Among UN human rights treaty bodies that have the competence to examine inter-state communications, only the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) has had the possibility to develop its case law in this regard (as of 2020). One of these cases – submitted by the State of Palestine against Israel – resulted in a controversy arising from the respondent state’s declaration excluding any treaty relations between Palestine and Israel, the latter considering the former “a non-recognized entity.” The present paper analyses the CERD’s decision of 12 December 2019 in which the Committee found that it had jurisdiction to hear the inter-state communication. The author argues that while invocation of the “special character” of human rights obligations constitutes a powerful argument in judicial discourse, this should not lead to (re)opening debates on self-contained regimes and alienating human rights treaties from the norms and principles of general international law. At the same time, there are also valid reasons to perceive the obligations enshrined in the ICERD as being of a specific and erga omnes character.

As many as three international disputes containing allegations of infringement of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms Racial Discrimination (ICERD) have been brought before the International Court of Justice (ICJ), thus contributing to the number of cases allowing the Court to pronounce itself on the international human rights law. Even though none of the cases invoking violations of ICERD has been (yet) adjudicated on the merits, they have already provided an opportunity to clarify (at least in part) the compromissory clause enshrined in Art. 22 of ICERD, as well as to tackle some other issues related to provisional measures ordered by the Court. This article discusses the ICJ’s approaches to the application of ICERD in the three above-mentioned cases, while posing the question whether indeed the 1965 Convention can be useful as a tool for settling inter-state disputes. The author claims that ICERD and the broad definition of “racial discrimination” set out in its Art. 1 constitute cornerstones for the international protection of human rights, though the recourse to the procedures provided in Art. 22 of ICERD – vital as they are – should not necessarily be perceived as a better alternative to the inter-state procedures and the functions exercised by the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD).