The State Law and Order Restoration Council (now the State Peace and Development Council) renamed Burma ‘Myanmar’ after they took power. I have therefore chosen to use the proper name of Burma in my article.
2.
See LindsnaesBirgit and LindholtLone, ‘National Human Rights Institutions — Standard Setting and Achievements’, Danish Centre for Human Rights, 1999, p.10, and KjaerumMortem, Director, Danish Centre for Human Rights, lecture, 7 June 1999, as referenced in Bouwhuis, Stephen, ‘International Human Rights at Century's End’ (2000) 25(1) Alt LJ22–23.
3.
Amnesty International, Proposed Standards for National Human Rights Commissions January 1993, AI Index IOR 40/01/93, p.1.
4.
See, for instance, KingsburyDamien, ‘Human Rights Prospects for Indonesia’, (1999) 8a Human Rights Defender6; and Amnesty International Annual Report 2000, internet version <www.amnesty.org.uk>.
5.
Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, ‘Bringing them home’ — Report of the National Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from their Families, Commonwealth of Australia, 1997.
6.
Annex A to General Assembly Resolution, A/Res/48/134, 85th Plenary Meeting, 20 December 1993.
7.
See the Commission on Human Rights' Resolution: UN Doc E/CN.4/1992/43 (1992) and General Assembly Resolution: UN Doc A/48/134 (1993).
8.
Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, UN World Conference on Human Rights: UN Doc A/CONF.157/23 (1993).
9.
‘The Larrakia Declaration: Conclusions, Recommendations and Decisions of the First Asia-Pacific Regional Workshop of National Human Rights Institutions, Darwin, Australia 8–10 July 1996’, as reproduced in (1996) 3(1) Australian Journal of Human Rights, 117–120.
10.
The Forum currently comprises HREOC, the National Human Rights Commission of India, the Indonesian National Commission on Human Rights, the Human Rights Commission of New Zealand, the Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines, the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka and the Fiji Human Rights Commission. See Asia Pacific Forum home page <www.apf.hreoc.gov.au>.
11.
For instance, the resolution which passed the Paris Principles recognised that ‘it is the right of each state to choose the framework that is best suited to its particular needs at the national level’ (A/Res/48/134. 85th Plenary Meeting of the GA, 20 December 1993, art 12).
12.
The others include Nepal, Bangladesh, Mongolia and Papua New Guinea.
13.
Note that SLORC was dissolved on 15 November 1997 and the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) was formed. However, the SLORC's four top players remained at the top of the SPDC and the SPDC includes the top 15 military commanders (see Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade home page, Country Information, Burma <www.dfat.gov.au>).
14.
HumanaC.World Human Rights Guide, Oxford University Press, 1992, p.55. The survey rated countries on the basis of political and civil rights and freedom. Burma and Iraq scored only 17% in the 1992 survey, the worst scoring countries. In comparison, Australia rated 91%, New Zealand 98%, Canada 94% and the UK 93%.
15.
Freedom House, Freedom in the World: The Annual Survey of Political Rights and Civil Liberties 1999–2000, Freedom House, 2000 — Internet version, Burma section.
16.
HREOC Media Release, 5 August 1999, internet version <www.hreoc.gov.au>, p.2.
DaleyPaul, ‘PM warned on Burma’, Age, Thursday, 24 August 2000, p.1. The Australian Ambassador also noted that ‘[a]ll the indicators point to the regime being determined to remain in power at all costs, allowing only marginal reforms in the economy and society’.
19.
Amnesty International, Proposed Standards for National Human Rights Commissions, January 1993, AI Index IOR 40/01/93.
