Commentary on William Korey’s “the ‘Right to Leave’ for Soviet Jews: Legal and Moral Aspects”

IF 0.2 4区 哲学 Q2 HISTORY East European Jewish Affairs Pub Date : 2020-09-01 DOI:10.1080/13501674.2020.1877498
Shaul Kelner
{"title":"Commentary on William Korey’s “the ‘Right to Leave’ for Soviet Jews: Legal and Moral Aspects”","authors":"Shaul Kelner","doi":"10.1080/13501674.2020.1877498","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The first article in the first issue of what was then called Soviet Jewish Affairswas not about Jews in the Soviet Union, per se, but about Jews getting out of the Soviet Union. William Korey’s “The ‘Right to Leave’ for Soviet Jews: Legal andMoral Aspects” framed the question of Jewish emigration from the USSR in the context of international law: “(1) How does international opinion and international law address itself to the issue of the right to leave a country? (2) What legal and moral obligations has the Soviet Union assumed in respect of this right?” Korey’s distinction between opinion and law, legality and morality gives some hint at the context. When a Western human rights campaign for Soviet Jews began emerging in the 1950s and early 1960s, it focused its initial demands on anti-discrimination reforms within the USSR – opening synagogues, allowing religious instruction and ending economic show trials that disproportionately targeted Jews. By 1971 – as a result of pressure from Jews in the Soviet Union, greater Israeli willingness to openly challenge the Kremlin after the latter had severed diplomatic relations in 1967 and jockeying between rival factions in the American movement – the movement shifted emphasis, prioritizing the demand for unfettered Soviet Jewish emigration. To ground that demand in human rights law would confer leverage as well as legitimacy. As it stood, however, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights’ affirmation of the fundamental right to leave one’s country was only a statement of principle, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which would endow the Declaration with binding legal force, still had not received the requisite thirty-five ratifications to enter into effect. (That happened in 1976). The most elaborated treatment of the right to leave taken up by the United Nations was a 1963 report to a United Nations Economic and Social Council sub-commission examining the situation de jure and de facto, and presenting recommendations, all with the caveat that “The views expressed in this study are those of the author,” Special Rapporteur, Judge Jose D. Ingles, from the Philippines. There is an element of circularity in Korey’s treatment of the Ingles report, as he had been a contributor to it. William Korey (1922–2009) had left his position teaching Russian history at City College of New York in 1954 to take up civil rights work as director of the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith’s Illinois-Missouri office. The position introduced him to Philip M. Klutznick, a Chicago attorney and real estate developer who also served as president of B’nai B’rith International and as a member of the US delegation to the United Nations, appointed by President Eisenhower. When B’nai B’rith decided to open a United Nations Office in 1960, Klutznick recruited Korey to head it. (In the same year, Korey completed his dissertation, “Zinoviev and the Problem of World Revolution, 1919–1927,” in Columbia University’s history department). B’nai B’rith was one of five diaspora Jewish non-government organizations with consultative status to ECOSOC, and Korey, representing this Coordinating Board of JewishOrganizations, provided testimony and documentation that was incorporated into the Ingles report. Korey’s scholarship, policy work and activism blended seamlessly. The article that he wrote here became the basis of a chapter in his 1973 book, The Soviet Cage, which traced the systemic antisemitism rooted in Soviet law and custom. Moving on to lead B’nai B’rith’s International Council and later its International Policy Research department, and as a consultant to the","PeriodicalId":42363,"journal":{"name":"East European Jewish Affairs","volume":"50 1","pages":"284 - 286"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/13501674.2020.1877498","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"East European Jewish Affairs","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13501674.2020.1877498","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The first article in the first issue of what was then called Soviet Jewish Affairswas not about Jews in the Soviet Union, per se, but about Jews getting out of the Soviet Union. William Korey’s “The ‘Right to Leave’ for Soviet Jews: Legal andMoral Aspects” framed the question of Jewish emigration from the USSR in the context of international law: “(1) How does international opinion and