SUB-COMMISSION DISCUSSES REPORTS ON RESERVATIONS TO HUMAN RIGHTS TREATIES, SLAVERY AND WOMEN

AFTERNOON





Holds Interactive Dialogue with Members of International Law Commission



The Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights this afternoon continued its debate on specific human rights issues by discussing reports on reservations to human rights treaties, the Working Group on Contemporary Forms of Slavery, and harmful traditional practices affecting women and the girl child.

Sub-Commission Expert Francoise Jane Hampson said there was only one regime in international law concerning reservations to treaties that was contained in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. There was no special regime for human rights treaties. Where the issue of reservations really did or could matter, it was in the handling of individual complaints. Where a treaty itself did not exclude reservations generally or a particular reservation, States were free to submit a reservation on condition that it was not incompatible with the objects and purposes of a treaty.

An inter-active dialogue followed with the participation of the International Law Commission, Sub-Commission Experts and non-governmental organizations.
Teodor Melescanu, the Chairperson of the fifty-sixth session of the International Law Commission, said that there was a great similarity between the views of Ms. Hampson and those of the Commission. What was interesting was the legal aspect of reservations or objections. The International Law Commission had carried out a series of meetings with human rights bodies on this issue.

Sub-Commission Expert Paulo Sergio Pinheiro, Chairperson/Rapporteur of the Working Group on Contemporary Forms of Slavery, presented the report of the Working Group on its twenty-ninth session, saying that forced labour still took place in many countries despite efforts to eliminate the practice, which had in many cases met with resistance as the structures in which it was embedded continued to exist. He said there was a need to redefine the concept of forced labour, and it had been established that there were two forms of forced labour.
Sub-Commission Expert Halima Embarek Warzazi, Special Rapporteur on harmful traditional practices affecting the health of women and the girl child, presented her eighth report, saying that the cause that the Sub-Commission had been defending for a long time had made a great leap forward, even though the road was still long. She urged all policy makers and legislators to take great precaution while designing policies and laws to take into consideration the cultural aspect of female genital mutilation. The measures should respect the long traditions that were part of the heritage of many people. Awareness campaigns should be intensified to change peoples’ attitudes towards their harmful traditional practices, she said.

Other members of the Sub-Commission taking part in the debate were El-Hadji Guissé, Emmanuel Decaux, Chin Sung Chung, Yuko Hayashi, Christy Ezim Mbonu, Gudmundur Alfredsson, Miguel Alfonso Martinez, Vladimir Kartashkin, Chen Shiqiu, Marc Bossuyt, Ibrahim Salama, Antoanella-Iulia Motoc and Yozo Yokota.

The following non-governmental organizations contributed to the debate: Minnesota Advocates for Human Rights; Inter-African Committee; Franciscans International (jointly with Dominicans for Justices and Peace and Pax Christi International); International Council of Women (jointly with the Coalition against Trafficking in Women and the International Council of Jewish Women); International Organization for the Development of Freedom of Education (jointly with Sokka Gakkai International and the International Movement Against All Forms of Discrimination and Racism); Consultative Council of Jewish Organizations (with the International Council of Jewish Women).

When the Sub-Commission reconvenes at 10 a.m. on Friday, 6 August, it will continue its debate on specific human rights issues.

Presentation of Report on Reservations to Human Rights Treaties

FRANCOISE JANE HAMPSON (Sub-Commission Expert) said there was only one regime in international law concerning reservations to treaties - that contained in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. There was no special regime for human rights treaties. That said, the nature and form of human rights law meant that the application of the usual regime to human rights treaties would give rise to certain issues and questions, particular but not unique to human rights law. Generally speaking, the question of reservations was not a question affecting the day-to-day work of the treaty bodies. Where the issue of reservations really did or could matter, it was in the handling of individual complaints. Where a treaty itself did not exclude reservations generally or a particular reservation, States were free to submit a reservation on condition that it was not incompatible with the objects and purposes of a treaty.

Regarding the interpretation of a reservation, the Vienna Convention again provided the appropriate regime. When States submitted reservations that were incompatible with the objects of a treaty, that was when there were real problems. The report had reached a conclusion on the first of these issues, but not yet on the second or the third, not least because the International Law Commission or more particularly its Special Rapporteur had not yet addressed these issues, and it was hoped that when it did, it would take into account the particular problems that arise in the case of the monitoring bodies of human rights treaties. (A summary of the report E/CN.4/Sub.2/2004/41) on reservations to human rights treaties can be found in press release HR/SC/04/13 of 3 August.

