THE OBLIGATION OF A STATE UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW TO PROTECT MEMBERS OF ITS OWN ARMED FORCES DURING ARMED CONFLICT OR OCCUPATION

2006 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
pp. 3-24 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Rowe

AbstractThe article considers whether a state owes any obligation under international humanitarian law or under human rights law to its own soldiers killed or injured during an armed conflict or an occupation of territory. Whether a soldier's own state can beacause (in conjunction with the acts of enemy forces) of his death during combat is explored through situations such as poor training, equipment, and leadership and of specific issues such as ‘friendly fire’ incidents. It marks out a distinction between causation and the responsibility of a state. Whilst there may be political, or even national law, pressures upon a government which is at fault to some degree in causing casualties amongst its own soldiers this article suggests that, in certain limited circumstances, a duty may crystallise under customary international humanitarian law or arise under human rights law on a state to prevent it beingacause of the death or wounding of its own soldiers. It concludes that soldiers are, perhaps, the last group involved in an armed conflict to be recognised as individuals who should be owed some obligation of protection, in this case, by their own state under international law.

Author(s):  
Vité Sylvain

This chapter discusses the phenomenon of ‘occupation’. Occupation refers to this particular phase in international armed conflict (IAC) where a belligerent has overpowered the adverse party and taken control of enemy territories, but the final outcome of the war has not yet been decided. Occupation is thus a transition phase between the end of active hostilities and formal conclusion of the conflict. It is a period where foreign armed forces are responsible for the administration of territories belonging to the defeated state. During this transitory period towards peace, international law seeks to ensure that the rights of the territorial state are not infringed and that local populations are protected against any risk of abuse by potentially hostile authorities. The chapter then looks at the sources, scope, and substance of the law of occupation. While relevant rules mainly fall under international humanitarian law (IHL), it is recognized today that human rights law is also applicable during occupation.


2019 ◽  
pp. 279-302
Author(s):  
Anders Henriksen

This chapter examines those parts of international law that regulate how military operations must be conducted—jus in bello. It begins in Section 14.2 with an overview of the most important legal sources. Section 14.3 discusses when humanitarian law applies and Section 14.4 examines the issue of battlefield status and the distinction between combatants and civilians. Section 14.5 provides an overview of some of the most basic principles governing the conduct of hostilities while Section 14.6 concerns belligerent occupation and Section 14.7. deals with the regulation of non-international armed conflict. Finally, Section 14.8 explores the relationship between international humanitarian law and human rights law in times of armed conflict.


Author(s):  
Anders Henriksen

This chapter examines those parts of international law that regulate how military operations must be conducted — jus in bello. It begins in Section 14.2 with an overview of the most important legal sources. Section 14.3 discusses when humanitarian law applies. Section 14.4 examines the issue of battlefield status and the distinction between combatants and civilians. Section 14.5 provides an overview of some of the most basic principles governing the conduct of hostilities while Section 14.6 deals with the issue of regulation of non-international armed conflict. Finally, Section 14.7 explores the relationship between international humanitarian law and human rights law in times of armed conflict.


2015 ◽  
Vol 97 (899) ◽  
pp. 663-680
Author(s):  
Stuart Casey-Maslen

AbstractInternational human rights law is an as-yet underused branch of international law when assessing the legality of nuclear weapons and advocating for their elimination. It offers a far greater range of implementation mechanisms than does international humanitarian law (IHL), and arguably strengthens the protections afforded to civilians and combatants under IHL, particularly in non-international armed conflict. Of particular relevance are the rights to life, to humane treatment, to health and to a healthy environment, associated with the right to a remedy for violations of any human rights.


Author(s):  
Ian Park

Derogations have been cited as some as a panacea to resolve the unwelcome encroachment, as they see it, of human rights law into armed conflict. This chapter challenges this assertion by analysing the issue with reference to how derogations take effect in respect of a state’s substantive and procedural right to life obligations. The chapter concludes that while derogations may help resolve the tension between international humanitarian law and human rights law in this area by affording primacy to international humanitarian law, they do not prevent all right to life-based litigation founded on the activities of armed forces during an extraterritorial armed conflict.


2021 ◽  
pp. 273-295
Author(s):  
Anders Henriksen

This chapter examines those parts of international law that regulate how military operations must be conducted jus in bello. It begins in Section 14.2 with an overview of the most important legal sources. Section 14.3 discusses when humanitarian law applies and Section 14.4 examines the issue of battlefield status and the distinction between combatants and civilians. Section 14.5 provides an overview of some of the most basic principles governing the conduct of hostilities while Section 14.6 concerns belligerent occupation and Section 14.7 deals with the regulation of non-international armed conflict. Finally, Section 14.8 explores the relationship between international humanitarian law and human rights law in times of armed conflict.


2012 ◽  
Vol 40 (3) ◽  
pp. 393-416 ◽  
Author(s):  
Madeline E. Cohen

This annotated bibliography is compiled as a collection development guide for academic librarians and specialists in international law. The topic of International Humanitarian Law of Armed Conflict concerns the treatment of combatants and noncombatants in wartime, while the topic of International Human Rights Law has traditionally been concerned with the treatment of individuals by states in peacetime. During the period from the end of the twentieth century to the present, the boundaries between international humanitarian law and human rights law have become increasingly blurred. Therefore, this article concentrates on core sources inbothbranches of international law in these key areas of overlap: conflicts between states; internal conflicts; insurgencies.


2018 ◽  
Vol 100 (907-909) ◽  
pp. 237-265
Author(s):  
Alon Margalit

AbstractThis article draws attention to the situation of LGBT persons during armed conflict. Subjected to violence and discrimination outside the context of armed conflict, the latter aggravates their vulnerability and exposure to various abuses. Despite important progress made with respect to their protection under human rights law, a similar effort is largely absent from the international humanitarian law discourse. This article accordingly highlights some of the norms and challenges pertaining to the protection of LGBT persons in time of war.


1993 ◽  
Vol 33 (293) ◽  
pp. 94-119 ◽  
Author(s):  
Louise Doswald-Beck ◽  
Sylvain Vité

International humanitarian law is increasingly perceived as part of human rights law applicable in armed conflict. This trend can be traced back to the United Nations Human Rights Conference held in Tehran in 1968 which not only encouraged the development of humanitarian law itself, but also marked the beginning of a growing use by the United Nations of humanitarian law during its examination of the human rights situation in certain countries or during its thematic studies. The greater awareness of the relevance of humanitarian law to the protection of people in armed conflict, coupled with the increasing use of human rights law in international affairs, means that both these areas of law now have a much greater international profile and are regularly being used together in the work of both international and non-governmental organizations.


Author(s):  
Tsvetelina van Benthem

Abstract This article examines the redirection of incoming missiles when employed by defending forces to whom obligations to take precautions against the effects of attacks apply. The analysis proceeds in four steps. In the first step, the possibility of redirection is examined from an empirical standpoint. Step two defines the contours of the obligation to take precautions against the effects of attacks. Step three considers one variant of redirection, where a missile is redirected back towards the adversary. It is argued that such acts of redirection would fulfil the definition of attack under the law of armed conflict, and that prima facie conflicts of obligations could be avoided through interpretation of the feasibility standard embedded in the obligation to take precautions against the effects of attacks. Finally, step four analyzes acts of redirection against persons under the control of the redirecting State. Analyzing this scenario calls for an inquiry into the relationship between the relevant obligations under international humanitarian law and human rights law.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document