To Serve the Enemy

Humanitarian Law ◽

Human Rights Law ◽

Rules And Principles

The use of informers and other collaborators by parties to an armed conflict is a common yet often concealed practice in times of war. Despite the prevalence of such activity, and the serious and at times fatal consequences that befall those who collaborate with an enemy, international law applicable in times of armed conflict does not squarely address the phenomenon. The recruitment, use, and treatment of informers and other collaborators is addressed only partially and at times indirectly by international humanitarian law. While international law recognises the widespread and enduring phenomenon of individuals cooperating with an opposing side during an armed conflict, it treats it with some ambivalence. The lawfulness of resort to the practice is generally accepted in principle, yet international law seeks to place certain limits, including restrictions on the methods employed in the recruitment, use, and treatment of informers and other collaborators during armed conflict. This book examines the development and application of the relevant rules and principles of the laws of armed conflict in relation to collaboration. The author focuses primarily on international humanitarian law as applicable to various forms of collaboration but also provides an assessment of the potential role of international human rights law. The book examines the law and practice concerning the phenomenon of collaboration during both international and non-international armed conflicts.

Casting light on the legal black hole: International law and detentions abroad in the “war on terror”

10.1017/s1816383100181184 ◽

2005 ◽

Vol 87 (857) ◽

pp. 39-68 ◽

Cited By ~ 14

Author(s):

Silvia Borelli

Keyword(s):

Law Enforcement ◽

International Law ◽

War On Terror ◽

International Standards ◽

Armed Conflicts ◽

Humanitarian Law ◽

Human Rights Law ◽

Domestic Courts

AbstractThousands of individuals have been detained abroad in the context of the “war on terror”, both during the armed conflicts in Afghanistan and in Iraq and as a result of transnational law-enforcement operations. This paper argues that, notwithstanding contrary positions expounded by some States, the protections of international humanitarian law and/or international human rights law remain applicable to these individuals, wherever detained, and examines recent decisions of domestic courts and international bodies which appear to reveal a reassertion of international standards.

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 Rights ◽

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.

Ten questions to Philip Spoerri, ICRC Director for International Law and Cooperation

10.1017/s1816383113000477 ◽

2012 ◽

Vol 94 (887) ◽

pp. 1125-1134 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Keyword(s):

International Law ◽

Armed Conflict ◽

International Committee ◽

Armed Conflicts ◽

Red Cross ◽

Humanitarian Law ◽

Human Rights Law ◽

Republic Of The Congo ◽

The One

With the globalisation of market economies, business has become an increasingly prominent actor in international relations. It is also increasingly present in situations of armed conflict. On the one hand, companies operating in volatile environments are exposed to violence and the consequences of armed conflicts. On the other hand, some of their conduct in armed conflict may lead to violations of the law.The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) engages with the private sector on humanitarian issues, with the aim of ensuring compliance or clarifying the obligations that business actors have under international humanitarian law (IHL) and encouraging them to comply with the commitments they have undertaken under various international initiatives to respect IHL and human rights law.In times of conflict, IHL spells out certain responsibilities and rights for all parties involved. Knowledge of the relevant rules of IHL is therefore critical for local and international businesses operating in volatile contexts. In this Q&A section, Philip Spoerri, ICRC Director for International Law and Cooperation, gives an overview of the rules applicable to business actors in situations of conflict, and discusses some of the ICRC's engagement with business actors.Philip Spoerri began his career with the ICRC in 1994. Following a first assignment in Israel and the occupied and autonomous territories, he went on to be based in Kuwait, Yemen, Afghanistan, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. In Geneva, he headed the legal advisers to the Department of Operations. He returned to Afghanistan as head of the ICRC delegation there from 2004 to 2006, when he took up his current position. Before joining the ICRC, he worked as a lawyer in a private firm in Munich. He holds a PhD in law from Bielefeld University and has also studied at the universities of Göttingen, Geneva, and Munich.

The use of nuclear weapons and human rights

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.

Commentary on Part I of the Montreux Document on Pertinent International Legal Obligations and Good Practices for States Related to Operations of Private Military and Security Companies During Armed Conflict

10.1017/s1816383115000144 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 96 (893) ◽

pp. 305-358 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Marie-Louise Tougas

Keyword(s):

International Law ◽

General Rule ◽

Armed Conflicts ◽

Humanitarian Law ◽

Human Rights Law ◽

Good Practices ◽

Legal Obligations ◽

Security Companies

AbstractThe Montreux Document on Private Military and Security Companies (Montreux Document) was adopted in 2008 by seventeen States to reaffirm and, as far as was necessary, clarify the existing obligations of States and other actors under international law, in particular under international humanitarian law (IHL) and international human rights law (IHRL). It also aimed at identifying good practices and regulatory options to assist States in promoting respect for IHL and IHRL by private military and security companies (PMSCs). Today, fifty-one States and three international organizations have endorsed the Montreux Document. It contains twenty-seven “Statements” – sections recalling the main international legal obligations of States in regard to the operations of PMSCs during armed conflicts. Each statement is the reaffirmation of a general rule of IHL, IHRL or State responsibility formulated in a way that clarifies its applicability to PMSC operations. This article aims to detail the basis of each legal obligation mentioned in the first part of the Montreux Document (Part I). The article follows the structure of Part I, in order to better facilitate its comprehension. The second part of the Montreux Document, relating to good practices, is not covered in this article.

