How the Right to Life Applies during Armed Conflict

Humanitarian Law ◽

Right To Life ◽

Maritime Operations ◽

The Uk ◽

The Right ◽

Military Activity ◽

In considering how the right to life applies during armed conflict, this chapter explores the relationship between international humanitarian law and international human rights law to determine where the two bodies of law can be read harmoniously and where they cannot. The chapter then goes on to consider UK state practice during armed conflict, to assess the extent to which the UK can comply with its substantive and procedural right to life obligations based upon current doctrine and procedures. This involves a consideration of recent UK military activity in Iraq and Afghanistan and during air, land, and maritime operations. It also includes a consideration of the UK’s investigatory procedures following a death during armed conflict.

The Right to Life in Armed Conflict

10.1093/oso/9780198821380.001.0001 ◽

2018 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Ian Park

Keyword(s):

Armed Conflict ◽

Armed Conflicts ◽

Humanitarian Law ◽

Military Operations ◽

Right To Life ◽

Applicable Law ◽

The Uk ◽

The controversy surrounding the applicability of the right to life during armed conflict makes it arguably one of the most divisive and topical issues at the junction of international humanitarian law and international human rights law. Recent litigation has, among other things, prompted the UK government to signal an intention to derogate from Article 2, ECHR, subject to certain caveats, in future armed conflicts. The litigation pursuant to Article 2 is also set to continue as the UK, and many other States with right to life obligations, will continue to use lethal force overseas; thus the significance of the issue will remain unabated. The scope and application of the right to life in armed conflict not only concerns parties to the ECHR; the predominance of coalition military operations in recent years has necessitated that it is essential for all troop-contributing States to understand the legal limitations of those States bound by the ECHR. It is equally important that the UN, NATO, NGOs, and other governments not directly involved in the armed conflict are aware of any States’ right to life obligations. Notwithstanding this, the applicability of the right to life in armed conflict is yet to be fully considered in academic literature. This book aims to close this lacuna and address the issue of the right to life in armed conflict by identifying and analysing the applicable law, citing recent examples of State practice, and offering concrete proposals to ensure that States comply with their right to life obligations.

The Right to Life and the International Law Framework Regulating the Use of Armed Drones

Human Rights and 21st Century Challenges ◽

10.1093/oso/9780198824770.003.0008 ◽

2020 ◽

pp. 153-189

Author(s):

Christof Heyns ◽

Dapo Akande ◽

Lawrence Hill-Cawthorne ◽

Thompson Chengeta

Keyword(s):

Armed Conflict ◽

Humanitarian Law ◽

Human Rights Law ◽

Right To Life ◽

Legal Challenges ◽

Drone Strikes ◽

Legal Frameworks ◽

This chapter provides a holistic examination of the international legal frameworks which regulate targeted killings by drones. It argues that for a particular drone strike to be lawful, it must satisfy the legal requirements under all applicable international legal regimes. It is argued that the legality of a drone strike under the jus ad bellum does not preclude the wrongfulness of that strike under international humanitarian law or international human rights law. The chapter then considers the important legal challenges that the use of armed drones poses under each of the three legal frameworks mentioned above. It considers the application of the right to life in armed conflict, particularly in territory not controlled by the state conducting the strike. The chapter then turns to some of the key controversies in the application of international humanitarian law to drone strikes, such as the possibility of a global non-international armed conflict and the question of who may be targeted in a non-international armed conflict. The final substantive section considers the law relating to the use of force by states against non-state groups abroad.

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 ◽

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.

Chapter Twenty-Four. Harmonising The Individual Protection Regime: Some Reflections On The Relationship Between Human Rights And International Humanitarian Law In The Light Of The Right To Life

The Diversity of International Law ◽

10.1163/ej.9789004180390.i-676.145 ◽

2010 ◽

pp. 399-418

Keyword(s):

Human Rights ◽

Humanitarian Law ◽

Right To Life ◽

Individual Protection ◽

The Individual ◽

The Right ◽

18 The Law of Neutrality

The Handbook of International Humanitarian Law ◽

10.1093/law/9780198847960.003.0018 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Bothe Michael

Keyword(s):

Armed Conflict ◽

Armed Conflicts ◽

The Other ◽

Humanitarian Law ◽

Neutral State ◽

The Will ◽

The Law ◽

The Right ◽

This chapter focuses on rules of the law of neutrality concerning the protection of the victims of armed conflicts, which must be considered as part of international humanitarian law. ‘Neutrality’ describes the particular status, as defined by international law, of a state not party to an armed conflict. This status entails specific rights and duties in the relationship between the neutral and the belligerent states. On one hand, there is the right of the neutral state to remain apart from, and not to be adversely affected by, the conflict. On the other hand, there is the duty of non-participation and impartiality. The right not to be adversely affected means that the relationship between the neutral and belligerent States is governed by the law of peace, which is modified only in certain respects by the law of neutrality. In particular, the neutral State must tolerate certain controls in the area of maritime commerce. The duty of non-participation means, above all, that the state must abstain from supporting a party to the conflict. This duty not to support also means that the neutral state is under a duty not to allow one party to the conflict to use the resources of the neutral state against the will of the opponent.

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 Rights ◽

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 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 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.

Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights in Armed Conflict

10.1093/law/9780199559695.003.0018 ◽

2014 ◽

Author(s):

Eibe Riedel

Keyword(s):

Human Rights ◽

Armed Conflict ◽

Humanitarian Law ◽

Human Rights Protection ◽

Cultural Rights ◽

Rights Protection ◽

The Relationship ◽

Two Bodies

This chapter examines the protection of economic, social, and cultural rights in armed conflict under international human rights law (IHRL) and international humanitarian law (IHL). It analyses the relationship between such human rights protection and IHL rules and suggests that, despite the differences in the scope of the applicability of these two bodies of law, they are intricately interwoven and have become more so in recent times. It also compares the implementation mechanisms of IHL and IHRL and shows that human rights procedures are more varied, comprehensive in scope, and potentially more effective.

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 ◽

International Human Rights ◽

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.

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 ◽

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.