Casting light on the legal black hole: International law and detentions abroad in the “war on terror”

2005 ◽  
Vol 87 (857) ◽  
pp. 39-68 ◽  
Author(s):  
Silvia Borelli
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
International Law ◽  
War On Terror ◽  
International Standards ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Domestic Courts

AbstractThousands of individuals have been detained abroad in the context of the “war on terror”, both during the armed conflicts in Afghanistan and in Iraq and as a result of transnational law-enforcement operations. This paper argues that, notwithstanding contrary positions expounded by some States, the protections of international humanitarian law and/or international human rights law remain applicable to these individuals, wherever detained, and examines recent decisions of domestic courts and international bodies which appear to reveal a reassertion of international standards.

Commentary on Part I of the Montreux Document on Pertinent International Legal Obligations and Good Practices for States Related to Operations of Private Military and Security Companies During Armed Conflict

2014 ◽  
Vol 96 (893) ◽  
pp. 305-358 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marie-Louise Tougas
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
General Rule ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Good Practices ◽  
Legal Obligations ◽  
Security Companies

AbstractThe Montreux Document on Private Military and Security Companies (Montreux Document) was adopted in 2008 by seventeen States to reaffirm and, as far as was necessary, clarify the existing obligations of States and other actors under international law, in particular under international humanitarian law (IHL) and international human rights law (IHRL). It also aimed at identifying good practices and regulatory options to assist States in promoting respect for IHL and IHRL by private military and security companies (PMSCs). Today, fifty-one States and three international organizations have endorsed the Montreux Document. It contains twenty-seven “Statements” – sections recalling the main international legal obligations of States in regard to the operations of PMSCs during armed conflicts. Each statement is the reaffirmation of a general rule of IHL, IHRL or State responsibility formulated in a way that clarifies its applicability to PMSC operations. This article aims to detail the basis of each legal obligation mentioned in the first part of the Montreux Document (Part I). The article follows the structure of Part I, in order to better facilitate its comprehension. The second part of the Montreux Document, relating to good practices, is not covered in this article.

scholarly journals The Use of Force during Territorial Occupation

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 78-106
Author(s):  
Sardar Muhammad Abdul Waqar Khan Arif
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
Jammu And Kashmir ◽  
Palestinian Territory

It is well established that the provisions of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) regulates armed conflicts and guarantees protection to civilians. Similarly certain protections are also available under laws, such as, International Law of Occupation (ILOC) and International Human rights Law (IHRL). However, we know that often an occupying power uses force against civilians in the course of and maintenance of its occupation? But what grounds they give for the justification of use of force is the matter of critical focus in this article. We analyze the case studies of the State of Jammu and Kashmir (J & K) and Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT) to critically discuss the grounds of use of force under international law.

To Serve the Enemy

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shane Darcy
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Potential Role ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Rules And Principles

The use of informers and other collaborators by parties to an armed conflict is a common yet often concealed practice in times of war. Despite the prevalence of such activity, and the serious and at times fatal consequences that befall those who collaborate with an enemy, international law applicable in times of armed conflict does not squarely address the phenomenon. The recruitment, use, and treatment of informers and other collaborators is addressed only partially and at times indirectly by international humanitarian law. While international law recognises the widespread and enduring phenomenon of individuals cooperating with an opposing side during an armed conflict, it treats it with some ambivalence. The lawfulness of resort to the practice is generally accepted in principle, yet international law seeks to place certain limits, including restrictions on the methods employed in the recruitment, use, and treatment of informers and other collaborators during armed conflict. This book examines the development and application of the relevant rules and principles of the laws of armed conflict in relation to collaboration. The author focuses primarily on international humanitarian law as applicable to various forms of collaboration but also provides an assessment of the potential role of international human rights law. The book examines the law and practice concerning the phenomenon of collaboration during both international and non-international armed conflicts.

