8. This dynamic is common among federations—for example, with the ‘‘Commerce Clause’’ in the United States Constitution being interpreted during the twentieth century to give the U.S. federal government much greater authority
over states than originally anticipated by the early American states forming the union, or, more recently, with European Union member states finding themselves much more integrated than the original members of the European
Economic Community would have agreed to just a few decades ago.
9. In this regard, Bentham is often quoted as having said that natural rights are ‘‘nonsense upon stilts.’’
10. See Ronald Deibert, Parchment, Printing, and Hypermedia (New York: Columbia University Press: 1997) and
Ronald Deibert, ‘‘Network Power,’’ in Richard Stubbs and Geoffrey Underhill, (eds.) Political Economy and the
Changing Global Order, 2nd edition (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999).
11. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted and proclaimed by U.N. General Assembly resolution 217A(III) of
10 December 1948.
12. Ibid.
13. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted and opened for signature, ratification, and accession by
U.N. General Assembly resolution 2200A(XXI) of 16 December 1966 (entry into force 23 March 1976, in accordance with Article 49).
14. As reflected on the Web site of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, updated December 6, 2006, http://
www.ohchr.org/english/countries/ratification/4.htm.
15. Among other countries studied, Cuba, Malaysia, Myanmar, Oman, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, and United
Arab Emirates have not signed the ICCPR. The government of China contends: ‘‘The signature that the Taiwain
authorities affixed, by usurping the name of ‘China’, to the [Convention] on 5 October 1967, is illegal and null
and void’’ (ICCPR Declarations and Reservations, available at http://www.ohchr.org/english/countries/ratification/
4_1.htm).
16. McIntyre v. Canada, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/47/D/359/1989 (1993).
17. In other contexts, this principle is sometimes referred to as that of ‘‘technological neutrality.’’
18. Concluding observations: Guyana, 2000; Concluding observations: Lebanon, 1997. The UNHRC has also taken
a strong stand against state media monopolies, stating that ‘‘because of the development of the modern mass
media, effective measures are necessary to prevent such control of the media as would interfere with the right of
everyone to freedom of expression’’ (General Comment 10, 1983).
19. See United Nations, Economic and Social Council, U.N. Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, Siracusa Principles on the Limitation and Derogation of Provisions in the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights, Annex, U.N. Doc E/CN.4/1984/4 (1984).
20. See Joseph, Schultz, Castan, The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 2nd ed. (New York: Oxford
University Press, 2004); see also the Siracusa Principles, supra, which note that these grounds ‘‘cannot be used
as a pretext for imposing vague or arbitrary limitations and may only be invoked when there exist adequate safeguards and effective remedies against abuse.’’
21. Hertzberg v. Finland, U.N. Doc CCPR/C/15/D/61/1979 (1982). This concept, which is prominent in the jurisprudence
of the European Court of Human Rights, has not subsequently been referred to by the Human Rights Committee
(see Joseph, Schultz, Castan, The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 2nd ed.).
22. See La ¨nsman et al. v. Finland, U.N. Doc CCPR/C/58/D/671/1995 (1996), which refers to the right of a member of a
minority to enjoy his or her culture; see generally Eyal Benvenisti ‘‘Margin of Appreciation, Consensus, and Universal Standards’’ 31 NYU J. Int’l L. & Pol. 843 (1999).
23. United Nations Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 31: Nature of the General Legal Obligation
Imposed on States Parties to the Covenant, U.N. Doc CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.13 (2004).
24. Mukong v. Cameroon, U.N. Doc CCPR/C/51/D/458/1991 (1994).
25. United Nations Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 10: Freedom of Expression (29 June 1983).
26. See the Human Rights Committee’s General Comment 24, where the limited scope of reservations are discussed.
27. Lawrence Lessig, Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace (New York: Basic Books, 1999).
28. See P. Alston and J. Crawford, eds., The Future of UN Human Rights Treaty Monitoring (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2000).
Filtering and the International System
99
over states than originally anticipated by the early American states forming the union, or, more recently, with European Union member states finding themselves much more integrated than the original members of the European
Economic Community would have agreed to just a few decades ago.
9. In this regard, Bentham is often quoted as having said that natural rights are ‘‘nonsense upon stilts.’’
10. See Ronald Deibert, Parchment, Printing, and Hypermedia (New York: Columbia University Press: 1997) and
Ronald Deibert, ‘‘Network Power,’’ in Richard Stubbs and Geoffrey Underhill, (eds.) Political Economy and the
Changing Global Order, 2nd edition (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999).
11. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted and proclaimed by U.N. General Assembly resolution 217A(III) of
10 December 1948.
12. Ibid.
13. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted and opened for signature, ratification, and accession by
U.N. General Assembly resolution 2200A(XXI) of 16 December 1966 (entry into force 23 March 1976, in accordance with Article 49).
14. As reflected on the Web site of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, updated December 6, 2006, http://
www.ohchr.org/english/countries/ratification/4.htm.
15. Among other countries studied, Cuba, Malaysia, Myanmar, Oman, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, and United
Arab Emirates have not signed the ICCPR. The government of China contends: ‘‘The signature that the Taiwain
authorities affixed, by usurping the name of ‘China’, to the [Convention] on 5 October 1967, is illegal and null
and void’’ (ICCPR Declarations and Reservations, available at http://www.ohchr.org/english/countries/ratification/
4_1.htm).
16. McIntyre v. Canada, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/47/D/359/1989 (1993).
17. In other contexts, this principle is sometimes referred to as that of ‘‘technological neutrality.’’
18. Concluding observations: Guyana, 2000; Concluding observations: Lebanon, 1997. The UNHRC has also taken
a strong stand against state media monopolies, stating that ‘‘because of the development of the modern mass
media, effective measures are necessary to prevent such control of the media as would interfere with the right of
everyone to freedom of expression’’ (General Comment 10, 1983).
19. See United Nations, Economic and Social Council, U.N. Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, Siracusa Principles on the Limitation and Derogation of Provisions in the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights, Annex, U.N. Doc E/CN.4/1984/4 (1984).
20. See Joseph, Schultz, Castan, The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 2nd ed. (New York: Oxford
University Press, 2004); see also the Siracusa Principles, supra, which note that these grounds ‘‘cannot be used
as a pretext for imposing vague or arbitrary limitations and may only be invoked when there exist adequate safeguards and effective remedies against abuse.’’
21. Hertzberg v. Finland, U.N. Doc CCPR/C/15/D/61/1979 (1982). This concept, which is prominent in the jurisprudence
of the European Court of Human Rights, has not subsequently been referred to by the Human Rights Committee
(see Joseph, Schultz, Castan, The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 2nd ed.).
22. See La ¨nsman et al. v. Finland, U.N. Doc CCPR/C/58/D/671/1995 (1996), which refers to the right of a member of a
minority to enjoy his or her culture; see generally Eyal Benvenisti ‘‘Margin of Appreciation, Consensus, and Universal Standards’’ 31 NYU J. Int’l L. & Pol. 843 (1999).
23. United Nations Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 31: Nature of the General Legal Obligation
Imposed on States Parties to the Covenant, U.N. Doc CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.13 (2004).
24. Mukong v. Cameroon, U.N. Doc CCPR/C/51/D/458/1991 (1994).
25. United Nations Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 10: Freedom of Expression (29 June 1983).
26. See the Human Rights Committee’s General Comment 24, where the limited scope of reservations are discussed.
27. Lawrence Lessig, Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace (New York: Basic Books, 1999).
28. See P. Alston and J. Crawford, eds., The Future of UN Human Rights Treaty Monitoring (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2000).
Filtering and the International System
99