The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) is a

United Nationsconvention. A third-generation human rights instrument, the Convention commits its
members to the elimination of racial discriminationand the promotion of understanding among all
races.[6] Controversially, the Convention also requires its parties to outlaw hate speechand criminalize
membership in racist organizations.[7]

The Convention also includes an individual complaints mechanism, effectively making it enforceable
against its parties. This has led to the development of a limited jurisprudence on the interpretation and
implementation of the Convention.

The convention was adopted and opened for signature by the United Nations General Assembly on 21
December 1965,[8] and entered into force on 4 January 1969. As of October 2015, it has 88 signatories and
177 parties.[2]

The Convention is monitored by the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD).

Article 2 of the Convention condemns racial discrimination and obliges parties to "undertake to pursue by
all appropriate means and without delay a policy of eliminating racial discrimination in all its forms". [6] It also
obliges parties to promote understanding among all races.[6] To achieve this, the Convention requires that
signatories:

 Not practice racial discrimination in public institutions [27]

 Not "sponsor, defend, or support" racial discrimination[28]
 Review existing policies, and amend or revoke those that cause or perpetuate racial discrimination [29]
 Prohibit "by all appropriate means, including legislation," racial discrimination by individuals and
organisations within their jurisdictions[30]
 Encourage groups, movements, and other means that eliminate barriers between races, and
discourage racial division[31]

Parties are obliged "when the circumstances so warrant" to use positive discrimination policies for specific
racial groups to guarantee "the full and equal enjoyment of human rights and fundamental
freedoms".[32] However, these measures must be finite, and "shall in no case entail as a consequence the
maintenance of unequal or separate rights for different racial groups after the objectives for which they
were taken have been achieved".[32]

Article 5 expands upon the general obligation of Article 2 and creates a specific obligation to guarantee the
right of everyone to equality before the law regardless of "race, colour, or national or ethnic origin".[33] It
further lists specific rights this equality must apply to: equal treatment by courts and tribunals,[34] security of
the person and freedom from violence,[35] the civil and political rights affirmed in the
ICCPR,[36] the economic, social and cultural rights affirmed in the ICESCR,[37] and the right of access to any
place or service used by the general public, "such as transport hotels, restaurants, cafes, theatres and
parks."[38] This list is not exhaustive, and the obligation extends to all human rights.[39]

Article 6 obliges parties to provide "effective protection and remedies" through the courts or other
institutions for any act of racial discrimination.[40] This includes a right to a legal remedy and damages for
injury suffered due to discrimination.[40]
Article 4 of the Convention condemns propaganda and organizations that attempt to justify discrimination
or are based on the idea of racial supremacism.[7] It obliges parties, "with due regard to the principles
embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights", to adopt "immediate and positive measures" to
eradicate these forms of incitement and discrimination.[7] Specifically, it obliges parties to criminalize hate
speech, hate crimes and the financing of racist activities,[44] and to prohibit and criminalize membership in
organizations that "promote and incite" racial discrimination.[45] A number of parties have reservations on
this article, and interpret it as not permitting or requiring measures that infringe on the freedoms of speech,
association or assembly.[46]

The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination regards this article as a mandatory obligation of
parties to the Convention,[47] and has repeatedly criticized parties for failing to abide by it.[48] It regards the
obligation as consistent with the freedoms of opinion and expression affirmed in the UNDHR and
ICCPR[49] and notes that the latter specifically outlaws inciting racial discrimination, hatred and violence.[50] It
views the provisions as necessary to prevent organised racial violence and the "political exploitation of
ethnic difference."[51]

Article 7 obliges parties to adopt "immediate and effective measures", particularly in education, to combat
racial prejudice and encourage understanding and tolerance between different racial, ethnic and national
groups.[52]

Dispute resolution mechanism[edit]

