These, of course, include Australia, a founder member and one who has done more to fight tyranny than most. More recently, some have gone further, and include, at times, the agendas of particular lobbies which are unable to have them accepted domestically through the democratic process. In other words, if the people will not accept your agenda, get it in through the back door. As broad statements of principle, these treaties are normally acceptable as targets for those people who have the misfortune to live under less democratic and more authoritarian governments. If they are now to be treated by the committees as if they were surrogate bills of rights targeted principally at democratic States, then they suffer from exactly the same weaknesses as domestic bills of rights.
Bills of rights are unnecessary in countries such as Australia where rights are very well protected.
Or they are no more than window-dressing in those countries where they are in practice denied, sometimes spectacularly so. Containing general statements, they lack precision for their application. But the discretion thus given to the courts runs counter to the role of the judge. This is to apply the law, and not to legislate. The inevitable result is the politicisation of the highest judiciary.