Statements on the Report on Reservations to Human Rights Treaties

TEODOR MELESCANU, Chairperson of the Fifty-Sixth Session of the International Law Commission, said that there was a great similarity between the views of Ms. Hampson and those of the Commission. What was interesting was the legal aspect of reservations or objections. The International Law Commission had carried out a series of meetings with human rights bodies on this issue.

ALAIN PELLET, Special Rapporteur of the International Law Commission on Reservations to International Treaties, said the links that had grown between the two bodies, particularly in this common area of reservations, were extremely pleasing. It was hoped the cooperation could continue and maybe extend to other fields. This year’s report was very welcome, with many stimulating points. On substance, not all ideas expressed therein were shared, but the essence was agreed with. Views had evolved following contacts with human rights bodies including the Sub-Commission. Subject to these reservations, there was agreement on various points: that the essential difference between the general problems of reservations on human rights and those on treaties was the lack of surveillance bodies, and the conclusions of Ms. Hampson on this were agreed with fully. It had been agreed that if there were monitoring bodies for these treaties, it was up to them to ensure the validity of what was adopted. Basic differences were related to substance. Basically it was believed that the monitoring bodies could make findings, and that States should take due account of these.

The only problem that remained, and which was not dealt with in the report, was the issue of the controlling power of the monitoring body. There was however great difficulty in saying that a body could replace a State in determining what the State should do and what it wanted. One point where Ms. Hampson did not have an ongoing point of view was on illicit reservations, which could not produce the effects of a formal reservation.

GIORGIO GAJA, of International Law Commission, said that the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties did not mention the human rights monitoring bodies; and it was a matter of interpretation. It was said that human rights bodies were faced with reservations conflicts, and were expected to apply the reservations. What a treaty body had to do was to see if that State party was bound by the reservation. It could also take the situation as if the State party was bound by the obligation without taking the reservations into consideration.

MARC BOSSUYT (Sub-Commission Expert) said this was a very important issue. There were some reservations to the working paper presented by Ms. Hampson. Human rights treaties had specific characteristics that made them different on certain points from classical treaties, but some points in the document went beyond what was meant by international law and its provisions. It was true that it would have been preferred to see the Vienna Convention as a different regime, but it was the one that existed, although it was not the one that was desired. States expected that their reservations were treated under this Convention, and it was clear as to how reservations could be made and whether they could be accepted or not. The State that had made a reservation was not linked to a State that had formulated an objection. There was no possibility where a State could be bound against its will by provisions of a Convention where a reservation had been expressed, and this was the fundamental rule of treaties.

When dealing with human rights treaties, which was essentially a declarative statement of human rights, the commitments taken by States were not situated in the normal area, but in the constitutional area. This did not mean that the monitoring body could not be in a position to express an opinion on a reservation. Human rights treaties were not based on reciprocity, and a reservation by one State was not grounds for another to make a similar reservation. The conclusions in the document were agreed with.

MIGUEL ALFONSO MARTINEZ (Sub-Commission Expert) said there was a general combat in order to reduce the sovereign capacity of States. Today, there was a tendency to give the monitoring treaty bodies more power than they deserved. The treaty bodies should not have the capacity to decide on reservations. If the nature of reservations made by a State were contrary to universally accepted norms, there would be a problem. He was totally opposed to the idea expressed to reject the sovereign reservations of States.

VLADIMIR KARTASHKIN (Sub-Commission Expert) said a number of provisions contained in the report were supported, but there were concerns about others. Three theoretical matters had direct impact on the work of the Sub-Commission: the evolution of modern international law that became more and more inter-dependent led to an inevitable mutation of the sovereign rights of States, and this was why the conclusions of Mr. Miguel Alfonso Martinez on the limitations of the sovereignty of States were not supported. The problem was that in the working document there was nothing relating to the supremacy of international law over national legislation. Provisions could not be self-executed, it was important to point out. The next issue was that of reservations to conventions that formulated acceptable norms in international law, such as the Convention on Genocide, to which a reservation could not be valid as it formulated norms and standards by identifying Genocide as an international crime, and this was accepted by the international community, therefore any reservation or denunciation would not be accepted or legal. The Vienna Convention listed the issues which could be the object of reservations. There was a need for additional measures which would identify a reservation as illegal and therefore prohibited under international law.