National security and the right to liberty in armed conflict: The legality and limits of security detention in international humanitarian law

10.1017/s1816383118000012 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 98 (903) ◽

pp. 961-993

Author(s):

Zelalem Mogessie Teferra

Keyword(s):

National Security ◽

International Law ◽

Armed Conflict ◽

Humanitarian Law ◽

Periodic Review ◽

Human Rights Law ◽

Conflict Situations ◽

The Right

AbstractThis paper examines the legality and limits of security detention in armed conflict situations. It particularly investigates the issues of whether the protection of national security is a legitimate ground to restrict the right to liberty of persons in situations of international or non-international armed conflict, and if so, what are the limits to a State's prerogative to restrict the right to liberty of individuals suspected of threatening its national security. On the basis of a thorough analysis of the relevant extant rules of international law regulating warfare, the paper concludes that security detention is permissible in armed conflict situations regardless of whether the nature of the conflict is international or non-international. However, the prerogative of a State to impose security detention is circumscribed by a plethora of fundamental substantive and procedural safeguards against arbitrariness that are provided in the different rules of international humanitarian law and international human rights law. These safeguards affirm that the search for absolute security is neither desirable nor attainable and that the mere invocation of security concerns does not grant an absolute power to restrict or suspend the liberty of individuals in armed conflict situations. Whenever it is imposed, security detention should be preventive in nature, and must aim at safeguarding the basic national security interests of a State from serious, future, direct and imminent threats related to the armed conflict situation. Detainees should also be able to challenge its legality before a competent organ at the initial or later stage of the detention through a system of periodic review.

The Use of Force during Territorial Occupation

Review of Human Rights ◽

10.35994/rhr.v5i1.150 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 5 (1) ◽

pp. 78-106

Author(s):

Sardar Muhammad Abdul Waqar Khan Arif

Keyword(s):

International Law ◽

Use Of Force ◽

Armed Conflicts ◽

Humanitarian Law ◽

Human Rights Law ◽

International Human Rights ◽

Jammu And Kashmir ◽

Palestinian Territory

It is well established that the provisions of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) regulates armed conflicts and guarantees protection to civilians. Similarly certain protections are also available under laws, such as, International Law of Occupation (ILOC) and International Human rights Law (IHRL). However, we know that often an occupying power uses force against civilians in the course of and maintenance of its occupation? But what grounds they give for the justification of use of force is the matter of critical focus in this article. We analyze the case studies of the State of Jammu and Kashmir (J & K) and Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT) to critically discuss the grounds of use of force under international law.

Armed Conflicts in Outer Space

USFQ Law Review ◽

10.18272/ulr.v7i1.1737 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 7 (1) ◽

pp. 335-357

Author(s):

Juan Felipe Idrovo Romo

Keyword(s):

International Law ◽

Armed Conflict ◽

Outer Space ◽

Armed Conflicts ◽

Humanitarian Law ◽

Dual Use ◽

Public International Law ◽

Unique Nature ◽

Rules And Principles

The paper critically explores those scenarios (hypothetical, but probable) in which armed conflicts take place in outer space. First, the problem regarding the definition and delimitation of outer space will be analyzed. In this regard, the reasons why there is no consensus among the States, and even within the scientific community, will be explained. Subsequently, the relevant branches (for the topic) of Public International Law will be introduced (International Space Law, International Humanitarian Law, and Ius ad Bellum) and their key regulations will be identified. At this point, the main reasons why International Humanitarian Law shall be applied in the event that an armed conflict develops in outer space will be explained taking into account PIL formal and auxiliary sources. Likewise, specific challenges, that result from the application of International Humanitarian Law in outer space, will be exposed and analyzed. These challenges include: (i) attacks on dual-use objects; (ii) the obligations of the parties to the conflict when there is human direct or physical participation; and (iii) the applicable regulations for the development and use of new weapons. For each problem raised, possible solutions based on the rules and principles of current law will be provided. Finally, the need for the eventual creation of a specific treaty to regulate the matter will be emphasized, in view of the unique nature of this type of conflict.

HUMANITARIAN LAW, HUMAN RIGHTS LAW AND THE BIFURCATION OF ARMED CONFLICT

International and Comparative Law Quarterly ◽

10.1017/s002058931500010x ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 64 (2) ◽

pp. 293-325 ◽

Cited By ~ 4

Author(s):

Lawrence Hill-Cawthorne

Keyword(s):

Human Rights ◽

Armed Conflict ◽

Armed Conflicts ◽

Humanitarian Law ◽

Human Rights Law ◽

International Human Rights ◽

International Human ◽

Over Time

AbstractThis article offers a fresh examination of the distinction drawn in international humanitarian law (IHL) between international and non-international armed conflicts. In particular, it considers this issue from the under-explored perspective of the influence of international human rights law (IHRL). It is demonstrated how, over time, the effect of IHRL on this distinction in IHL has changed dramatically. Whereas traditionally IHRL encouraged the partial elimination of the distinction between types of armed conflict, more recently it has been invoked in debates in a manner that would preserve what remains of the distinction. By exploring this important issue, it is hoped that the present article will contribute to the ongoing debates regarding the future development of the law of non-international armed conflict.