If we comprehend Civil Rights as rights to national（国民权利）， then it would not be suitable for the people without nationality. Also it is obviously not conform to the purpose of the legislation.

　　If we comprehend Civil Rights as, which are rights to national property and family on the basis of Chinese and Japanese tradition, just as the so-called “民事权利” （min-shi rights）， then the title cannot correspond to the contents of the covenant., for the rights of reticent and defense belong to none of the rights of national on political, property or family at all.

　　The word “civil” also has the meaning about “official”， “internal”， “civilized”， “courteous”， ”upper reaches”， “none-violence” and etc., however, all these meanings could not explain the name of the covenant reasonably.

　　In short, regardless of seeing from any aspect, the name of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is obscure.

　　Ⅱ。 Civil Rights is a concept with the color discrimination

　　The concept of Civil Rights, which is originated from ancient Rome, is corresponding to Gentium Rights. Civil Rights are empowered by Jus Civile, and they are the rights that only Civis could enjoy other than Gents （不下庶人的权利）。 They include the rights of political freedom, election, participation in politics and owning slaves. Gentium Rights are authorized by Jus Gentium; they include rights on property and family, but never including the rights of politics. The society is divided into two classes, Civis and Gents, and the two classes opposed each other strongly. The prerequisite of the fission of the rights is due to the division of the society. The division of Civis and Gents is disappeared in the modern world and law is not divided into the two tectonic plates—— Jus Civile and Jus Gentium any more, so without doubt, rights can not be separated into the two types of Civil Rights（国人、士、大夫们的权利）and Gentium Rights（庶人权利、万民权利）any longer.