This publication deals with France’s complex relationship with the international protection of minorities. From its revolutionary legacy of universalism to the non-recognition of group-based rights of minorities. It explores its legal justifications and consequences at both the domestic and international levels. The article further delves into the archives of the establishment of minority protection at the international level, highlighting France’s influence and its individualist vision of human rights in shaping this recognition.
Keywords. Minority rights; France; Universalism; Universal Declaration of Human Rights; Non-discrimination; League of Nations; Constitutional Law.
От универсализма к сопротивлению: Франция и международная защита меньшинств
Аннотация: В статье рассматриваются сложные отношения Франции с международным институтом защиты меньшинств, от революционного наследия универсализма до непризнания групповых прав меньшинств. В ней исследуются их правовые обоснования и последствия как национальном, так и на международном уровне. Статья далее углубляется в архивы установления защиты меньшинств на международном уровне, подчеркивая влияние Франции и ее индивидуалистическое видение прав человека в формировании этого признания.
Ключевые слова: права меньшинств; Франция; универсализм; Всеобщая декларация прав человека; дискриминация; Лига Наций; Конституционное право.
1.Introduction
The recognition of human rights at the international level, understood as the commitment by states to ensure the rights of individuals living within their jurisdiction, developed to a significant extent through the framework of minority protection[1]. Long before human rights emerged as a distinct field of international law, various efforts had already addressed the rights of individuals in vulnerable positions. These included discussions on the rights of people subjected to the transatlantic slave trade, the abolition of slavery, the protection of civilians during armed conflict, and, in particular, the rights of minorities within certain states. The protection of minorities was the subject of early treaties, especially between European states and the Ottoman Empire, for the protection of Christian minorities.[2] It later became a major issue in the first half of the twentieth century, both from the perspective of international legal doctrine and under the auspices of the League of Nations, through a robust minority protection system.[3] Despite this historical significance, the protection of minorities was paradoxically not included in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,[4] which remains the cornerstone and the first instrument of the universal system for the protection of human rights. It was nevertheless included in further international instruments, starting with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), article 27.[5] The concept of minorities, or non-dominant groups, was more explicitly addressed in subsequent international instruments. According to the article 2 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities,[6] minorities are identified based on shared characteristics rather than through a fixed legal definition. Although no official definition has been universally accepted, the definition proposed in 1977 by the Special Rapporteur of the UN Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities remains influential. He defined a minority as “a group numerically inferior to the rest of the population of a State, in a non-dominant position, whose members—being nationals of the State—possess ethnic, religious or linguistic characteristics differing from those of the rest of the population and show, if only implicitly, a sense of solidarity, directed towards preserving their culture, traditions, religion or language.”[7] Minorities are present within the territory of a state and form part of the broader national population. Because of their non-dominant position and their distinct cultural, religious, or linguistic identity, they are often more exposed to discrimination or to violations of their rights, whether these violations originate from the state itself or from other individuals or groups in society. As a result, states are under an obligation to guarantee that persons belonging to minorities enjoy the same rights as any other individual within their jurisdiction, without discrimination. Beyond this general obligation, international law also recognizes a set of specific rights for minorities. These include the right to enjoy their own culture, the right to profess and practice their own religion, and the right to use their own language.
In this context, France presents a particularly complex case. Although it is a geographically fragmented and multiethnic state, it maintains a unique relationship with the notion of minorities. This is due to the constitutional principle of the indivisibility of the Republic, which underpins France’s refusal to recognize the existence of minority groups within its national territory. It is therefore worth examining the extent to which France has contributed to, or resisted, the international recognition of minority rights.
2.The particular approach of minorities in France.
