TNAG-1022-FCO40-1272-Relations-between-Hong-Kong-and-the-United-Nations-1981 — Page 83

HUMAN RIGHTS

CONFIDENTIAL

1.

Concern about human rights is not a new feature of British foreign policy. The record of our leading role in setting up the UN human rights machinery and in founding the Council of Europe speaks for itself. In 1951 Britain was the first state to ratify the European Convention on Human Rights, and in 1976 we ratified the International Covenants on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and on Civil and Political Rights. HMG attaches importance to the weighing of human rights considerations in the formulation of policies towards individual countries.

2.

Human rights are one of many factors bearing on foreign policy. In some cases, economic and strategic considerations, > including the interests of our allies, may preclude direct action against a country even though its human rights record may be bad. Although we must make it clear that we judge human rights violations by the same standards worldwide, action against particular governments will always have to be considered on a case-by-case basis. Our standing to raise human rights matters with foreign governments (either on general policy grounds or because of concern about individual cases) varies. We have an obvious right to do so where British nationals or interests are directly involved. Even where there is no British connexion, we may have legal grounds for action under the terms of a treaty. For example, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights may in certain circumstances give us legal standing to raise clear infringements of its provisions with others of the 63 states parties. The CSCE Final Act, although not a treaty, gives us political standing with regard to the other 34 signatory states.

3.

Article 2(7) of the United Nations Charter provides that the UN shall not intervene in matters essentially within the

(54) CONFIDENTIAL

/internal