ANTOANELLA-IULIA MOTOC (Sub-Commission Expert) said the dialogue at the Sub-Commission today reflected the classic confrontation between two different approaches of international law, with one point of view empowering the sovereignty of a State and the other point of view promoting the idea of an international civil society. These opposing positions had existed for centuries. Ms. Motoc said she preferred the approach taken by Ms Hampson.

EMMANUEL DECAUX (Sub-Commission Expert) said this was a useful and interesting dialogue, and regarding the timeless nature of this matter, it had been said that the changes that had been made to treaties over the last few years left open holes. The issue here was the creation of new treaties in the area of human rights, with specificity in that field. Each in the Sub-Commission had their own views, as did those in the bodies dealing with the issues of human rights. States had fixed levels of accession to human rights treaties and possible reservations, and there had been a move away from a neutral system to a more oriented one, which had a horizon and directions. When a dialogue was held on these matters, it was to influence States towards moving towards the objectives that they themselves had fixed as a goal in front of the international community.

EL-HADJI GUISSE (Sub-Commission Expert) said that by signing treaties, States accepted their obligations under the treaties while keeping into account their sovereign rights. If such a treaty was to evolve and be viable, States should commit their sovereignty in a free manner. There should be a minimum rule to respect a law or treaty. If a reservation was illicit, it was contrary to international law.

YOZO YOKOTA (Sub-Commission Expert) said the final working paper was very useful. On the issue of reservations to human rights treaties, a first starting point was that the issue should be resolved, in whatever way that may be, in the framework of international law, as expressed in the Vienna Convention in the case of international treaties, but full consideration should be given to the nature of human rights treaties, which gave rights to individuals as well as to States. Secondly, States were sovereign, and had the power to place reservations to any treaties, including human rights ones, and this was clear on the basic principles of international law. But, the State, when acceding to an human rights treaty had the right of specifying to what they agreed to, and what they did not. During this exercise, they also had the right to interpret their own reservations. However, many human rights treaties had treaty bodies to monitor, interpret and apply the provisions of the respective treaties, and to evaluate whether an objection was compatible with the treaty. The bodies did not however have the power to give a legally binding interpretation of this, although States were not allowed to ignore their views. States parties to a human rights treaty should consider sincerely the views expressed by the treaty bodies. When the International Court of Justice gave a ruling on an interpretation of a human rights treaty, then this ruling should be accepted as the highest authority.

IBRAHIM SALAMA (Sub-Commission Expert) shared the view that one should not establish a special regime on reservations. States might refrain from adhering to such a regime. A State had an objective while making reservations. However, with the elimination of situations leading to previous reservations, the problem of reservations would be resolved through dialogue between the treaty bodies and States.

P.S. RAO, of the International Law Commission, said the question of the competence of the treaty bodies to judge objections of States which had created the treaty bodies themselves was a basic question which had concerned the International Law Commission for a significant length of time as to how to address the matter. There were two basic problems under international law, as experts there was a duty to enhance the instrument of law, and the treaty bodies had the responsibility of enhancing human rights in general and the Treaty of which they were part. The other problem was the doctrinal plurality from which the treaty itself should be implemented. Regarding the role of soft law in this matter, as raised by Mr. Kartashkin, the role of the State in the highly interdependent new world order was irrelevant, as the importance was how to implement the treaty itself. A State should not be obliged to pursue a course of conduct which it refused to adopt.

ALAIN PELLET , of the International Law Commission, said the Vienna Convention was flexible and it allowed reservations. All treaties accepted reservations. Treaties that were dogmatic in the beginning had been made to evolve. What one could do was to convince States to have lesser reservations. Human rights treaties were treaties and they were not based on give-and-take principles. Human rights laws were part of the international law to which the Commission attached great importance. There was always an opportunity of dialogue under the Vienna Convention.

