14. The law 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.

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.


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.


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.


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.


Author(s):  
Sandesh Sivakumaran

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.


2013 ◽  
Vol 47 (2) ◽  
pp. 225-251 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lawrence Hill-Cawthorne

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.


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.


Legal Ukraine ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 36-43
Author(s):  
Viktor Bazov

The article discusses topical issues of the formation and further development of the theory of international humanitarian law. Explored the basic concepts of this area of humanitarian public law. For the first time, international humanitarian law is defined as a set of conventional and customary international legal norms that govern the law of armed conflict and human rights law. The processes of globalization of modern international relations, characterized by increasing influence of leading international organizations and crises in individual states, objectively affect the renewal and further development of the theory of international humanitarian law as one of the rapidly developing branches of public international law. New conceptual approaches to the modern definition of international humanitarian law, its philosophy and legal nature require a rethinking of scientific views as classics of international law, including the founder of the theory of natural law and modern science of international law Hugo Grotius, researcher of state interests in «just war» Thomas Hobbes and the founder of the «social contract», the sentimentalist Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and the views of such prominent scholars as Immanuel Kant, Fedor Martens and Jean Pictet. Given the normative definition, «the law of armed conflict» and «the law of human rights» are two independent legal systems within the framework of international humanitarian law, which operate mainly in different periods: during armed conflicts or in peacetime, respectively. These legal systems, although closely interlinked within the framework of international humanitarian law, are still independent and relatively independent of each other, as they have features in the sources and mechanisms of implementation and control over compliance with their norms and principles. Key words: theory of international humanitarian law, international relations, state, international organization, international court.


2016 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 156-182 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alon Margalit

State behaviour during armed conflict is increasingly exposed to judicial scrutiny. It may also be subjected to standards developed in human rights law which, at times, are inconsistent with the law of armed conflict. This article draws attention to States’ worry over this process, and to their effort to limit the application of human rights law to military operations. The article discusses this effort, as well as the extent to which it was successful in court, focusing on three operational matters: the use of force, the detention of enemy nationals for security reasons, and the investigation of deaths caused by the armed forces. It concludes that courts tend to be more attentive to States’ concerns than often perceived, and that the latter should remain patient during this ongoing process.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document