https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0807-5141
![Sample our Law journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5942/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Law.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
This article is intended to critically analyse the ‘public morals’ jurisprudence of the Human Rights Committee (HRC). Under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, ‘protection of public morals’ can be invoked as a legitimate aim to limit various rights, such as the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression. In this regard, the HRC has held that ‘public morals’ must be derived from many different traditions, and that limitation of rights based on public morals must be understood in light of the principles of universality of human rights and non-discrimination. However, this research has found that the HRC’s jurisprudence on public morals contains two main problems. First, it remains unclear when a moral standard can be considered as deriving from ‘many different traditions’. Second, the HRC’s interpretation is also not supported by the application of the general rule of interpretation.
Notes
1 Ryan Thoreson, ‘The Limits of Moral Limitations: Reconceptualizing “Morals” in Human Rights Law’ (2018) 59 Harvard International Law Journal 197, 203; Nihal Jayawickrama, The Judicial Application of Human Rights Law: National, Regional and International Jurisprudence (CUP 2002) 197.
2 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (adopted 16 December 1966, entered into force 23 March 1976) 999 UNTS 171 (ICCPR), art 18(3), emphasis added.
3 Ibid. art 17(1), emphasis added.
4 Toonen v Australia (1994) UN Doc CCPR/C/50/D/488/1992, para 8.3, emphasis added. See also HRC, ‘General Comment 16: Article 17 (Thirty-second session, 1988)’ (1994) UN Doc HRI/GEN/1/Rev.1, 21–22 para 4.
5 John K. Love et al v Australia (2003) UN Doc CCPR/C/77/D/983/2001, para 8.2, emphasis added. See also HRC, ‘General Comment 18: Non-discrimination (Thirty-seventh session, 1989)’ (1994) UN Doc HRI/GEN/1/Rev.1, 28 para 13; Walter Kälin and Jörg Künzli, The Law of International Human Rights Protection (OUP 2019) 342.
6 Thoreson (n 1) 199.
7 See Joel Feinberg, The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law, Vol. 4: Harmless Wrong-Doing (OUP 1988) 39, 43.
8 Thoreson (n 1) 216.
9 Manfred Nowak and Tanja Vospernik, ‘Permissible Restrictions on Freedom of Religion or Belief’ in Tore Lindholm, W Cole Durham, Jr. and Bahia G Tahzib-Lie (eds), Facilitating Freedom of Religion or Belief: A Deskbook (Springer 2004) 159. See also Noel Villaroman, Treading on Sacred Grounds: Places of Worship, Local Planning and Religious Freedom in Australia (Brill 2015) 263–65.
10 See HRC, ‘General Comment 22: Article 18 (Forty-eighth session 1993)’ (1994) UN Doc HRI/GEN/1/Rev.1, 37 para 8; HRC, ‘General Comment 34: Article 19: Freedoms of Opinion and Expression’ (2011) UN Doc CCPR/C/GC/34, para 32.
11 Ibid.
12 Sarah Joseph and Melissa Castan, The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Cases, Materials, and Commentary (3rd edn, OUP 2013) 48, 624–25. See also Manfred Nowak, U.N. Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: CCPR Commentary (NP Engel 2005) 466; Lorenz Langer, Religious Offence and Human Rights: The Implications of Defamation of Religions (CUP 2014) 108.
13 Leo Hertzberg et al v Finland (1985) UN Doc CCPR/C/OP/1, paras 2.1–2.6.
14 Ibid. para 6.1.
15 Ibid. para 10.3.
16 Ibid.
17 See Ludovic Hennebel, La jurisprudence du Comité des droits de l’homme des Nations Unies: Le Pacte international relatif aux droits civils et politiques et son mécanisme de protection individuelle (Editions Nemesis ASBL 2007) 274–75, para 341.
18 Viljam Engström, ‘Deference and the Human Rights Committee’ (2016) 34 Nordic Journal of Human Rights 73, 80–81.
19 Commission on Human Rights, ‘Siracusa Principles on the Limitation and Derogation of Provisions in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights’ (1984) UN Doc E/CN.4/1984/4, 2.
20 Ibid. 5, para 27.
21 Ibid.
22 Ibid. 5, para 28.
23 Joseph and Castan (n 12) 48–49, 625; Hossein Esmaeili, Irmgard Marboe and Javaid Rehman, The Rule of Law, Freedom of Expression and Islamic Law (Bloomsbury 2017) 55; Michael O’Flaherty, ‘Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity’ in Daniel Moeckli, Sangeeta Shah and Sandesh Sivakumaran (eds), International Human Rights Law (3rd edn, OUP 2018) 300.