There is no recognition of the term or concept of «minority» in France. This stance stems from the principle of the indivisibility of the Republic and the principle of equality of all citizens before the law. It is now enshrined in Article 1 of the French Constitution.[8] In fact, the conception of an indivisible and unitary Republic finds its origin in the French Revolution at the end of the 18th century. The article 1 of the 1791 French Constitution already declared: «The Kingdom is one and indivisible (…).»[9] The idea of the indivisibility of the Republic, implying both territorial and sovereign unity, is intrinsically linked to the model of a unitary state, which itself is grounded in a particular conception of the nation. This conception of the nation was theorized during the 19th century, with two major theses. The first is the objective conception of the nation, associated with the German tradition. It was notably expressed in a speech delivered by Johann Gottlieb Fichte during the Napoleonic invasion of Prussia.[10] His aim was to rekindle national spirit in the face of what was perceived as an aggression: the threat of a homogenized European culture imposed by France, which could erase local cultural specificities. As such, the nation was defined as a bond uniting individuals sharing a unique geographical, religious, racial, or linguistic identity. The second theory, representing the French conception, is a subjective understanding of the nation. It was defended by Ernest Renan, especially in his 1882 lecture «What is a Nation?».[11] Renan opposed the German view in the very different context of France’s defeat in 1870 and the annexation of Alsace-Lorraine by the German Empire. For Renan, a nation rests both on a shared past that must be honored and, above all, on the collective will to continue that legacy. The nation is a desire to live together, i.e. a voluntary association to which one may choose to belong. From this approach emerges the idea of the nation-state, in which the nation is both a political and cultural unit, and the state is its legal and political expression. Within a nation-state, there can be only one nation. This vision must be understood in light of a foundational principle inherited from the Revolution: the principle of equality, according to which all citizens must be enjoy the same rights. The modern corollary of the principle is the principle of non-discrimination. Consequently, France does not recognize the existence of distinct groups within the nation that consider themselves united by a shared identity and different from the rest of the population. The 1991 decision of the Constitutional Council[12] perfectly illustrates this conception. In that case, the Council declared unconstitutional a statute referring to the Corsican people as a «component of the French people.» According to the Court, dividing the people into subcategories is incompatible with the constitutional foundations of the Republic.
Yet, the French Constitution does acknowledge the existence of overseas populations, as Article 72-3 states: «The Republic shall recognize the overseas populations within the French people in a common ideal of liberty, equality and fraternity.» The semantic distinction between people and population is significant. The term populations, as used in this context, often refers to territories inhabited by indigenous peoples. While the Constitution allows for limited autonomy in the implementation of laws in these territories, due to local specificities, it still does not entail recognition of collective rights. Furthermore, after the issue was raised on several occasions, notably during the first cycle of the country’s Universal Periodic review,[13] France amended its Constitution to include an article 75-1 stating that « regional languages are part of France’s heritage ».[14]
This French conception comes into conflict both with domestic demands and with international norms to which France has declined to adhere. At the national level, a well-known example concerns the teaching of the Corsican language in schools, which, despite long-standing demands, has never been fully authorized. More broadly, France has refused to ratify the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, citing constitutional incompatibilities. In 1999, the Constitutional Council[15] ruled that ratification would require a constitutional amendment, as it would grant specific rights to certain groups of speakers—an outcome deemed contrary to the principle of indivisibility of the Republic. This view aligns with the constitutional principle that the Republic interacts with individuals as equal citizens, not with groups. As such, granting specific group-based rights is seen as fundamentally incompatible with the French universalist model.
On the international stage, France has expressed reservation not recognizing the application of the Article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which states that: “In those States in which ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities exist, persons belonging to such minorities shall not be denied the right, in community with the other members of their group, to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practise their own religion, or to use their own language.” According to the French government, this provision is incompatible with the Constitution. France has made similar interpretive declarations or reservations upon ratifying other international instruments, such as Article 30 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and Article 5(b) of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). Most tellingly, France has consistently refused to sign the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, adopted by the Council of Europe. This persistent refusal illustrates the deep entrenchment of the indivisibility principle in France’s constitutional and diplomatic posture. This approach prioritizes equality through uniformity over equality through the recognition of difference.
This situation has been the subject of criticism and concern expressed by civil society as well as by United Nations experts.[16] It raises two major consequences resulting from France’s refusal to recognize the existence of minorities. First, unlike many of its European neighbors, France does not allow the collection of data based on the ethnicity of its population.[17] The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) has criticized this approach, noting that it hinders the collection of reliable data necessary to effectively combat racial discrimination.[18] The non recognition of national minorities also raises concerns regarding the rights of Indigenous peoples living in France’s overseas territories, and the need for an official recognition.[19]
3.The relation of France toward the international protection of minorities.