Articles 11 through 13 of the Convention establish a dispute resolution mechanism between parties. A
party that believes another party is not implementing the Convention may complain to the Committee on
the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.[53] The Committee will pass on the complaint, and if it is not
resolved between the two parties, may establish an ad hoc Conciliation Commission to investigate and
make recommendations on the matter.[54] This procedure has never been used.[55]

Article 22 further allows any dispute over the interpretation or application of the Convention to be referred
to the International Court of Justice.[56] This clause has been invoked only twice, by Georgia against
Russia[57] and by Ukraine against Russia.[58]

Individual complaints mechanism[edit]

Article 14 of the Convention establishes an individual complaints mechanism similar to that of the First
Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,Optional Protocol to the
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and Optional Protocol to the Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. Parties may at any time recognise the
competence of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination to consider complaints from
individuals or groups who claim their rights under the Convention have been violated.[59] Such parties may
establish local bodies to hear complaints before they are passed on.[60] Complainants must have exhausted
all domestic remedies, and anonymous complaints and complaints that refer to events that occurred before
the country concerned joined the Optional Protocol are not permitted.[61] The Committee can request
information from and make recommendations to a party.[61]
The individual complaints mechanism came into operation in 1982, after it had been accepted by ten
states-parties.[62] As of 2010, 58 states had recognised the competence of the Committee,[2] and 54 cases
have been dealt with by the Committee.[63]

Article 22

Afghanistan, Bahrain, China, Cuba, Egypt, Equatorial

Guinea, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Israel, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Madagascar, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal,
Saudi Arabia,Syria, Thailand, Turkey, Vietnam, and Yemen do not consider themselves bound by Article
22. Some interpret this article as allowing disputes to be referred to the International Court of Justice only
with the consent of all involved parties.[2]

Obligations beyond existing constitution

Antigua and Barbuda, the Bahamas, Barbados, Guyana, Jamaica, Nepal, Papua New
Guinea, Thailand and United States interpret the Convention as not implying any obligations beyond the
limits of their existing constitutions.[2]

Hate speech

Austria, Belgium, France, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Malta, Monaco, Switzerland and Tonga all interpret Article 4
as not permitting or requiring measures that threaten the freedoms of speech, opinion, association, and
assembly.[2] Antigua and Barbuda, the Bahamas, Barbados, Fiji, Nepal, Papua New Guinea, Thailand and
United Kingdom interpret the Convention as creating an obligation to enact measures against hate speech
and hate crimes only when a need arises.

The United States of America "does not accept any obligation under this Convention, in particular under
articles 4 and 7, to restrict those [extensive protections of individual freedom of speech, expression and
association contained in the Constitution and laws of the United States], through the adoption of legislation
or any other measures, to the extent that they are protected by the Constitution and laws of the United
States."[2]

Immigration

Monaco and Switzerland reserve the right to apply their own legal principles on the entry of foreigners into
their labour markets.[2] The United Kingdom does not regard theCommonwealth Immigrants Act
1962 and Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1968 as constituting any form of racial discrimination.[2]

Indigenous people

Tonga reserves the right not to apply the Convention to any restriction on the alienation of land held by
indigenous Tongans. Fiji has significant reservations around Article 5, and reserves the right not to
implement those provisions if they are incompatible with existing law on voting rights, the alienation of land
by indigenous Fijians.[2]

Jurisprudence[edit]
The individual complaints mechanism has led to a limited jurisprudence on the interpretation and
implementation of the Convention. So far 45 complaints have been registered with the Committee; 17 of
these have been deemed inadmissible, 14 have led to a finding of no violation, and in 10 cases a party has
been found to have violated the Convention. Four cases are still pending.[63]

Several cases have dealt with the treatment of Romani people in Eastern Europe. In Koptova v.
Slovakia the Committee found that resolutions by several villages in Slovakiaforbidding the residence of
Roma were discriminatory and restricted freedom of movement and residence, and recommended the
Slovak government take steps to end such practices.[65] In L.R. v. Slovakia the Committee found that the
Slovak government had failed to provide an effective remedy for discrimination suffered by Roma after the
cancellation of a housing project on ethnic grounds.[66] In Durmic v. Serbia and Montenegro the Committee
found a systemic failure by the Serbian government to investigate and prosecute discrimination against
Roma in access to public places.[67]