ANTOANELLA-IULIA MOTOC (Sub-Commission Expert) said she had not said that human rights and international law were not interdependent, this would be an absurd claim, but that the regime was known and qualified as a specialist regime, and the human rights system had some differences, as all knew and there was no need to recall. There were specific aspects that were particular to human rights, including common values and non-reciprocity. There was no separation, but a different logic applying, and some evolution could be seen with regard to the Vienna Convention in the international community. Today there was a more common dialogue than elsewhere.

MARC BOSSUYT (Sub-Commission Expert) said there was still a basic question, how could a State be bound to a treaty or Convention if it had specifically refused to accept that treaty or Convention. They could not be bound, unless they had made the objection under certain circumstances.

FRANCOISE JANE HAMPSON (Sub-Commission Expert) said a State that did not ratify the genocide convention could commit genocide. Even if a State did not sign a treaty against torture, it was bound by international customary law not to practice torture. How was it possible that provisions in a treaty to which a State had made reservations could bind the State? When a monitoring body decided that the reservation made by the State party was incompatible with the purpose of the treaty, the treaty body could disregard the reservation. The Human Rights Committee could set itself as a leading monitoring body.

Presentation of Report of Working Group on Contemporary Forms of Slavery

PAULO SERGIO PINHEIRO (Sub-Commission Expert), Chairman/Rapporteur of the Working Group on Contemporary Forms of Slavery, presented the report on the twenty-ninth session of the Working Group. He said the organization of the session had been modified on a trial basis. Among the innovations had been the holding of a special discussion and an informal meeting. The Working Group was one of the oldest working groups and would be 30 next year. Using a different format, the agenda had not been revolutionized but had been reformed. The Working Group had co-organized with the International Labour Office a special programme and a special discussion which showed that forced labour still took place in many countries despite efforts to eliminate the practice, which had in many cases met with resistance as the structures in which it was embedded continued to exist. There was a need to redefine the concept of forced labour, and it was established that there were two forms of forced labour. In spite of criticism that the Working Group had overstepped its mandate, some States were engaging in dialogue, although the agenda limited these consultations.

The thematic priority of the next session would allow for a review of international commitments, with papers submitted by Experts before the session. A successful panel had been held on trafficking and smuggling with the participation of different Experts, and the non-governmental organizations were asked to prepare documents and papers for the thirtieth anniversary of the Working Group. The Secretariat would be in frequent contact with them and the Member States in order to ensure an interesting and productive session next year. (A summary of the report of the Working Group (E/CN.4/Sub.2/2004/36) can be found in HR/SC/4/13 of 5 August).

Statements on the Report of the Working Group on Contemporary Forms of Slavery

EMMANUEL DECAUX (Sub-Commission Expert) said the Working Group had revisited old conventions and compared them to new ones. He stressed that all the intersessional working groups had also worked on the issue of victims of slavery. In-depth review had also been made with the International Labour Office on forced labour. The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization had also been working on the issue of contemporary forms of slavery.

PAULO SERGIO PINHEIRO (Sub-Commission Expert) said that Mr. Decaux had made a very positive comment on the Working Group and hoped that everything that had been said in and about the report would be something that would draw non-governmental organizations and States into the work of the Working Group, in particular in the context of the thirtieth anniversary, and it would be good if States could invite their Experts to participate in this important dialogue in the context of the Working Group. It was hoped that what had been said by Mr. Decaux could be conveyed to the Voluntary Trust Fund in order to encourage their presence. All were invited to the thirtieth anniversary celebrations.

Presentation of Report on Traditional Practices Affecting the Health of Women and the Girl Child

HALIMA EMBAREK WARZAZI (Sub-Commission Expert), presenting an updated report on traditional practices affecting the health of women and the girl child, said as in the previous years she was presenting a new report on the implementation of a plan of action with the view to eliminating harmful traditional practices. That fact that the report was the eighth of its kind indicated the importance which the Sub-Commission attached to the issue. In 1982, the Sub-Commission had adopted a resolution on the topic, taking into consideration all the necessary precautions to submit the problem to the Commission on Human Rights. Although there could not be unlimited enthusiasm over the progress achieved to date, the cause that the Sub-Commission was defending had made a great leap forward, even though the road was still long.