17 International Humanitarian Law and International Human Rights Law

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sassòli Marco
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
International Human ◽  
The Relationship

This chapter assesses the relationship between international human rights law (IHRL) and international humanitarian law (IHL). While IHRL, unlike IHL, was not founded specifically to protect people affected by armed conflicts, both branches of international law apply simultaneously during such conflicts. This raises the question of how they interrelate and also how possible contradictions between them can be resolved. Today, genuine armed conflicts are mainly not of an international character. In such situations, the relationship between IHL and IHRL is particularly controversial and difficult to determine. Nevertheless, both IHL and IHRL lead, in most cases, to the same results. In the few instances where results differ, states could do a lot to harmonize their obligations under both branches, by resorting to derogations permitted under IHRL, one of the means offered by international law to harmonize their IHRL obligations with their IHL obligations. Beyond this, legal reasoning allows for differentiated solutions on when and on which issues one or the other branch prevails.

scholarly journals Humanity and Human Rights: The Contours of International Law

2017 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Eyassu Gayim
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Human Beings ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
Law Of Nations ◽  
International Human

Laws regulate conducts by responding to social and political requirements. This holds true for the law of nations as well. Contemporary international law follows two separate tracks when it comes to regulating human rights and humanitarian questions. If international human rights law and international humanitarian law are intended to protect the dignity and worth of human beings, as it is often said, why follow separate tracks? Does humanity really exist? If it does, how does it relate to human rights? If the two are distinct, where do they converge? This article highlights these questions by revisiting the contours of international law.

III. ASSASSINATION AND TARGETED KILLING—THE KILLING OF OSAMA BIN LADEN

2011 ◽  
Vol 60 (3) ◽  
pp. 778-788 ◽  
Author(s):  
APV Rogers ◽  
Dominic McGoldrick
Keyword(s):  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Applicable Law ◽  
Jus Ad Bellum ◽  
The Us ◽  
Osama Bin Laden ◽  
Domestic Law

Osama Bin Laden was killed on 2 May 2011 in the course of an operation by US special forces (Navy Seals) in Abbottabad, Pakistan.1 The US forces were flown by helicopter from neighbouring Afghanistan. The death of Bin Laden renewed questions about the legality of such operations during armed conflicts and during peacetime.2 The potentially applicable law includes international humanitarian law, international human rights law, jus ad bellum and the domestic law of the US and Pakistan.3

Prisoners Dilemma: Ascertaining and Augmenting the Multinational NIAC Detention Regime

2017 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 436-458 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yateesh Begoore
Keyword(s):  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Treatment Standards ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
Geneva Conventions ◽  
Prisoners Dilemma ◽  
Comprehensive Framework

While International Humanitarian Law (IHL) contains a comprehensive framework of rules and procedural protections for detainees in international armed conflicts (IACS), there is a conspicuous absence of such rules and protections for detainees in the case of non-international armed conflicts (NIACS). In fact, as the recent Serdar Mohammad v. Ministry of Defence case pointed out, the rules pertaining to NIACS make no mention of detention authority at all, leading some scholars to conclude that International Human Rights Law (IHRL), and not IHL, governs NIAC detention. Contrarily, this paper contends that not only does IHL govern (as well as grant authority for) NIAC detentions, the regime’s shortcomings regarding procedural safe-guards and treatment standards may be remedied through the application of the Copenhagen Process Principles – as evolutive interpretation or interpretation based on subsequent agreement – to Common Art. 3 of the Geneva Conventions.

The Banality of Humanity (as an Absolute)

2019 ◽  
pp. 297-304
Author(s):  
Knut Traisbach
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Laws Of War ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
International Human

This chapter is a comment on a reflection by Frédéric Mégret on the limits of the laws of war. It proposes a jurisprudence of limits that focuses less on absolute ideals but on the compromising and enabling space ‘in-between’ these absolutes. Relying on Hannah Arendt’s views on different conceptions of humanity, the comment critically engages with a thinking in terms of inherent opposing interests and oscillations between them. A conception of limits as reproducing inherent absolutes is disabling and passive. Instead, limits can be understood as facilitating a space that enables us to judge and to act, also through compromise. International humanitarian law and international human rights law, perhaps more than other areas of international law, depend on preserving and actively seeking this politically relevant space.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document