A legal obligation under international law to guarantee access to abortion services in contexts of armed conflict? An analysis of the case of Colombia

Humanitarian Law ◽

Human Rights Law ◽

Health And Human Rights ◽

International Obligation ◽

Women And Girls

Abstract This article discusses the existence of an international obligation for the State of Colombia to guarantee access to abortion services for women and girls who are victims of conflict-related sexual violence in the context of the Colombian armed conflict. By examining international humanitarian law rules from an international human rights law lens, it sets out the interdependence between both frameworks from reproductive health and human rights perspectives. Furthermore, the article provides considerations on the recognition and redress of these violations in the transitional justice scenario in Colombia.

25. International humanitarian law

10.1093/he/9780198767237.003.0025 ◽

2017 ◽

Author(s):

Sandesh Sivakumaran

Keyword(s):

Human Rights ◽

Armed Conflict ◽

Humanitarian Law ◽

Human Rights Law ◽

International Human ◽

The Relationship ◽

Two Bodies

This chapter examines international humanitarian law, the principal body of international law which applies in times of armed conflict, and which seeks to balance the violence inherent in an armed conflict with the dictates of humanity. International humanitarian law protects the civilian population from the ravages of conflict, and establishes limitations on the means and methods of combat. The chapter is organized as follows. Section 2 considers the nature of international humanitarian law and identifies some of its cardinal principles and key rules. Section 3 explores the similarities and differences between international humanitarian law and international human rights law, comparing and contrasting their historical origins and conceptual approaches. Given that international humanitarian law applies during armed conflict, Section 4 considers whether there is a need for international human rights law also to apply. Section 5 ascertains the relationship between the two bodies of law and Section 6 considers some of the difficulties with the application of international human rights law in time of armed conflict.

The Interplay between International Humanitarian Law and International Human Rights Law in Situations of Armed Conflict

Israel Law Review ◽

10.1017/s0021223700013376 ◽

2007 ◽

Vol 40 (2) ◽

pp. 310-355 ◽

Cited By ~ 49

Author(s):

Cordula Droege

Keyword(s):

Human Rights ◽

Armed Conflict ◽

Armed Conflicts ◽

Humanitarian Law ◽

Human Rights Law ◽

International Human ◽

Historical Developments

International human rights law and international humanitarian law are traditionally two distinct branches of law, one dealing with the protection of persons from abusive power, the other with the conduct of parties to an armed conflict. Yet, developments in international and national jurisprudence and practice have led to the recognition that these two bodies of law not only share a common humanist ideal of dignity and integrity but overlap substantially in practice. The most frequent examples are situations of occupation or non-international armed conflicts where human rights law complements the protection provided by humanitarian law.This article provides an overview of the historical developments that led to the increasing overlap between human rights law and humanitarian law. It then seeks to analyse the ways in which the interplay between human rights law and humanitarian law can work in practice. It argues that two main concepts inform their interaction: The first is complementarity between their norms in the sense that in most cases, especially for the protection of persons in the power of a party to the conflict, they mutually reinforce each other. The second is the principle of lex specialis in the cases of conflict between the norms.

The Role of Necessity in International Humanitarian and Human Rights Law

Israel Law Review ◽

10.1017/s0021223713000265 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 47 (2) ◽

pp. 225-251 ◽

Cited By ~ 4

Author(s):

Lawrence Hill-Cawthorne

Keyword(s):

Human Rights ◽

Law Enforcement ◽

Armed Conflict ◽

Humanitarian Law ◽

Human Rights Law ◽

Current Article ◽

The Relationship

The nature of armed conflict has changed dramatically in recent decades. In particular, it is increasingly the case that hostilities now occur alongside ‘everyday’ situations. This has led to a pressing need to determine when a ‘conduct of hostilities’ model (governed by international humanitarian law – IHL) applies and when a ‘law enforcement’ model (governed by international human rights law – IHRL) applies. This, in turn, raises the question of whether these two legal regimes are incompatible or whether they might be applied in parallel. It is on this question that the current article focuses, examining it at the level of principle. Whilst most accounts of the principles underlying these two areas of law focus on humanitarian considerations, few have compared the role played by necessity in each. This article seeks to address this omission. It demonstrates that considerations of necessity play a prominent role in both IHL and IHRL, albeit with differing consequences. It then applies this necessity-based analysis to suggest a principled basis for rationalising the relationship between IHL and IHRL, demonstrating how this approach would operate in practice. It is shown that, by emphasising the role of necessity in IHL and IHRL, an approach can be adopted that reconciles the two in a manner that is sympathetic to their object and purpose.