24 General Comment 22 (n 10) para 8.
25 Ibid.
26 General Comment 34 (n 10) para 32.
27 Vincent Willem Vleugel, Culture in the State Reporting Procedure of the UN Human Rights Treaty Bodies: How the HRC, the CESCR and the CEDAWCee Use Human Rights as a Sword to Protect and Promote Culture, and as a Shield to Protect against Harmful Culture (Intersentia 2020) 166.
28 General Comment 34 (n 10) para 36. See also Länsman et al v Finland (1994) UN Doc CCPR/C/52/D/511/1992, para 9.4.
29 HRC, ‘General Comment No 37 (2020) on the Right of Peaceful Assembly (Article 21)’ (2020) UN Doc CCPR/C/GC/37, para 46.
30 Vleugel (n 27) 166–68.
31 HRC, ‘Concluding Observations on the Fifth Periodic Report of Iraq’ (2015) UN Doc CCPR/C/IRQ/CO/5, para 11. See also HRC, ‘Concluding Observations Adopted by the Human Rights Committee at its 105th Session, 9–27 July 2012: Maldives’ (2012) UN Doc CCPR/C/MDV/CO/1, para 8; HRC, ‘Concluding Observations on the Initial Report of Turkey Adopted by the Committee at its 106th Session (15 October–2 November 2012)’ (2012) UN Doc CCPR/C/TUR/CO/1, para 10; HRC, ‘Concluding Observations on the Seventh Periodic Report of Ukraine’ (2013) UN Doc CCPR/C/UKR/CO/7, para 10.
32 HRC, ‘Concluding Observations on the Initial Report of Mauritania’ (2013) UN Doc CCPR/C/MRT/CO/1, para 8.
33 Toonen v Australia (n 4). See also Laurence R Helfer and Alice M Miller, ‘Sexual Orientation and Human Rights: Toward a United States and Transnational Jurisprudence’ (1996) 9 Harvard Human Rights Journal 61, 74, in which it was argued that ‘ … the more searching analysis in Toonen accurately reflects the current perspective of the Committee and suggests that Hertzberg might have been decided differently today. This theory of reconciling the cases holds out the promise of a Committee that will not avoid adjudicating contentious questions of interpretation under the ICCPR, including those that affect the public and private lives of lesbians and gay men.’ cf Thoreson (n 1) 210, who also observed that ‘ … an equally plausible explanation is that the ICCPR attaches a moral limitation to the freedom of expression at issue in Hertzberg, while it does not attach any such limitation to the right to privacy at issue in Toonen. Under this reading, Toonen said little about when and how moral provisions can justify restrictions on human rights, particularly where public expressions of sexuality are concerned.’ Nevertheless, as will be discussed below, the Leo Hertzberg dictum will be effectively overturned in subsequent cases concerning freedom of expression in the context of LGBT rights.
34 Toonen v Australia (n 4) para 8.6.
35 Ibid.
36 Ibid.
37 Holning Lau, ‘Sexual Orientation: Testing the Universality of International Human Rights Law’ (2004) 71 The University of Chicago Law Review 1689, 1700.
38 Paula Gerber and Joel Gory, ‘The UN Human Rights Committee and LGBT Rights: What is it Doing? What Could it be Doing?’ (2014) 14 Human Rights Law Review 403, 432: ‘The decision is especially important because it effectively reverses the position taken by the Committee in Hertzberg v Finland … ’; Luca Paladini, ‘Same-Sex Couples Before Quasi-Jurisdictional Bodies: The Case of the UN Human Rights Committee’ in Daniele Gallo, Luca Paladini and Pietro Pustorino (eds), Same-Sex Couples before National, Supranational and International Jurisdictions (Springer 2014) 543; Elizabeth K Cassidy, ‘Restricting Rights? The Public Order and Public Morality Limitations on Free Speech and Religious Liberty in UN Human Rights Institutions’ (2015) 13 The Review of Faith & International Affairs 5, 10–11.
39 Fedotova v Russian Federation (2012) UN Doc CCPR/C/106/D/1932/2010, para 10.5.
40 Kirill Nepomnyashchiy v Russian Federation (2018) UN Doc CCPR/C/123/D/2318/2013, para 7.8.
41 See General Comment 18 (n 5) 28 para 13.
42 Dominic McGoldrick, ‘The Development and Status of Sexual Orientation Discrimination under International Human Rights Law’ 16 Human Rights Law Review 613, 628.