The League of Nations was created after the First World War, in a context marked by the rise of pacifist ideals and new internationalist doctrines. Among these, the solidarism, developed notably by French thinker Léon Bourgeois,[20] advocated for cooperation among nations to preserve peace. According to this theory, peace, or the avoidance of war, was to be ensured primarily through the rule of law. This principle also resonates in the rhetoric of U.S. President Woodrow Wilson,[21] even though the United States ultimately did not ratify the League’s Covenant (Treaty of Versailles).[22] Although the Covenant of the League of Nations did not enshrine any specific human rights provisions, this did not mean that issues relating to the rights of people in jus gentium were entirely absent. Rather, such matters were largely considered to fall within the domestic jurisdiction of states. Nevertheless, the League did introduce a system of minority protection, which was progressively implemented between 1919 and 1925. It was established mainly to respond to the creation of new states resulting from the dismantlement of Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian empires, to prevent claims of linguistic, ethnic and religious minorities in these newly formed territories. In this respect, it can be seen as an extension of 19th-century international treaties that aimed to protect minority populations within the Ottoman Empire. This system, while not explicitly framed in the language of modern human rights, reflected a selective and embryonic approach to protecting certain fundamental rights. However, its scope and effectiveness were significantly limited.
One of the fundamental weaknesses of this system was its lack of general applicability, which created conceptual ambiguity regarding the definition and legal status of minorities. Attempts to generalize or universalize the regime of protection were systematically opposed, with France and the United Kingdom at the forefront of this resistance. Indeed, at the 6th General Assembly of the League of Nations, the Lithuanian government proposed the generalisation of the minority system on the form of an international convention and the creation of a permanent commission.[23] This was supported by the work of legal associations such as the Institute of International Law, the interparliamentary union or the International Federation of League of Nations Societies (IFLNS). Despite a support from Polish and Romanian government, the majority of member states expressed their opposition. France presented the strongest opposition, justified by its enduring constitutional tradition of non-recognition of minorities. The proposition was eventually abandoned by the withdrawal of the Lithuanian proposal due to the absence of a compromise and will continue to be rejected over time. One could see in this lack of generalization the preservation of a hierarchy between states.
The second limit of the minority system was the weak enforcement mechanism where legal formalism outweighs human rights. In practice, the acceptance rate of petitions by the Minorities Section is 55%. These petitions were then forwarded to a committee of three state representatives who were not involved in the dispute, and they decided whether to transmit the case to the League of Nations Council. Over twenty years, only 14 out of 325 cases examined were submitted to the Council. Of these 14 cases, five were closed, while the majority were referred back to the Minorities Section for discreet negotiations with the state implicated in the petition.[24] Furthermore, question on the extension of the system of minority or the creation of a permanent commission on minorities entailed an interest from the part of reluctant nations in the recognition of human rights at the international level, especially rights related to non-discrimination. The affirmation of the principle of non-discrimination before the law would cover the rights of minorities within the territories of States that were not engaged by treaties on minorities. It was thus an interesting point of view for States, such as France, that refused to recognize the existence of minorities in their jurisdiction. This was precisely the position that France upheld in September 1933 during the 14th General Assembly of the League of Nations.[25] This meeting took place in a particularly tense context, marked by the rise of nazism and fascism and the persecution of German Jews. The General Assembly was an opportunity to assess the actions of the League. Some delegates expressed their disappointment over the organization’s inability to act—notably China, which voiced deep regret over the failure to implement decisions regarding Japan’s invasion of Manchuria. Inspired by the work of the Institute of International Law on that subject, the Haitian delegation proposed a resolution on a World Convention on Human Rights. The resolution project begins with the constatation that minority Treaties ensure the protection of rights of some, and that this protection should be granted to all. The words of the proposed resolution are the following: “All inhabitants of a state shall have the right to full protection of their life and liberty, and all citizens of a state shall be equal before the law and enjoy the same civil and political rights, without distinction of race, language, or religion.” It is merely political and civils rights. Almost no debate or discussion on this proposal, but an opposition between States that were partisans generalisation of the system protection minorities, as Sweden which thought that this was the only way to protect jewish minorities of Germany. The states supporters for the generalization were the one already involved in the international protection of minorities process (Romania, Yugoslavia, Poland, Czechoslovakia), as well as Sweden, Deutschland and Ireland. The other states were against, all for different reasons but eventually the same origin: the fear of intervention in internal affairs. Eventually, a 1922 recommendation stating that “The hope that states, which are not legally bound by any obligation to the League of Nations regarding minorities, will observe, in their treatment of racial, religious, or linguistic minorities, at least the same degree of justice and tolerance required by the treaties and upheld by the ongoing actions of the Council.”[26] was reaffirmed, with the addition of a clause requesting that it be applied without exception to all categories of nationals differing from the majority population by race, language, or religion. However, the latter reference was never adopted by the plenary assembly due to a German veto. The rise of antisemitism in Europe has been perceived as a crisis concerning the treatment of minorities[27].
