“Safe areas”: The international legal framework

2017 ◽  
Vol 99 (906) ◽  
pp. 1075-1101 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emanuela-Chiara Gillard

AbstractIn recent years there have been repeated calls for the establishment of so-called “safe areas” to protect civilians from the effects of hostilities in a number of contexts. The present article presents the international law framework relevant to the establishment and operation of such areas: the provisions of international humanitarian law on protected zones; the rules regulating resort to armed force, Security Council authorization and mandates for the establishment of such areas by multinational forces in the absence of agreement between belligerents; and the refugee and international human rights issues raised by such zones. Using the example of the “protection of civilians sites” in South Sudan, the article then highlights some of the operational challenges raised by safe areas. It concludes with some reflections on how to enhance the likelihood that belligerents will establish such protected zones in the future.

Author(s):  
Bożena Drzewicka

Conceptions And Interpretations of Human Rights in Europe and Asia: Normative AspectsThe issue of confronting values between civilizations has become very important. It influences not only the level of international politics but also the international normative activity. It is very interesting for the modern international law and its doctrine. The most important factor of causing huge changes in the system of international law is still the international human rights protection and the international humanitarian law which is related to it. It is very difficult to create one catalogue of executive instruments and procedures but it is possible to influence the attitude toward the basic paradigms. The frictions appear from time to time and move to other planes. The West and Asia are still antagonists in the dialogue on the future of the world. The article is a contribution to the intercivilizational dialogue.


2017 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Eyassu Gayim

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.


2019 ◽  
pp. 297-304
Author(s):  
Knut Traisbach

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.


2002 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 185-199 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jean-Daniel Vigny ◽  
Cecilia Thompson

This article focusses on the issue of fundamental standards of humanity, a set of principles to reflect both international human rights and humanitarian law, as a means to address the insufficient protection of persons in situations of internal violence. Such fundamental standards of humanity, applicable at all times, in all circumstances and to all parties, are necessary to address four areas: 1) States are not party to international instruments; 2) human rights obligations are derogated from; 3) international humanitarian law is not applicable or is so but is not applied; and 4) non-State actors may not be bound by obligations under international law. The article provides an overview of the steps taken by the international community to address the issue, discusses the sources of international human rights law, humanitarian law and refugee law from which fundamental standards of humanity could be drawn, and suggests further steps to be taken. The authors are convinced that fundamental standards of humanity would serve as an educational tool to enhance effective implementation of relevant international law.


2018 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 44-58
Author(s):  
Sardar M. A. Waqar Khan Arif

Human rights are available to everyone on the basis of humanity. Universality, non-discrimination, equality and inalienability are core principles governing International Human rights Law (IHRL). The law governing armed conflict or war is known as International humanitarian Law (IHL). In the case of armed conflict, IHRL poses certain obligations on states along with humanitarian obligations. In this context, this article identifies the international human rights obligations of States in armed conflict. It argues that States must respect, promote, protect and fulfill human rights obligations of individuals, in the case of armed conflict, with increasing and serious concern, by analyzing the applicable legal framework under IHRL. It also addresses the extraterritorial application of IHRL and its limitations and derogations in armed conflict. Further, it discusses contemporary challenges for States in jurisdictional applicability and implementation of IHRL. To that extent, the argument developed throughout this article is that States have obligations under IHRL, irrespective of humanitarian obligations, not only in peace situations but also in the case of war or armed conflict.


Author(s):  
Pocar Fausto

This chapter explores how the proliferation of newly independent states and state dissolution has resulted in greater complexity on the issue of state succession of treaty obligations. In particular, between the theories of tabula rasa succession and automatic state succession. The Human Rights Committee, the Convention on Succession of States in respect of Treaties, and the development of customary international law all bolster the imposition of automatic state succession with respect to international human rights and humanitarian law treaties. Automatic state succession is required by the special nature of human rights and humanitarian law. Thus, once a population is granted the protection of such rights, these rights devolve with the territory and a state cannot deny them. Furthermore, other international institutions have enforced these obligations resulting in the continuity of international human rights and humanitarian law treaties.


2021 ◽  
pp. 37-62
Author(s):  
Barbara A. Frey

Enforced disappearance is one of the most serious crimes, prohibited across several regimes of international law, including human rights, humanitarian law and criminal law, yet Latin American governments and officials frequently avoid legal accountability for these violations. The dynamics of disappearances in post-transitional democracies call for a reconceptualisation of the international human rights framework, by reconsidering the meaning of state acquiescence. This chapter argues that a relevant and effective framework must embrace a contextual analysis and foreground the positive obligations of states to search and investigate these crimes, using generally accepted principles found in due diligence jurisprudence to measure the legal adequacy of the state’s responses to reported disappearances. Stretching the legal framework is necessary to disrupt the benefits of impunity, which violate the rights of victims, allow disappearances to thrive, and harm societies by hiding the truth.


2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 299-320
Author(s):  
Kenneth S. Gallant

Traditionally, states would not grant enforcement of criminal judgments from other states. As a result, there has been a large deficit in enforcement of monetary and other remedies for victims of criminal violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law. In recent decades, there has been some progress in national law and treaty law towards allowing or requiring transnational enforcement of victims’ remedies contained in foreign criminal judgments. This article examines the traditional law, modern progress concerning criminal remedies, and recent United Nations work in the area. Even with modern trends in the international law of criminal enforcement jurisdiction, it may turn out that civil judgments of restitution and reparation will be easier to obtain and enforce than criminal judgments in many, if not most, cases.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document