International Human Rights Law in the Reparation Practice of the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Juan-Pablo Perez-Leon-Acevedo
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
International Human ◽  
The Right

Among international and hybrid criminal tribunals, the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC) is one of the few that include a reparation system for victims of crimes under its jurisdiction. This article analyses how and to what extent the ECCC has used international human rights law (IHRL) to interpret and apply reparation provisions of the ECCC legal instruments. The ECCC has largely relied on IHRL sources, particularly, the UN Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law, case-law of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and case-law of the European Court of Human Rights. However, such use has been adapted to the legal framework of the ECCC. Unlike human rights courts, the ECCC determines individual criminal liability and, thus, can only order reparations against convicted individuals.

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

2018 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 44-58
Author(s):  
Sardar M. A. Waqar Khan Arif
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
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.

Lex Generalis Derogat Legi Speciali: IHL in Human Rights Regulation of Military Courts Operating in Situations of Armed Conflict

2021 ◽  
Vol 54 (1) ◽  
pp. 84-119
Author(s):  
Anne Herzberg
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Policy Coherence ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
Applicable Law ◽  
Scant Attention ◽  
International Human

The operation of military courts is clearly allowed for and, in some cases, mandated by international humanitarian law (IHL). Nevertheless, the use of military courts has been one of the most controversial and hotly debated areas of human rights. Despite the ostensibly exclusive military domain, many human rights bodies have registered significant scepticism towards this type of justice. Consequently, they have sought actively to regulate this ‘IHL space’ with scant attention to the requirements of IHL itself. The article examines comments, case law, draft rules and other measures taken by two human rights frameworks: the United Nations Human Rights Council and the African Commission on Human and People's Rights. It will analyse how, since 2000, these bodies have approached the issue of IHL when assessing the legitimacy and operation of military courts. For instance, do they consider IHL as a source of law guiding their efforts and rely on IHL instruments? How do they resolve conflicts between IHL and international human rights law? Additionally, the article will consider the validity, legality and effectiveness of these efforts. It concludes that, in reviewing military courts, there exists significant neglect of IHL in human rights frameworks. Through overlooking IHL or relegating it to a sub-specialty of international human rights law, these bodies not only ignore applicable law, they deprive themselves of the wealth of expertise found in commentary, debate, jurisprudence and practice in the IHL sphere. Instead, integrating IHL analysis and theory and affording it its appropriate respect within relevant human rights discussions will allow for greater legal and policy coherence, and human rights bodies will be better placed to fulfil their mandates.

Rules of Engagement and Human Rights Law

2020 ◽  
pp. 185-239
Author(s):  
J.F.R. Boddens Hosang
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Military Operations ◽  
Right To Life ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
International Human ◽  
The Right

This chapter analyses the interaction between rules of engagement (ROE) and international human rights law. To support the analysis, the chapter first discusses the extraterritorial applicability of international human rights law in the context of international military operations, drawing on the case law of several human rights law bodies. The chapter then discusses the interaction between international humanitarian law (IHL) and international human rights law, including a discussion of the differences in meaning of the concepts of necessity and proportionality in each paradigm. The role of international human rights law in the ROE is discussed, especially regarding the right to life.

Starvation in Armed Conflicts

2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 723-752 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simone Hutter
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Military Operations ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
International Human ◽  
The Right

Abstract Armed conflict can cause food shortages, which continue long after the fighting is over, and increase the chance that a famine may occur. When it occurs during the context of an armed conflict, death resulting from hunger is tolerated by the international community. Yet, the prevention or alleviation of famines, even within environmentally precarious regions, is often within human control. This gives rise to the following questions. Can a state use the outbreak of an armed conflict as an excuse to remain passive while starvation takes its course? Is it justified for a state to allocate most of its resources to its military operations, while claiming to have difficulties to collect sufficient resources to meet its minimum core obligations under international human rights law? This article aims to clarify these complex questions and elaborates on how the framework of human rights law includes provisions to prevent starvation in armed conflicts. With a focus on the right to food, this analysis scrutinizes the human rights-based obligations to respect, protect and fulfil, which impose clear duties on states with respect to famines. As it is generally accepted that international human rights law continues to apply in situations of armed conflict, both human rights law and international humanitarian law apply simultaneously in these scenarios. The analysis thus also examines the complex relationship between obligations under human rights law and humanitarian law and the influence of the former on the assessment of latter. Finally, the article touches upon the scope of obligations held by armed non-state actors.

An Operational Perspective

2019 ◽  
pp. 91-108
Author(s):  
Hans Boddens Hosang
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Military Operations ◽  
Right To Life ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
International Human ◽  
The Right

The chapter explores the challenges related to the conduct of operations and the preparations for such operations as regards implementing international humanitarian law and international human rights law, exploring some of the differences between the two systems. In particular, the concepts of necessity and proportionality are examined, as well as the right to life and issues related to capture and detention, and the different meanings of those concepts and their scope in each of the two paradigms. As regards international humanitarian law, the chapter also discusses a number of challenges to interoperability in multinational military operations. The discussion on international human rights law, on the other hand, focuses on the inherent challenges in implementing that body of law in the context of (multinational) military operations outside a nation’s own borders.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document