The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) contains the inter-State communication procedure within which the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) received the following three communications in 2018: Qatar v Saudi Arabia, Qatar v the United Arab Emirates, and Palestine v Israel. In these cases, CERD characterized this procedure as relating to collective enforcement, analogous to the inter-State application procedure within the order/regime of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). However, unlike the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), ICERD does not refer to ‘collective enforcement’, but merely contains ad hoc conciliation, that is a bilateral means for reaching a mutually agreed solution to a dispute. This article aims, rather critically, to assess whether, and to which extent, it is justified to view the CERD ad hoc conciliation procedure as a means of collective enforcement.

中文翻译：

---

ICERD 下的国家间通信：从临时调解到集体执法？

《消除一切形式种族歧视国际公约》（ICERD）包含国家间来文程序，消除种族歧视委员会（CERD）在该程序中于 2018 年收到了以下三份来文：卡塔尔诉沙特阿拉伯，卡塔尔诉阿拉伯联合酋长国和巴勒斯坦诉以色列。在这些情况下，消除种族歧视委员会将这一程序描述为与集体执法有关，类似于欧洲人权法院 (ECtHR) 的命令/制度内的国家间申请程序。然而，与欧洲人权公约 (ECHR) 不同，ICERD 并未提及“集体执法”，而仅包含临时调解，即达成双方同意的争端解决方案的双边手段。本文旨在，相当批判地，评估是否，