as having international personality.
In some cases, if the Constitution of a country allows it, the sub-State
components of a country (such as provinces or cantons) may enter into
international relations, and therefore have a limited form of international
personality. See Chapter 10.
- A contract between a State granting
concessions to a private company, for example, is not a treaty: Anglo-Iranian
Oil Case, ICJ Reports (1952) 111.
- Article 26 of the Vienna Convention
on the Law of Treaties provides that: 'Every treaty in force is
binding upon the parties to it and must be performed by them in good
faith'.
- Article 7, Vienna Convention
on the Law of Treaties.
- Article 12 of the Vienna Convention
on the Law of Treaties states that the consent of a party to be
bound is expressed by signature when the treaty provides that signature
shall have that effect. Likewise article 14 states that ratification
will express consent when the treaty so provides.
- Mr C.R. Jones, Department of Foreign
Affairs and Trade, Submission No. 93, Vol 6, p 1158.
- Article 18, Vienna Convention
on the Law of Treaties. See also: Department of Foreign Affairs
and Trade, Negotiation, Conclusion and Implementation of International
Treaties and Arrangements, AGPS, Canberra, August 1994: p. 12; and
Hansard, SCLRC, 25 July 1995, p 837, per Professor H. Charlesworth.
- A country may only accede to a
treaty with the agreement of the parties to the treaty. Such agreement
might have been given in advance by the provisions of the treaty: Article
15(a), Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. For example,
in a number of multilateral 'law-making' treaties, like the Geneva
Conventions of 1958 or the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
1969, accession is possible by any state which is a member of the United
Nations or of any of the Specialised Agencies: Professor D. W. Greig,
Submission No. 112, Vol 7, p 1502.
- This principle has now been codified
in Article 26 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
- The views of witnesses on whether
Australia should withdraw from, or denounce, treaties, are discussed
in Chapter 11.
- D.P. O'Connell, International
Law, Vol. 1, 2nd ed., Stevens and Sons, London, 1970: p 267.
- C. Staker, 'Introduction to International
Law', International Law, Attorney-General's Department, October
1994, p 7.
- A. Twomey, Procedure and Practice
of Entering and Implementing International Treaties, Background
Paper No. 27 1995, Parliamentary Research Service, p 14.
- C. Staker, 'Introduction to International
Law', International Law, Attorney-General's Department, October
1994, p 8.
- A. Twomey, Procedure and Practice
of Entering and Implementing International Treaties, Background
Paper No. 27 1995, Parliamentary Research Service, p 14.
- See also article 60 Vienna Convention
on the Law of Treaties that provides for termination or suspension
of the operation of a treaty as a consequence of its breach.
- C. Staker, 'Introduction to International
Law', International Law, Attorney-General's Department, October
1994, p 8.
- Article 38(1) of the Statute of
the International Court of Justice.
- I. Shearer, 'The implications of
non-treaty law making customary law and its implications', unpublished
paper delivered at the Australia in a Global Context: The United
Nations and Law Making for the 21st Century Conference, Australian
National University, May 1995.
- R. Higgins, Problems and Process;
International law and how we use it, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1994:
p 29. Professor Higgins referred to the North Sea Continental Shelf
Cases as recognising this possibility.
- R. Higgins, Problems and Process;
International law and how we use it, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1994:
p 29.
- Hansard, SLCRC, 16 May 1995,
p 379, and pp. 394-5. See also Hansard, SLCRC, 13 June 1995,
p 525 and pp. 546-8, per Mr B. Fitzgerald.
- I. Brownlie, Principles of Public
International Law, 4th ed, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1990: p 613.
- For further examples of federal
clauses, see: H. Burmester, 'Federal Clauses: An Australian Perspective'
(1985) 34 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 522.
- Hansard, SLCRC, 13 June
1995, p 533, per Professor K. Wiltshire.
- G. Triggs, 'Australia's Ratification
of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Endorsement
or Repudiation?' (1982) 31 International and Comparative Law Quarterly
286.
- See full text of the reservation
in: G. Triggs, 'Australia's Ratification of the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights: Endorsement or Repudiation?' (1982) 31
International and Comparative Law Quarterly 304-5.
- Hansard, SLCRC, 16 May 1995,
p 373, per The Hon. E.G. Whitlam. See also: E.G. Whitlam, 'National
and International Maturity', (1992) 46 Australian Journal of International
Affairs 35.
- The understanding provides:
That the United States understands that this Covenant shall be implemented
by the Federal government to the extent that it exercises legislative
and judicial jurisdiction over the matters covered therein, and otherwise
by the state and local governments; to the extent that state and local
governments exercise jurisdiction over such matters, the Federal Government
shall take measures appropriate to the Federal system to the end that
the competent authorities of the state or local governments may take
appropriate measures for the fulfilment of the Covenant. ST/LEGLSER.E/13
p 126.
See discussion in: D.P. Stewart, 'United States Ratification of the
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: The Significance of the Reservations,
Understandings and Declarations' (1993) 42 DePaul Law Review
1183, at 1201-2.
- I. Brownlie, Principles of Public
International Law, 4th edition, Clarendon Press, 1990, pp 680-3.
- United Nations, Basic Facts
About the United Nations, Department of Public Information, United
Nations, New York, 1992.
- The following description of the
United Nations is based on Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade,
Human Rights Manual, AGPS, Canberra, 1993.
- Department of Foreign Affairs and
Trade, Human Rights Manual, AGPS, Canberra, 1993: p 49.
- Department of Foreign Affairs and
Trade, Human Rights Manual, AGPS, Canberra, 1993: p 50.
- Article 24, Charter of the United
Nations.
- Department of Foreign Affairs and
Trade, Human Rights Manual, AGPS, Canberra, 1993: p 51.
- Department of Foreign Affairs and
Trade, Human Rights Manual, AGPS, Canberra, 1993: p 52.
- This description is based on the
submission from the Australian Council of Trade Unions. Submission No.
76, Vol 4, pp 802-803.
- ACTU, Submission No. 76, Vol 4,
pp 802-803.
- ACTU, Submission No. 76, Vol 4,
pp 802-803.
- Department of Foreign Affairs and
Trade, Human Rights Manual, AGPS, Canberra, 1993: p 64.