Cuba Signs ICCPR and ICESCR — With Reservations

At IntLawGrrls, our colleague Naomi Norberg notes that Cuba has signed the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. Like Naomi, I believe that the decision is a step in the right direction. Nevertheless, I think that the International Herald Tribune article to which Naomi links is somewhat misleading, because it fails to note that Cuba intends to add reservations to the treaties during the ratification process, as this much better Reuters article makes clear:

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) – Cuba signed two U.N. human rights pacts on Thursday that long-time president Fidel Castro, replaced by his brother just four days ago, had refused to endorse for more than three decades.

But the communist-run island’s foreign minister said after signing the documents at U.N. headquarters in New York that Havana still shared the reservations expressed by Castro about the pacts and would formally record them in future.

[snip]

When Cuba announced it would sign the pacts, Raul Castro was already governing on behalf of his ailing brother, who was still nominally president.

Two days later, Fidel Castro reprinted objections he had made in 2001. He said the political rights pact could be used as an instrument against Cuba by “imperialism”, while two articles in the economic, social and cultural accord were unacceptable.

The first, establishing the right of workers to have independent trade unions, was fit only for capitalist countries, he said, while the second, on education, would open the door to its privatization.

On Thursday, Perez Roque said the Cuban government “shares totally the point of view expressed by … Fidel Castro”, but that this did not contradict the decision to sign.

He said that on signing he had handed the United Nations a statement saying that on “the scope and application of several of the elements contained in these international instruments, Cuba will register those reservations or interpretative declarations it considers relevant.”

We can only hope that the “reservations or interpretative declarations” don’t undermine the importance of Cuba’s decision to sign the two treaties.