The report underlined that the problem of female genital mutilation was today a subject of greater attention and that the African Governments were committed to combat it. The African Union had not only put in place a legal mechanism to be applied throughout the Continent, but had also launched a vast campaign to persuade those African countries that had not yet ratified and integrated it in their domestic legislation to do so. In conclusion, she urged all policy makers and legislators to make great prudence while designing policies and laws to take into consideration the cultural aspect of female genital mutilation. The measures should respect the long traditions that were part of the heritage of many people. Awareness campaigns should be intensified to change the peoples’ attitudes towards their harmful traditional practices. (A summary of the report E/CN.4/Sub.2/2004/41 can be found in HR/SC/04/13 of 5 August).

Statements on the Report on Traditional Practices Affecting the Health of Women and the Girl Child

CHIN SUNG CHUNG (Sub-Commission Expert) said the dedicated efforts in pursuing a systematic research on this topic could only be commended. A global campaign of awareness building and elimination of such practices had emerged, and this was encouraging. These efforts, both in Africa and in diaspora countries should be supported. More should be done by the concerned Member States and society to halt these crimes affecting young women. Harmful traditional practices were perpetrated with the view that they were good both for the woman and for society and for traditions themselves. Awareness-raising was thus the best means for helping to eliminate these practices. This was all the more important as a significant part of the Beijing Plus 10 initiatives.

CHIN SHIQIU (Sub-Commission Expert) thanked Ms. Warzazi for her excellent work. Her study had been an in-depth effort, particularly with regard to the situation in Africa. The conference held in Addis Ababa on the issue had been attended by a number of Governments and non-governmental organizations. In the report, it was mentioned that by the year 2010, the problem of female genital mutilation would be totally eliminated.

Yuko Hayashi (Sub-Commission Alternate Expert) said the long-standing tireless commitment of Ms. Warzazi to this issue was to be commended, and her efforts admired. Her report was particularly important, as this year commemorated the tenth anniversary of the Cairo conference, which established a landmark declaration on women’s reproductive health. It was also encouraging to see that progress had been made by international leaders all over the world on this subject, with actions that had been initiated by the Sub-Commission. It was the sensitive approach of Ms. Warzazi that had made it possible to bring together many to discuss their experiences of harmful traditional practices. It was interesting to see the link between these practices and other agenda items, including the administration of justice and economic, social and cultural rights.

The report also introduced the fact that a number of countries had implemented judicial competence to national courts to penalize such crimes that were committed abroad such as female genital mutilation. As the High Commissioner for Human Rights had said in the report on systematic rape and sexual slavery during armed conflict, until the full participation of women in the decision-making process was ensured, women would continue to be prevented from achieving their full progress. In order to prevent human rights violations, there was a need for more women decision-makers in peace time, and the international community should continue to aim at eradicating harmful traditional practices in the name of all women.
CHRISTY EZIM MBONU (Sub-Commission Expert) said that the issue of female genital mutilation had been globalized with many countries becoming aware of the problem. Among the achievements in eliminating the problem was the sensitization of those who practiced circumcising in the societies where the practice still persisted. The healer, or the person who was engaged in mutilation, should be provided with an alternative livelihood. Many so-called healers lived on the money they obtained from their practice. Other than female genital mutilation, the Special Rapporteur should extend her study to other harmful traditional practices affecting women.

GUDMUNDUR ALFREDSSON (Sub-Commission Expert) said the thanks and congratulations and endorsements of the work of Ms. Warzazi were supported. There was only one difference, and that was with a quotation in paragraph 84 from Montesquieu, regarding the role played by law in social change, which, in the opinion of the speaker, could in fact be effective in changing society, to the contrary of what Montesquieu said.

Marc Bossuyt (Sub-Commission Expert) thanked Ms. Warzazi for the work done over so many years, and noted that it was thanks to her that so much progress had been made recently. He said her work should continue, as it dealt with an important issue for many women in many countries. He was convinced that with Ms. Warzazi, the issue was in good hands.

PENNY PARKER, of Minnesota Advocates for Human Rights, said the document presented by Ms. Warzazi was among the most important ones that the Sub-Commission was dealing with this year. She had stressed the importance of awareness increasing programmes in eliminating female genital mutilation.

