The German Democratic Republic's Declaration on the Anti-Torture Convention and its Consequences
An Attempt at Evaluation
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 12199097 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Manfred Mohr (Union of the German Academies of Sciences and Humanities, corresponding author) |
| Year | 1990 |
| Volume | 1 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 328-336 |
| Publication date | 1990-01-01 |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | European Journal of International Law (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0938-5428 • E-ISSN: 1464-3596 |
| Publisher | Oxford University Press (OUP) (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1093/oxfordjournals.ejil.a035776 |
| OpenAlex | W2511113071 |
| Language | EN |
the German Democratic Republic deposited its instrument of ratification of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Torture Convention) of 10 December 1984 with the United Nations Secretary-General.The instrument of ratification was accompanied by reservations to the Article 20 investigation procedure and the Article 30 dispute settlement procedure.The German Democratic Republic further declared that it would "[b]ear its share only of those expenses in accordance with Article 17, Paragraph 7, and Article 18, Paragraph 5, of the Convention arising from activities under the competence of the Committee as recognized by the German Democratic Republic." 1 According to Articles 17(7) and 18(5) of the Torture Convention, the States Parties are responsible both for the expenses of members of the Committee Against Torture (CAT) set up under Article 17 and for expenses arising in connection with meetings of the committee (and of the States Parties), in particular expenses resulting from recourse to the services of the UN Secretariat The imposition of such a wide-ranging financing obligation on contracting states is unique in the human rights area.Other instruments provide either for complete financing by the UN,2 or else for "mixed" financing, whereby States Parties to a convention bear the costs for committee members and the UN bears the rest of the costs. 3The identity principle governing the relationship between the agreeing and the implementing subject offers one approach to an international-law treatment of the financing issue.The identity principle stands for the proposition that States Parties to an agreement must also see to its implementation or guaranteeing, and must inter alia make Academy of Sciences of the German Democratic Republic, Berlin. 1 Gesetzblatt der DDR 1988 Teil II No.2, p. 25; see also id., at 25 for the text of the Convention.Examples of complete UN financing include the Covenant on Political and Civil Rights, the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women; see Article 35 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 17(8) of the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women and ECOSOC Resolution 1985/17, para.(c)..For an example of mixed financing see Article 8(6) of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and Article 11(7) of the Convention Against Apartheid in Sport
Convention · Declaration · Democracy · German · Human rights · Political science · Politics · The Republic · Theology · Torture · Global Peace and Security Dynamics · History · International Law and Aviation · International Law and Human Rights · Law · Philosophy
| Highly cited | No |
|---|