Ireland Project - More Information on Ireland's Involvement

One of the foremost achievements of the Council of Europe was the conclusion of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, hereinafter the European Convention on Human Rights, on the 4th November 1950.  During the negotiations, Ireland played a progressively prominent role whose main policies, led by Seán MacBride, sought to strengthen the position of the Consultative Assembly by giving the Consultative Assembly a greater voice in the drafting process and equally to create, in draft European Convention of Human Rights, a more robust framework of legal protection of human rights.  In this way, it supported efforts of France, Belgium and Italy.   A few illustrations of Ireland’s role will be given below.

First Consultative Assembly (Aug-Sept 1949) – Tabling a motion to recommend the drafting of a European Charter of Human Rights

’Battle for Power at Strasbourg: Mr. Norton leads ’Anti-Cabinet’ fight’ Irish Independent, August 12th, 1949

During the drafting of the European Convention of Human Rights, any significant role for the Consultative Assembly, composed of national parliamentarians, was consistently thwarted by the Committee of Ministers, composed of Foreign Ministers of the Council of Europe Member States, who restricted the Assembly to its limited functions under the Statute.  Under the Statute, the Consultative Assembly could only recommend activities to the Committee of Ministers and the latter must approve the Consultative Assembly’s agenda, thus inhibiting the Consultative Assembly possessing any real power within the Council of Europe.  

At the first session of the Committee of Ministers (August 1949), MacBride in the minority, alongside Bevin of Britain, supported the inclusion of human rights on the Assembly’s agenda.  In the final vote, the Committee of Ministers rejected the item.  The Department of External Affairs reported MacBride’s stance in the following terms: ’the question had been deleted from the agenda……in spite of MacBride’s strong advocacy for its retention’. 

MacBride, however, had earlier predicted that the Consultative Assembly would attempt to strengthen its powers under the Statute.  This prediction transpired. In response to the Committee of Minister’s decision to reject human rights as an agenda item, the Consultative Assembly covertly revolted. It immediately requested its Bureau to draft proposals for amendment of its agenda to include, among others, an item recommending the preparation of a draft European Convention of Human Rights to provide collective guarantees assuring ’to all persons residing in the territories of the Member States the effective enjoyment of the fundamental rights and freedoms, which are set out in Article 2 of Part 1 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights adopted by General Assembly..’. 

To avoid antagonism with the Consultative Assembly in its first session, the Committee of Ministers ultimately approved this amendment. It was the Consultative Assembly’s discussion of this item 2(f) on human rights, which resulted in the adoption of a Resolution calling on the Committee to draft a Convention of Human Rights.  Later, nearing the final stages of the drafting negotiations in August 1950, Ireland advocated for the solicitation of the Consultative Assembly views before concluding a final draft for signature by Member States.  This was forthrightly rejected by Britain, as it was considered preferable to produce an agreed text, which governments could ratify in the first instance. Hence, the move precluded any major impact of the Consultative Assembly on the final draft of the European Convention of Human Rights.  This view was ultimately adopted by the Committee of Ministers.

Supporting the Consultative Assembly and its amendments (Aug 1950): the three First Protocol rights and an unconditional right to individual petition

During the drafting of the European Convention of Human Rights, MacBride attempted desperately at the final negotiating session to have the Consultative Assembly’s proposed amendments to the European Convention of Human Rights adopted.  This included

It was evident prior to the Committee of Ministers session that all the amendments, including an unconditional right of petition and the inclusion of three additional rights of property, education and political liberty, would not be accepted unanimously by the Committee of Ministers.  

Only the proposals for a Preamble, a reduction in the number of ratifications, with declarations accepting the jurisdiction of the Court and a provision regarding the appointment of new judges for new Member States, ratifying the Convention, were accepted.  Firstly MacBride sought to have the opinion of the Assembly (through its Legal and Administrative Questions Committee) placed on the record of the meeting.  Thus, the Chairman (Italy) was requested to state the view of the Assembly which was that the latter strongly advised the need for acceptance of its amendments.  Interjection of Lange (Norway) prevented this move having any real effect as Lange stated that the Assembly’s Legal Committee also maintained that it would prefer the Convention was signed without the amendments than not at all.  

’….most important thing was to make sure that the Convention would be signed during the current session of the Committee in Rome’. 
Ernest Davies (Travaux Preparatoire, Vol. vii, p28)

Secondly, when the Chairman called for a vote, MacBride again attempted to sway his Committee colleagues.  He asked whether they could not at least accept one or two more of the amendments, to which Davies (Britain) replied that of most importance was the signature of the Convention during this present session.  MacBride did have some support for his attempts.  Sweden and Belgium registered their support for the Assembly amendments and the Chairman stated that he was willing to sign the Convention despite the ’strong desire’ to have the right of property and education in the final text.  Both rights had been previously excluded by virtue of a lack of universal acceptance in the Committee.  The Netherlands also registered its disappointment that the rush to signature prevented discussion on the Assembly amendments.  

Facing defeat but realising the existence of some support, MacBride requested that the Committee agree to have a mixed Committee discuss the Assembly amendments.  This was countered by Davies (Britain) who proposed forwarding the Assembly amendments to the Committee of Legal Experts, a body established in February 1950 to examine the draft Convention.  Referring to the turbulent drafting history of the Convention, MacBride stated that ’as the Convention had already passed through 5 Committees, the Assembly would consider it ridiculous if their proposals were merely referred to another Committee’.  However, the Davies motion was put to a vote and accepted by 10 votes to 1, the dissent being MacBride. 

The result at least was that the three rights were not ignored after the signing of the Convention in November 1950.  The negotiations on the First Protocol, making the three rights an integral part of the Convention, was initiated, largely through MacBride’s advocacy, in the following Committee session.  After the return of Fianna Fail to government in June 1951, the First Protocol negotiations were conducted by Frank Aiken.  The First Protocol was ultimately concluded on the 20th March 1952. 

’Convention to guard Civil Liberty’
Irish Independent 30th November 1950

• Disclaimer
• Privacy
• Copyright
• Accessibility