BEHRANE RAS-WORK, of Inter-African Committee on Traditional Practices affecting the Health of Women and Children, speaking on behalf of International Movement for Fraternal Union among Races and Peoples, said the Special Rapporteur should be congratulated for assuming her mandate with the highest standard of professionalism and in the name of women afflicted by harmful traditional practices. Her high standing had given the issue visibility in the international arena. The Inter-African Committee had gained inspiration and courage from Ms. Warzazi, and the decision to renew her mandate was applauded. However, considering the level of harm such traditional practices inflicted world-wide, with the basic human rights of these women and girls harmed, it was surprising that she had not received the necessary support to complete her mandate fully, and it was hoped this would change so that she could undertake missions to examine the issue on the ground, and to undertake a comparative study worldwide. These practices died hard, but change was possible, and experience showed that with determination every effort to liberate women from violent practices eventually had a positive outcome, empowering them and giving them freedom. The mandate of the Special Rapporteur ought to be further strengthened so that she could also monitor the progress made in the field in the elimination of these practices.

ALESSANDRA AULA, of Franciscans International, speaking on behalf of Dominicans for Justice and Peace and Pax Christi International, applauded the decision of the Working Group on Contemporary Forms of Slavery to focus on a review of the status of ratification of the relevant treaties and the identification of crucial gaps and challenges remaining in areas covered by its mandate. Contemporary forms of slavery should also be examined from the perspective of the most recent legal instruments adopted on this matter, and such a review should consider indicators on socio-economic, political, administrative and legal obstacles that impeded the full enjoyment of the rights contained in the existing provisions. The Sub-Commission should call upon Governments to criminalise trafficking in human beings in all its forms and condemn and penalize traffickers while ensuring protection and assistance to the victims; devise, enforce and strengthen effective measures at the national, regional and international levels to prevent, combat and eliminate all forms of trafficking; and develop national plans of action to end trafficking.

BRIGITTE POLONOSKI, of International Council of Women, speaking on behalf of Coalition against Trafficking in Women and International Council of Jewish Women, said that for half a century, their organizations had affirmed that sexual exploitation of human beings was a violation of human rights and should be recognized as a crime, which the Palermo protocol did. Trafficking in persons was an important part of a global industry that was expanding aggressively. It was estimated the 500,000 persons were victims of trafficking to the European Union each year, of which 90 per cent were destined for sexual exploitation. Trafficking for the purpose of sexual exploitation often had devastating consequences with regard to the physical and mental health of the victims, more so than other forms of trafficking. The victims who had the chance to survive came out severely wounded both psychologically and physically. Although trafficking had existed for centuries, it had rapidly grown in the last 20 years. The increase in demand for prostitutions in the rich countries had prompted the increase in trafficking for sexual exploitation. Women in the rich countries had work and education as alternatives to prostitution.

ROBERT TROCME, of International Organization for the Development of Freedom of Education, speaking on behalf of Soka Gakkai International and International Movement Against All Forms of Discrimination and Racism, said a World Programme For Human Rights Education had been agreed upon by the Human Rights Commission, following a resolution and discussion with Governments. It provided for a structural approach, which included guidelines to help Governments achieve tangible progress in predefined sectors. While specific guidelines should favour implementation in schools worldwide, and the development of teacher training, benchmarks should facilitate the evaluation of results. The training of officials and staff as a precondition for a successful mainstreaming of human rights in Government could not be overemphasized. In principle, setting goals in specific areas should not preclude the carrying-out of activities in other sectors. If the cross-sectoral impact of human rights education were to be recognized, efforts to overcome educational deficits should not only be aimed at improving the transmission of knowledge and know-how in Government but also aimed at promoting empowerment as a precondition for the establishment of good governance and the rule of law.

GEORGE R. WILKES, of Consultative Council of Jewish Organizations, speaking on behalf of International Council of Jewish Women, urged that there was a pressing need for a new priority to be given to non-discrimination in humanitarian affairs. The human rights dimensions of the new, sensitive and complex areas could not be given structural attention within the United Nations humanitarian agencies alone, and it was not being given due attention by the Commission on Human Rights nor any of the treaty bodies. There was a need for analysis of the meanings given to non-discrimination in the relevant conventions, and beyond that a need for examination of the implementation of human rights considerations for the strengthening of humanitarian activities. The right to solidarity could be invoked to underline the rights of victims and the responsibility of those with the resources to help. However, that was not an entirely new area in which human rights thinking would necessarily creep in only gradually. Non-discrimination in decision-making also lay at the core of the treaties that made up international human rights and humanitarian law.