43 Neville Cox, ‘Justifying Blasphemy Laws: Freedom of Expression, Public Morals, and International Human Rights Law’ (2020) 35 Journal of Law and Religion 33, 47.
44 cf ibid.
45 Kanstantsin Dzehtsiarou, ‘European Consensus and the Evolutive Interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights’ (2011) 12 German Law Journal 1730, 1733.
46 Ibid.
47 Ibid; see also Tyrer v the United Kingdom App no 5856/72 (ECHR, 25 April 1978) para 31; Marckx v Belgium App no 6833/74 (ECHR, 13 June 1979) para 41; Bayatyan v Armenia App no 23459/03 [GC] (ECHR, 7 July 2011) para 102.
48 Eva Brems, ‘The Margin of Appreciation Doctrine in the Case-Law of the European Court of Human Rights’ (1996) 56 Zeitschrift für Ausländisches Öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht 240, 279.
49 Fiona de Londras and Kanstantsin Dzehtsiarou, Great Debates on the European Convention on Human Rights (Palgrave Macmillan 2018) 79–90. See also Schalk and Kopf v Austria App no 30141/04 (ECHR, 24 June 2010) para 58; Stübing v Germany App no 43547/08 (ECHR, 12 April 2012) para 61.
50 General Comment 34 (n 10) para 36.
51 Cox (n 43) 47.
52 Ibid.
53 ICCPR (n 2).
54 Ibid.
55 Pacte international relatif aux droits civils et politiques (Haut-Commissariat des Nations unies aux droits de l’homme) <www.ohchr.org/fr/professionalinterest/pages/ccpr.aspx> accessed 11 March 2021.
56 Ibid.
57 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (adopted 23 May 1969, entered into force 27 January 1980) 1155 UNTS 331 (VCLT).
58 Oliver Dörr, ‘Section 3: Application of Treaties’ in Oliver Dörr and Kirsten Schmalenbach, Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties: A Commentary (2nd edn, Springer 2012) 580.
59 VCLT (n 57).
60 ICCPR (n 2) art 19(3), emphasis added.
61 ‘moral’ (Cambridge Dictionary) <dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/moral> accessed 11 March 2021: ‘standards for good or bad character and behavior’; ‘moral’ (Lexico) <www.lexico.com/definition/moral> accessed 11 March 2021: ‘Standards of behaviour; principles of right and wrong’; ‘moral’ (Merriam-Webster) <www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/morals> accessed 11 March 2021: ‘moral practices or teachings: modes of conduct’, ‘ethics’. As a note, according to Cambridge Dictionary, the term ‘moral’ can also mean ‘expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior’. In this light, the term ‘public morals’ can be construed as public articulation of a conception of right behaviour.
62 ‘morality’ (Cambridge Dictionary) <dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/morality> accessed 11 March 2021.
63 ‘morality’ (Lexico) <www.lexico.com/definition/morality> accessed 11 March 2021.
64 ‘morality’ (Merriam-Webster) <merriam-webster.com/dictionary/morality> accessed 11 March 2021.
65 Elizabeth A Martin (ed), Oxford Dictionary of Law (5th edn, Oxford University Press 2003) 396.
66 Ibid 121.
67 ‘public’ (Cambridge Dictionary) <dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/public> accessed 11 March 2021.
68 ‘public’ (Merriam-Webster) <www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/public> accessed 11 March 2021; ‘public’ (Lexico) <www.lexico.com/definition/public> accessed 11 March 2021.
69 Compare the approach of the WTO Panel in US – Gambling, although it should be noted that the Panel was trying to interpret ‘public morals’ exception in Article XIV(a) of the GATS and Article XX(a) GATT. It consulted the dictionary meanings of the term ‘public’ and ‘morals’, and concluded that it ‘ … denotes standards of right and wrong conduct maintained by or on behalf of a community or nation’. See WTO, United States — Measures Affecting the Cross-Border Supply of Gambling and Betting Services (10 November 2004) WT/DS285/R (US – Gambling), para 6.459–6.465.
70 ‘morale’ (Larousse) <www.larousse.fr/dictionnaires/francais/morale/52564> accessed 11 March 2021.
71 ‘moralité’ (Larousse) <www.larousse.fr/dictionnaires/francais/moralité/52575> accessed 11 March 2021.
72 See ‘mœurs’ (Larousse) <www.larousse.fr/dictionnaires/francais/mœurs/51995> accessed 11 March 2021, although the term also has other meanings that is comparable to customs or mores in English.
