(The Human Rights Commission,Fifty-ninth session
Agenda Item 105 (b)
Human rights questions: human rights questions, including
alternative approaches for improving the effective enjoyment
of human rights and fundamental freedoms)

Draft plan of action for the first phase (2005-2007) of the proposed world programme for human rights education

Summary

The present report contains a draft plan of action for the first phase (2005-2007) of the proposed world programme for human rights education, prepared jointly by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).

From May to July 2004 a first draft was prepared by OHCHR and UNESCO on the basis of, inter alia, United Nations relevant instruments and documents, final recommendations of relevant regional intergovernmental meetings as well as correspondence sent by Governments to OHCHR and summarized in High Commissioner’s reports.

The first draft was reviewed by over 50 specialists from all continents from ministries of education, intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations, national human rights institutions and United Nations agencies during an expert meeting organized jointly by OHCHR and UNESCO in Geneva from 13 to 15 September 2004.  Subsequently, OHCHR and UNESCO reviewed and finalized the draft plan of action on the basis of the experts’ comments.

Draft plan of action for the first phase (2005-2007) of the proposed world programme for
human rights education

Contents
Paragraphs Page

I. The world programme for human rights education

1-8
II. The first phase (2005-2007): a plan of action for
human rights education in the primary and secondary
school systems

9-22

III. Implementation strategy at the national level 23-32
IV. Coordination of the implementation of the plan of action 33-43
V. International cooperation and support 44-48
VI. Evaluation 49-51
Annex - Components of human rights education in the primary and secondary school systems

<行动计划草案>英文全文可在  
http://www.ohchr.org/english/bodies/chr/docs/ga59/education1.doc

看到。以下是Roman Sinelnikov对其修改意见

Dear colleagues,
> >
> > I would like to return once more to the Draft Plan of Action for the first
> > phase (2005-2007) of the World Programme for Human Rights Education, since
> > it is still not adopted (as you know, General Assembly Resolution 59/113
> > "invites States to submit comments thereon to the Office of the High
> > Commissioner, with a view to its early adoption").
> >
> > [***Moderator's note: The text of the Draft Plan of Action can be found in
> > PDF format at:
> > http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N04/570/51/PDF/N0457051.pdf?OpenElement
> > ***]
> >
> > In Annex, p.4 we can see that "Human rights are included both as an
> > educational aim and as quality criteria of education within key reference
> > texts such as the constitution..."
> >
> > In my opinion, this statement is deeply incorrect and even dangerous since
> > it can be considered as an inducement to make changes in member states
> > constitutions. However, changing the constitutional acts is the sole
> > matter of the state sovereignty and the United Nations member states did
> > not empowered the United Nations to consider such issues (otherwise it
> > would be directly mentioned in the UN Charter). Even if we follow the
> > common logic, just the constitutional acts specify the place of
> > international law in the legal system of the particular state and the
> > bodies responsible for signing and ratifying international treaties, but
> > never vise versa. The subjects of international law are states, but each
> > state is based on its constitutional acts. So, constitutional acts are
> > initial and international treaties are derived. Therefore, it is
> > impossible for intergovernmental organizations to initiate or propose
> > constitutional changes in member states. It means, by the way, that the
> > current practice of CEDAW (which has recommended in its concluding
> > observations to the number of states to include the definition of
> > discrimination into their Constitutions) is out of international law.
> >
> > Moreover, a lot of constitutions protect their chapters related to human
> > rights from any modifications, in case of such need the only way is to
> > develop and adopt a new Constitution (sometimes by a referendum). If the
> > right of United Nations to consider such issues is recognized, we can
> > receive the situation when a few number of UN experts can provoke a
> > constitutional crisis in any point of the world, in any time suitable for
> > them and only by their wish. Are we sure that we want such prospective?
> > Are we sure that this instrument will not be used for subjective purposes?
> >
> > So, "the constitution," should be removed from the statement. No problems
> > with educational policy frameworks, educational legislation, national
> > curricula and programmes.
> >
> > Well, 19 (c) (vi) of Annex: "Ensure that these resources conform to human
> > rights principles and relate to real-life situations by having them
> > reviewed by a specialized national team prior to publication".
> >
> > It seems the preliminary censorship is proposed. Must human rights
> > education materials produced by NGOs (even for their own purposes) pass
> > such review? What is about distribution of powers between federal
> > authorities and parts of federal states in USA, Germany, Russia, Mexico,
> > Brazil and a lot of other countries? What is the principle of composing
> > the team? You know, Evgeniya Pavlenko and me have proposed such expert
> > examination in the draft Convention on Human Rights Education, but there
> > was no word that such examination should be preliminary and that it should
> > be an obligatory condition for publishing human rights materials.
> >
> > In addition to that, the statement of p. 29 (c) of the Plan itself
> > ("National, federal, local and state legislative bodies...") is not
> > correct. The word "states" is not applicable at least to federal parts of
> > Germany and Russia. It should be replaced by "all parts of federal States"
> > like in Article 50 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political
> > Rights.
> >
> > Generally speaking, the draft Plan doesn't take into account the variety
> > of educational systems in the world. P. 29 (a) "Teachers' colleges and
> > faculties of education of universities;" cannot be applied to pedagogical
> > institutions of secondary professional education other than "colleges"
> > and/or to pedagogical institutions of higher professional education other
> > than "universities". It should be changed.
> >
> > Sincerely yours,
> >
> > Roman Sinelnikov
> >
> >