State responsibility for community defence groups gone rogue

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-25
Author(s):  
Jemma Arman
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
The State ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Community Members ◽  
Human Rights Abuses ◽  
National Crisis ◽  
Security Services

Abstract In situations of national crisis, it is not uncommon to see community members join together to provide security services to their communities, gap-filling or supplementing the security services of the State. These “community defence groups” perform many roles, from operating checkpoints and conducting surveillance missions to patrolling roads and even participating in combined combat operations with the State. Unfortunately, while many community defence groups perform an important service for their community, some have been accused of serious human rights abuses or even war crimes. This article examines the circumstances in which a State might be responsible in relation to wrongful acts of community defence groups operating within their territory. Each community defence group differs in its structure, its activities and its relationship with the State. As such, any assessment of the potential responsibility of the State will depend upon the particulars of each group and its operations. The contribution of this article is to provide a framework for assessing State responsibility in relation to community defence groups. It does so by examining the potential attribution of acts of the community defence group to the State, applying secondary rules of State responsibility. In addition, it also considers the potential responsibilities of the State under primary rules of international law, namely international humanitarian law and international human rights law, in circumstances where the primary wrongful act is not attributable to the State.

Part 1 Freedom of Religion or Belief, 1.3.2 Places of Worship

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bielefeldt Heiner, Prof ◽  
Ghanea Nazila, Dr ◽  
Wiener Michael, Dr
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
The State ◽  
Religious Communities ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Sacred Sites ◽  
The Relationship

This chapter discusses various human rights violations that arise in the context of constructing, owning, accessing, using, protecting, and preserving places of worship or other religious sites. When members of religious communities wish to construct and own places of worship they often face restrictions that are imposed by the State or competing claims by other religious communities. In this context, the conversion of places of worship as well as their confiscation and unfair restitution provisions may lead to further problems for religious communities. Furthermore, access to religious sites and their use is often unduly restricted by the State, impeded in practice by non-State actors, or hampered by religious precepts which discriminate against some people within the same religious or belief community. The chapter also discusses issues of interpretation, including the relationship between international human rights law and international humanitarian law in the context of religious sites, the obligations of various duty-bearers, and sacred sites of indigenous peoples.

scholarly journals The Conservationist Principle under International Humanitarian Law versus a Transformative Occupation in a Human Rights Context

2019 ◽  
Vol 06 (01) ◽  
pp. 27-49
Author(s):  
Maria Yánez
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
Human Rights Regime ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
International Human ◽  
The Law

This article presents a discussion about the necessary evolution of the law of occupation facing the obligations set for by the International Human Rights regime, based on the law of State responsibility. In the first section of this two-part study, the article delivers a state of the art through the analysis of doctrine and both universal and regional jurisprudences on State responsibility based on the extraterritorial application of International Human Rights Law. On the second part, the article provides analysis on temporal (beginning and end) and territorial aspects of occupation that have a direct impact on the obligation to respect and to ensure the rights of every subject to the State’s jurisdiction. In the final section, the article discusses the clash between the traditional conservationist principle and the transformative occupation principle. This study employed a logic-inductivist method. To conclude the discussion, this study is in the position that the conservative principle under International Humanitarian Law is considered archaic; and should give way to better protection of human rights in an international occupation context.

scholarly journals Features of the status and protection of the rights of persons living on the occupied territories

2021 ◽  
pp. 433-446
Author(s):  
Oleksiy Kresin ◽  
Iryna Kresina
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Private Property ◽  
The State ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
International Human

Based on the concluded study, the authors demonstrate that international law recognizes the unconditional responsibility of the power occupying or exercising effective (overall, general, de facto) control over the territory for the human rights of its population, and in particular the civilian population as protected persons. Such liability exists independently of the personal liability of the representatives (agents) of that State. In this case, the state, which exercises control over the territory, is automatically responsible for any actions of organizations under its control. At the same time, it is quite difficult to determine the share of responsibility of a sovereign state for the implementation of human rights on a territory over which that state does not exercise control. The legislation of Ukraine imposes responsibility for the protection and violations of human rights in the ORDLO on Russia under both international humanitarian law and international human rights law. International humanitarian law imposes on the occupying state the obligation to ensure all the minimum humanitarian needs of the population, its basic rights related to the preservation of life, health and dignity (with special emphasis on the rights of women and children), private property, effective protection of these rights and protection from any unlawful violence, preservation of the infrastructure of the territory. The occupying State cannot be absolved of responsibility for serious human rights violations, including war crimes and crimes against humanity. Decisions of international courts unequivocally extend these obligations, as well as obligations under international human rights law, to all forms of illegal control of the territory of another state. At the same time, the Constitution and legislation of Ukraine do not provide for the refusal of the state to ensure and protect human rights on its territory, even in conditions of state of emergency or war. Ukraine ensures the realization of the rights of the ORDLO population on the territory of other regions of Ukraine. Ukraine also protect and restore human rights in the territory of the ORDLO with the means provided by international law.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document