73 cf ‘mœurs’ (Larousse) <larousse.fr/dictionnaires/francais-anglais/mœurs/51871> accessed 11 March 2021, in which the sentence ‘c’est contraire aux bonnes mœurs’ is translated into ‘it goes against accepted standards of behavior’.
74 Martin (n 65) 114. See also ‘contra bonos mores’ (Merriam-Webster) <www.merriam-webster.com/legal/contra%20bonos%20mores> accessed 11 March 2021.
75 cf Jeremy C Marwell, ‘Trade and Morality: The WTO Public Morals Exception after Gambling’ (2006) 81 New York University Law Review 802, 823.
76 cf US – Gambling (n 69) para 6.466–6.468.
77 Cox (n 43) 48.
78 HRC, ‘General Comment 24: General Comment on Issues Relating to Reservations Made upon Ratification or Accession to the Covenant or the Optional Protocols Thereto, or in Relation to Declarations under Article 41 of the Covenant’ (1994) UN Doc CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.6, para 7.
79 Toonen v Australia (n 4) para 8.6.
80 The United States of America and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York v the Islamic Republic of Iran and Bank Markazi Iran (2000) 36 Iran-USCTR 5, para 58.
81 Dörr (n 58) 586–87.
82 Furthermore, one can also argue that it is not in line with actual state practice. As observed by Neville Cox, for many states, ‘ … morality is about what they see as right and wrong, not a basket containing the answers that other traditions or societies give to these complex questions’. He also argued that in many states, public morality ‘ … does derive exclusively or largely from a religious tradition – be it Islam generally or one branch of Islam specifically – and denies the possibility that moral truth can be found anywhere but in God’: see Cox (n 43) 47.
83 cf The Panel’s conclusion that the content of ‘public morals’ under the GATS ‘ … can vary in time and space, depending upon a range of factors, including prevailing social, cultural, ethical and religious values’: see US – Gambling (n 69) para 6.461.
84 Eva Brems, Human Rights: Universality and Diversity (Martinus Nijhoff 2001) 382.
85 VCLT (n 57) art 32.
86 Anna-Lena Svensson-McCarthy, The International Law of Human Rights and States of Exception (Kluwer Law International 1998) 152–59; Leonard Hammer, The International Human Right to Freedom of Conscience: Some Suggestions for Its Development and Application (Routledge 2002).
87 Commission on Human Rights, ‘Summary Record of the Seventy-Fourth Meeting’ (1948) UN Doc E/CN.4/SR.74, 11–12. See also Svensson-McCarthy (n 86) 149–50.
88 Svensson-McCarthy (n 86) 151.
89 Gehan Gunatilleke, ‘Criteria and Constraints: The Human Rights Committee’s Test on Limiting the Freedom of Religion or Belief’ (2020) 15 Religion & Human Rights 20, 25.
90 See, for instance, United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), ‘Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review: Jamaica’ (2011) UN Doc A/HRC/16/14, para 32; UNHRC, ‘Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review – Cameroon – Addendum’ (2009) UN Doc A/HRC/11/21/Add.1, 6; HRC, ‘Replies from the Government of Ethiopia to the List of Issues (CCPR/C/ETH/Q/1) to be Taken Up in Connection with the Consideration of the Second Periodic Report of Ethiopia (CCPR/C/ETH/1)’ (2011) UN Doc CCPR/C/ETH/Q/1/Add.1, para 25; HRC, ‘Replies of Algeria to the List of Issues’ (2018) UN Doc CCPR/C/DZA/Q/4/Add.1, para 37.
91 Cox (n 43) 48–49.
92 See HRC, ‘General Comment 27: Freedom of Movement (Article 12)’ (1999) UN Doc CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.9, para 14; HRC, ‘General Comment 31: The Nature of the General Legal Obligation Imposed on States Parties to the Covenant’ (2004) UN Doc CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.13, para 6; General Comment 34 (n 10) paras 34–36.
93 General Comment 27 (n 92) para 15.
94 Gunatilleke (n 89) 25.
95 Christopher F Mooney, ‘Public Morality and Law’ (1983) 1 Journal of Law and Religion 45, 46.
96 Feinberg (n 7) 66.
97 ICCPR (n 2) art 2(1).
98 Bayev and Others v Russia App nos 67667/09, 44092/12, and 56717/12 (ECHR, 20 June 2017), para 68.
99 General Comment 34 (n 10) para 32.
100 cf Decision of the Indonesian Constitutional Court No. 140/PUU-VII/2009. See also Melissa A Crouch, ‘Law and Religion in Indonesia: The Constitutional Court and the Blasphemy Law’ (2012) 7 Asian Journal of Comparative Law 1.