Nevertheless, these debates laid the foundation for discussions that, after World War II, led to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and the emergence of a more robust international legal framework.
From the early days of the United Nations, the issue of minority protection was inherited from the League of Nations framework. For instance, Article 68 of the UN Charter, stipulating that the Economic and Social Council shall set up commissions in the fields of human rights and fundamental freedoms, was implemented during the first session of the UN General Assembly in London, in January 1946. The Human Rights Commission was then tasked with several objectives: the drafting of an international declaration of human rights, the abolition of discrimination, issues of freedom of information, the status of women, and, notably, the protection of minorities. However, no international text would enshrine minority protection until the adoption of the 1966 Covenants. France played a notable role in this delay. In the post–World War II context, much of the world remained under colonial domination. During the San Francisco negotiations, colonial powers, including France, sought to preserve their interests by maintaining control over their territories.[28] This led to a key distinction in the Charter between Trust Territories and Non-Self-Governing Territories: the former continued the mandate system of the League under international supervision, while the latter referred to colonial possessions administered directly by states, who undertook to guide their peoples toward self-government.
The issue of minority protection arose during the drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) by the Commission on Human Rights and provoked intense debate. It is worth noting from the outset that the Nuclear Commission on Human Rights, tasked with defining the mandate of the future Human Rights Commission, did not initially propose the creation of a specific body dedicated to the protection of minorities and the prevention of related violations. By contrast, it did propose the establishment of a Sub-Commission on Freedom of the Press and Information. The reasoning was that, although the protection of minorities fell within the general mandate of the Commission, addressing it directly could lead to politically sensitive measures, and that further information was therefore needed before proceeding.[29] After this omission was pointed out by the Soviet representative during the second session of ECOSOC,[30] a Sub-Commission on the Prevention of Discrimination and the Protection of Minorities was ultimately established.[31] Concerning the work on the UDHR, several early drafts, including one submitted by the French representative, contained specific provisions on minority rights and were discussed within the Sub-Commission.[32] Ultimately, it was decided not to include such an article in the Declaration, for several reasons. First, there was a lack of consensus on the definition of minorities and on the scope of the protection to be granted. By way of illustration, René Cassin, the French representative, maintained that the Declaration should remain general and lay down principles that would later be elaborated upon in the Covenants. According to him, the question of minority protection required time, expert input, and could not be settled within the Declaration.[33] Although the Sub-Commission had made progress on this issue, the French expert disagreed with some of its conclusions.[34] Furthermore, Cassin supported the argument that since all the rights in the Declaration were to be applied without discrimination, there was no need for what he considered superfluous protections for minorities, especially considering that France viewed itself as a homogeneous state. In his view, «a specific statement of the rights of national groups might defeat the very purpose of the Declaration, by increasing intolerance of minorities and hindering their integration within a State.»[35] This reflects the rhetoric developed by France since 1946, which held that the populations of non-self-governing territories, the new designation for colonial possessions, had been elevated from the status of subjects to that of French citizens, and as such, were entitled to the same rights as those residing in metropolitan France. Another argument, consistent with the French approach of minorities, is that human rights were understood as an individual related issue. Therefore, the protection of minorities, which implies the acknowledgment of collective rights, could not be accommodated in the future Declaration. This reflects the idea that the principle of non-discrimination, combined with the equal application of rights to every individual, is in itself sufficient to ensure the protection of all persons, including those belonging to minority groups. On 24 June 1948, the Human Rights Commission formally decided that the article on minorities would not be included in the UDHR.[36] Further evidence of the French position can be found in the Sub-Commission’s session of November–December 1947.[37] Although members of the Sub-Commission were selected for their expertise rather than national affiliation, the arguments advanced by the French expert Monsieur Spanien echoed the national position. He held that the specific protection of groups necessarily involved certain limitations. Relying on Article 2(7) of the UN Charter (non-interference in domestic affairs), he opposed an amendment asserting that “the government has the duty to establish conditions permitting minorities to practice effectively their rights.” According to him, since law is the expression of the general will, the will of a minority cannot override the law. He further argued that granting access to education in minority languages would effectively require the French State to revise its laws on the public funding of private primary education institutions—something he viewed as a constitutional and political overreach.[38]
These two examples clearly show that the French position and vision regarding minorities were reflected in international discussions. In fact, a closer examination of UN debates reveals that the United States shared a similar view on the non-recognition of minorities.[39] At the domestic level, the debates within the French Commission on Human Rights, held in May 1947, illustrate that the question of minorities sparked controversy even within this expert body.[40] It was composed at the time of legal professionals engaged in the emerging field of human rights, as the Commission was involved in the preparation of the international Bill of Rights. Some members, such as Abbé Boulier, supported the Soviet position, emphasizing the need to respect ethnic minorities, particularly in relation to language and education, and advocated for specific legal statuses to ensure the rights of the various communities that then made up the French population. Others, including Henri Fouques-Duparc and M. de Beaumont, argued for a general and undifferentiated definition of human rights, to be applied universally and without distinction. They drew on the example of the United States, where Black communities, despite being subjected to systemic discrimination, were not officially recognized as minorities.