International Human rights law in an armed conflict: Legal perspectives on obligations of States and Extraterritoriality

Pakistan Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences ◽

10.52131/pjhss.2018.0601.0032 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 6 (1) ◽

pp. 44-58

Author(s):

Sardar M. A. Waqar Khan Arif

Keyword(s):

Human Rights ◽

Armed Conflict ◽

Legal Framework ◽

Humanitarian Law ◽

Human Rights Law ◽

International Human ◽

The Law

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.

Procedural Right to Life Obligations

10.1093/oso/9780198821380.003.0003 ◽

2018 ◽

Author(s):

Ian Park

Keyword(s):

Human Rights ◽

Armed Conflict ◽

Humanitarian Law ◽

Human Rights Law ◽

Right To Life ◽

Similarities And Differences ◽

International Human

A state’s procedural right to life obligations relate to the circumstances in which a state must conduct an investigation following a death. Procedural right to life obligations also extend to how and when the investigation is conducted, and by whom. This chapter explores these issues in detail and advances a hypothesis in respect of what amounts to a human rights law-compliant investigation that would satisfy a state’s procedural right to life obligations during armed conflict. It also considers the similarities and differences between the requirement to investigate a death pursuant to international humanitarian law and that pursuant to international human rights law.

Introductory Remarks by Saira Mohamed

Proceedings of the ASIL Annual Meeting ◽

10.1017/amp.2019.150 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 113 ◽

pp. 365-366

Author(s):

Saira Mohamed

Keyword(s):

Human Rights ◽

Transitional Justice ◽

Humanitarian Law ◽

Human Rights Law ◽

Criminal Courts ◽

International Human

Welcome to this discussion on “Emerging Accountability Mechanisms: Innovative or Ineffective?” During this session, four expert panelists will examine the evolution and future of so-called “alternative” or “non-traditional” mechanisms that aim to secure accountability for serious violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law. This category comprises mechanisms with a range of goals and forms, from investigative institutions that prepare evidence to be handed off to criminal courts, to transitional justice mechanisms that seek through non-criminal means to redress violations, prevent a relapse into violence, and facilitate reconciliation.

Rethinking the Permissive Function of Military Necessity in Internal Non-International Armed Conflict

Israel Law Review ◽

10.1017/s0021223718000092 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 51 (2) ◽

pp. 235-259 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Kosuke Onishi

Keyword(s):

Human Rights ◽

Armed Conflict ◽

Humanitarian Law ◽

Human Rights Law ◽

Right To Life ◽

Jus Ad Bellum ◽

Military Necessity ◽

The Right

This article advocates limiting the permissive impact of military necessity on the right to life. It has been argued that military necessity justifies deviations from international human rights law (IHRL) because this body of law is inadequate to deal with the necessities arising out of armed conflict. The article argues that while this rationale is convincing, it should not mean that conduct that is lawful under humanitarian law is necessarily also lawful under human rights law. The degree of force that may be used under international humanitarian law (IHL) is often superfluous. In some instances such violence is tempered by thejus ad bellum, but this body of law does not apply in internal non-international armed conflict (NIAC). The article concludes by exploring the potential for IHRL to play a role in tempering superfluous violence in NIAC that is similar to that whichjus ad bellumplays in international conflict.

The use of nuclear weapons and human rights

International Review of the Red Cross ◽

10.1017/s1816383116000096 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 97 (899) ◽

pp. 663-680

Author(s):

Stuart Casey-Maslen

Keyword(s):

Human Rights ◽

International Law ◽

Nuclear Weapons ◽

Armed Conflict ◽

Humanitarian Law ◽

Human Rights Law ◽

Healthy Environment ◽

The Right

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.

Pandora's box? Drone strikes underjus ad bellum, jus in bello, and international human rights law

International Review of the Red Cross ◽

10.1017/s1816383113000118 ◽

2012 ◽

Vol 94 (886) ◽

pp. 597-625 ◽

Cited By ~ 4

Author(s):

Stuart Casey-Maslen

Keyword(s):

Human Rights ◽

Armed Conflict ◽

International Criminal ◽

Criminal Responsibility ◽

Humanitarian Law ◽

Human Rights Law ◽

Legal Regime ◽

Drone Strikes

AbstractArmed drones pose a major threat to the general prohibition on the inter-state use of force and to respect for human rights. On the battlefield, in a situation of armed conflict, the use of armed drones may be able to satisfy the fundamental international humanitarian law rules of distinction and proportionality (although attributing international criminal responsibility for their unlawful use may prove a significant challenge). Away from the battlefield, the use of drone strikes will often amount to a violation of fundamental human rights. Greater clarity on the applicable legal regime along with restraints to prevent the further proliferation of drone technology are urgently needed.