In several cases, notably L.K. v. Netherlands and Gelle v. Denmark, the Committee has criticized parties
for their failure to adequately prosecute acts of racial discrimination or incitement. In both cases, the
Committee refused to accept "any claim that the enactment of law making racial discrimination a criminal
act in itself represents full compliance with the obligations of States parties under the Convention". [68] Such
laws "must also be effectively implemented by the competent national tribunals and other State
institutions".[69]While the Committee accepts the discretion of prosecutors on whether or not to lay charges,
this discretion "should be applied in each case of alleged racial discrimination in the light of the guarantees
laid down in the Convention"[70]

In The Jewish community of Oslo et al. v. Norway, the Committee found that the prohibition of hate speech
was compatible with freedom of speech, and that the acquittal of a neo-Nazi leader by the Supreme Court
of Norway on freedom of speech grounds was a violation of the Convention.[71]

In Hagan v. Australia, the Committee ruled that, while not originally intended to demean anyone, the name
of the "E. S. 'Nigger' Brown Stand" (named in honour of 1920s rugby league player Edward Stanley Brown)
at a Toowoomba sports field was racially offensive and should be removed.[72]

Impact[edit]
The impact of an international treaty can be measured in two ways: by its acceptance, and by its
implementation.[73][74] On the first measure, the Convention has gained near-universal acceptance by the
international community, with fewer than twenty (mostly small) states yet to become parties.[2] Most major
states have also accepted the Convention's individual complaints mechanism, signaling a strong desire to
be bound by the Convention's provisions.[2]

On the second measure, the Convention has had a significant impact on national legislation, with many
states adopting legislation outlawing racial discrimination by the state, in the workplace, or in the provision
of services such as housing and education. Such legislation may be either civil or criminal.[75] Examples of
the former include the Civil Rights Act 1964 (United States), Race Relations Act 1971 (New
Zealand), Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Australia), Race Relations Act 1976 (UK), and Canadian Human
Rights Act 1977(Canada). Criminal provisions are used in Belgium, Denmark, France, Italy, Norway and
Portugal.[75] Despite reservations to the Convention, most western European nations have criminalized the
incitement of racial hatred.[75]

The Convention has faced persistent problems with reporting since its inception, with parties frequently
failing to report fully,[76] or even at all.[77] As of 2008, twenty parties had failed to report for more than ten
years, and thirty parties had failed to report for more than five.[78] One party, Sierra Leone, had failed to
report since 1976, while two more –Liberia and Saint Lucia had never met their reporting requirements
under the Convention.[79] The Committee has responded to this persistent failure to report by reviewing the
late parties anyway – a strategy that has produced some success in gaining compliance with reporting
requirements.[80] This lack of reporting is seen by some as a significant failure of the Convention. [81] However
the reporting system has also been praised as providing "a permanent stimulus inducing individual States
to enact anti-racist legislation or amend the existing one when necessary."[82]

In 2017 Ukraine opened a case against Russia for discrimination of Crimean Tatars in military
occupied Autonomous Republic of Crimea.[83]

Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination[edit]

The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination is a body of human rights experts tasked
with monitoring the implementation of the Convention. It consists of 18 independent human rights experts,
elected for four-year terms, with half the members elected every two years. Members are elected by secret
ballot of the parties, with each party allowed to nominate one of its nationals to the Committee. [84]

All parties are required to submit regular reports to the Committee outlining the legislative, judicial, policy
and other measures they have taken to give effect to the Convention. The first report is due within a year of
the Convention entering into effect for that state; thereafter reports are due every two years or whenever
the Committee requests.[85] The Committee examines each report and addresses its concerns and
recommendations to the state party in the form of "concluding observations".

The Committee typically meets every March and August in Geneva.[86] The current (as of April 2017)
membership of the Committee is:[87