4.Conclusion
In conclusion, the French approach to minority rights, in addition to generating domestic debate over the legitimacy of denying group-specific rights, has also been reflected at the international level. This influence has manifested both through France’s positions in international forums and through its refusal to ratify legal instruments or provisions that explicitly recognize the protection of minority rights.
From a contemporary perspective, this refusal has become the subject of growing scrutiny. Civil society organizations and international institutions have increasingly voiced concerns about the potential for human rights violations resulting from the French State’s non-recognition of minorities. These concerns highlight a growing tension between France’s constitutional principles and the evolving norms of international human rights law.
From a more historical perspective, it is worth noting that in a world where international relations were not yet governed by a multilateral and «universal» legal framework, the protection of minorities could serve as a means of intervention, particularly by powers such as France. Subsequently, these same powers sought to prevent the internationalization of such a system, especially when there was a risk that it might later be applied to themselves.
[1] Абашидзе А.Х. Защита прав меньшинств по международному и внутригосударственному праву : Монография — М: Права человека, 1996.
[2] See, for instance, Treaty of Paris, 30 March 1856 ; Treaty of Berlin 13 July 1878.
[3] Blischenko I., Abashidze A. National minorities and international law // Human rights in a changing East-West perspective. 1990. — P. 202-215
[4] Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by UN General Assembly Resolution 217 A (III), Paris, 10 December 1948
[5] International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted by UN General Assembly Resolution 2200A. (XXI), 16 December 1966
[6] Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities, adopted by UN General Assembly Resolution 47/135, 18 December 1992.
[7] Special Rapporteur of the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, Francesco Capotori, Study on the rights of persons belonging to ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities, 1979, E/CN.4/Sub.2/384/Rev.1, para. 568, available at https://docs.un.org/en/E/CN.4/Sub.2/384/Rev.1
[8] Constitution of the French Republic, 4 October 1958, art. 1, available at https://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/sites/default/files/as/root/bank_mm/anglais/constiution_anglais_oct2009.pdf
[9] Constitution of 1791 (France), adopted by the National Constituent Assembly, 3 September 1791, available in French at https://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/les-constitutions-dans-l-histoire/constitution-de-1791
[10] Fichte J. G., Addresses to the German Nation, translated by Reginalg Foy Jones, available at https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Addresses_to_the_German_Nation/Thirteenth_Address?utm_source=chatgpt.com
[11] Renan E. Qu’est ce qu’une Nation ? Conférence prononcée le 11 mars 1882 à la Sorbonne, available in French at https://classiques.uqam.ca/classiques/renan_ernest/qu_est_ce_une_nation/qu_est_ce_une_nation_texte.html
[12] French Constitutional Council, Decision No. 91-290 DC of 9 May 1991, Loi portant statut de la collectivité territoriale de Corse
[13] See, for example, Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review, Geneva, 5-16 May 2008, A/HRC/WG.6/2/FRA/3, available at https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/g08/125/44/pdf/g0812544.pdf
[14] Loi constitutionnelle n°2008-724 du 23 juillet 2008 de modernisation des institutions de la Ve République, JORF n°0171 du 24 juillet 2008, available at https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/loda/id/LEGIARTI000019238731/2008-07-25/
[15] French Constitutional Council, Décision n°99-412 DC du 15 juin 1999, Charte européenne des langues régionales ou minoritaires, available at https://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/decision/1999/99412DC.htm
[16] Abashidze A., Babanskaya A., Koneva A., Solntsev A., Gugunskiy D. International Legal Protection of Linguistic Minorities with the Example of the French Republic // Proceedings of the 2018 2nd International Conference on Management, Education and Social Science (ICMESS 2018). — Paris: ATLANTIS PRESS, 2018. — С. 1071-1074
[17] France’s combined twenty-second and twenty-third periodic reports submitted under Article 9 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) (CERD/C/FRA/22-23, 9 May 2019, para. 7).