international law address itself to the issue of the right to leave a country? (2) What legal and moral obligations has the Soviet Union assumed in respect of this right?” Korey’s distinction between opinion and law, legality and morality gives some hint at the context. When a Western human rights campaign for Soviet Jews began emerging in the 1950s and early 1960s, it focused its initial demands on anti-discrimination reforms within the USSR – opening synagogues, allowing religious instruction and ending economic show trials that disproportionately targeted Jews. By 1971 – as a result of pressure from Jews in the Soviet Union, greater Israeli willingness to openly challenge the Kremlin after the latter had severed diplomatic relations in 1967 and jockeying between rival factions in the American movement – the movement shifted emphasis, prioritizing the demand for unfettered Soviet Jewish emigration. To ground that demand in human rights law would confer leverage as well as legitimacy. As it stood, however, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights’ affirmation of the fundamental right to leave one’s country was only a statement of principle, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which would endow the Declaration with binding legal force, still had not received the requisite thirty-five ratifications to enter into effect. (That happened in 1976). The most elaborated treatment of the right to leave taken up by the United Nations was a 1963 report to a United Nations Economic and Social Council sub-commission examining the situation de jure and de facto, and presenting recommendations, all with the caveat that “The views expressed in this study are those of the author,” Special Rapporteur, Judge Jose D. Ingles, from the Philippines. There is an element of circularity in Korey’s treatment of the Ingles report, as he had been a contributor to it. William Korey (1922–2009) had left his position teaching Russian history at City College of New York in 1954 to take up civil rights work as director of the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith’s Illinois-Missouri office. The position introduced him to Philip M. Klutznick, a Chicago attorney and real estate developer who also served as president of B’nai B’rith International and as a member of the US delegation to the United Nations, appointed by President Eisenhower. When B’nai B’rith decided to open a United Nations Office in 1960, Klutznick recruited Korey to head it. (In the same year, Korey completed his dissertation, “Zinoviev and the Problem of World Revolution, 1919–1927,” in Columbia University’s history department). B’nai B’rith was one of five diaspora Jewish non-government organizations with consultative status to ECOSOC, and Korey, representing this Coordinating Board of JewishOrganizations, provided testimony and documentation that was incorporated into the Ingles report. Korey’s scholarship, policy work and activism blended seamlessly. The article that he wrote here became the basis of a chapter in his 1973 book, The Soviet Cage, which traced the systemic antisemitism rooted in Soviet law and custom. Moving on to lead B’nai B’rith’s International Council and later its International Policy Research department, and as a consultant to the
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
威廉·科里《苏联犹太人的‘离开权’:法律与道德层面》述评
《苏联犹太人事件》第一期的第一篇文章并不是关于苏联的犹太人,而是关于犹太人离开苏联的。William Korey的《苏联犹太人的‘离开权’:法律和道德方面》在国际法的背景下阐述了犹太人从苏联移民的问题:“(1)国际舆论和国际法如何处理离开一个国家的权利问题?(2)苏联在这一权利方面承担了什么法律和道德义务?”Korey对意见与法律、合法性与道德的区分在一定程度上暗示了这一背景。当西方在20世纪50年代和60年代初开始为苏联犹太人开展人权运动时,它最初的要求集中在苏联内部的反歧视改革上——开放犹太教堂,允许宗教教学,并结束过度针对犹太人的经济表演审判。到1971年,由于苏联犹太人的压力,1967年克里姆林宫断交后,以色列更愿意公开挑战克里姆林宫,以及美国运动中敌对派系之间的争斗,该运动转移了重点,优先考虑不受限制的苏联犹太移民需求。将这一要求纳入人权法将赋予其影响力和合法性。然而,就目前情况来看,《世界人权宣言》确认离开本国的基本权利只是一项原则声明,而《公民权利和政治权利国际公约》将赋予《宣言》具有约束力的法律效力,但仍未获得生效所需的35份批准书。(那发生在1976年)。联合国对休假权的处理最为详尽,是1963年向联合国经济及社会理事会一个小组委员会提交的一份报告,该报告审查了法律和事实上的情况,并提出了建议,所有这些都附带警告:“本研究报告中表达的观点是作者的观点”,特别报告员、菲律宾法官何塞·D·英格尔斯。Korey对Ingles报告的处理有一种循环性,因为他一直是该报告的撰稿人。William Korey(1922–2009)于1954年辞去了在纽约城市学院教授俄罗斯历史的职位,担任B'nai B'rith伊利诺伊州-密苏里州办公室反诽谤联盟的主任,从事民权工作。该职位将他介绍给了芝加哥律师和房地产开发商Philip M.Klutznick,他曾担任B'nai B'rith International的总裁,也是艾森豪威尔总统任命的美国驻联合国代表团成员。1960年,当B'nai B'rith决定开设一个联合国办事处时,Klutznick聘请Korey担任该办事处的负责人。B'nai B'rith是具有经社理事会咨商地位的五个散居国外的犹太非政府组织之一,Korey代表犹太组织协调委员会提供了证词和文件,这些证词和文件被纳入Ingles报告。Korey的学术、政策工作和行动主义完美融合。他在这里写的这篇文章成为了他1973年出版的《苏联牢笼》一书中一章的基础,该书追溯了植根于苏联法律和习俗的系统性反犹太主义。继续领导B'nai B'rith的国际理事会和后来的国际政策研究部门,并担任
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
“To reconstruct this period of martyrdom and heroism”: The Jewish Historical Institute and the Ringelblum Archive, 1946–1989 Slovak-language books published in 2018–2021 Jewish Emancipation: A History across Five Centuries Les Survivants: Les Juifs de Pologne depuis la Shoah The dual path of historian Artur Eisenbach
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1