Meaning: This quote by Rene Cassin, a French jurist and judge, refers to the weakening of the implementation measures of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). These two covenants, along with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, form the International Bill of Human Rights. The quote suggests that while both covenants have experienced weakening in their implementation measures, the Covenant concerning civil and political rights has been particularly affected, to the extent that its measures have become optional.

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1966, is a key international treaty that outlines the civil and political rights of individuals. These rights include the right to life, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the right to a fair trial, among others. The Covenant obliges states that have ratified it to take measures to ensure the protection and realization of these rights for all individuals within their jurisdiction.

In contrast, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights focuses on rights related to work, education, and an adequate standard of living. It recognizes the right to work, the right to education, and the right to an adequate standard of living, among other economic, social, and cultural rights. Both covenants aim to promote and protect the fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals, albeit with a different focus on civil and political rights versus economic, social, and cultural rights.

Rene Cassin's quote suggests that the measures for implementing the rights outlined in the ICCPR, which are fundamental to individual freedom and dignity, have been weakened to the point where they are no longer effectively enforced. This weakening may have resulted in a situation where the protection and realization of civil and political rights have become optional for states, rather than being mandatory obligations under the Covenant.

One possible interpretation of Cassin's statement is that the weakening of implementation measures for civil and political rights may be linked to political or ideological factors. In some cases, governments may prioritize economic and social rights over civil and political rights, leading to a lack of robust enforcement mechanisms for the latter. This prioritization may stem from differing interpretations of the role of the state in guaranteeing rights, as well as differing views on the hierarchy of rights.

Furthermore, the weakening of implementation measures for civil and political rights may also be attributed to challenges in monitoring and enforcement at the international level. Unlike some other human rights treaties, the ICCPR does not have a specific enforcement body with the authority to issue binding decisions or sanctions. Instead, it relies on periodic reporting by states parties and review by the Human Rights Committee, which can make recommendations but lacks the power to enforce compliance.

In conclusion, Rene Cassin's quote highlights concerns about the weakening of implementation measures for the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, suggesting that these measures have become optional rather than obligatory. This raises important questions about the protection of fundamental civil and political rights at the international level, and the factors contributing to the weakening of implementation measures. It underscores the ongoing challenges in ensuring the effective realization of human rights, particularly in the context of civil and political rights, and the need for continued efforts to strengthen implementation mechanisms and promote the universality of these rights.