[18] CERD, Concluding observations on the combined twenty-second and twenty-third periodic reports of France, CERD/C/FRA/CO/22-23, 14 December 2022, para. 5
[19] Final observations of the CER) following the review of France’s seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth periodic reports, 23 September 2010, CERD/C/FRA/CO, para. 18; and final observations following the review of the twentieth and twenty-first periodic reports of France, 10 June 2015, CERD/C/FRA/CO/20-21, paras. 11–14 ; CNCDH, Avis sur la place des peuples autochtones dans les territoires d’Outre-mer de France, 23 février 2016.
[20] Bourgeois L. Solidarité. Paris : Armand Colin, 1896 ; Bourgeois, L. Pour la Société des Nations. Paris : Librairie Hachette, 1910
[21] Wilson W. “Fourteen Points Speech.” Address to the U.S. Congress, January 8, 1918. In Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, 1918. Supplement 1, The World War, vol. 1, 11–14. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1933.
[22] Treaty of Versailles, 28 June 1919
[23] Kévonian D. La danse du pendule : les juristes et l’internationalisation des droits de l’homme, 1920-1939, Paris, Éditions de la Sorbonne, 2021, p. 194.
[24] Kévonian D. La danse du pendule : les juristes et l’internationalisation des droits de l’homme, 1920-1939, Paris, Éditions de la Sorbonne, 2021, p. 145
[25] Kévonian D. La danse du pendule : les juristes et l’internationalisation des droits de l’homme, 1920-1939, Paris, Éditions de la Sorbonne, 2021, p. 327
[26] Kévonian D. La danse du pendule : les juristes et l’internationalisation des droits de l’homme, 1920-1939, Paris, Éditions de la Sorbonne, 2021, p. 331.
[27] Kévonian D. La danse du pendule : les juristes et l’internationalisation des droits de l’homme, 1920-1939, Paris, Éditions de la Sorbonne, 2021, p. 352.
[28] Pearson J. L. The French Empire Goes to San Francisco, French Politics, Culture & Society, Summer 2020, Vol. 38, No. 2, French Decolonization in Global Perspective, pp. 35-55.
[29] Report of the Commission on Human Rights to the 2nd Session of the Economic and Social Council, 21 May 1946, p.6.
[30] Summary Record of the Fifth Meeting, Second Session of the Economic and Social Council, 31 May 1946, E/SR.19.
[31] ECOSOC resolution 9(II), 21 June 1946, Commission on Human Rights, E/RES/9(II).
[32] E/CN.4/Sub.2/16
[33] E/CN.4/Sub.2/38
[34] E/CN.4/Sub.2/SR.11
[35] E/CN.4/SR.73
[36] E/CN.4/SR.73
[37] Reports from E/CN.4/Sub.2/SR.1 – E/CN.4/Sub.2/SR.
[38] E/CN.4/Sub.2/SR.11
[39] Citer ref
[40] Pateyron E., La contribution française à la rédaction de la Déclaration universelle des droits de l’homme : René Cassin et la Commission consultative des droits de l’homme, UNESCO, France CNCDH, 1998, p.125,127
Information about the author: Вотюрэ Жадэ Делмир, аспирант, Российский университет дружбы народов имени Патриса Лумумбы, Москва, Российская Федерация
Information about the author: Jade Delmire Voituret, Postgraduate student, Department of International Law, People’s Friendship University of Russia named after Patrice Lumumba, Moscow, Russian Federation
