An Operational Perspective

Author(s):  
Hans Boddens Hosang

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.

Author(s):  
J.F.R. Boddens Hosang

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.


Author(s):  
Ian Park

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.


2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 723-752 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simone Hutter

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.


2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (3.30) ◽  
pp. 182
Author(s):  
Syafiq Sulaiman ◽  
Salawati Mat Basir ◽  
Mohd Zamre Mohd Zahir

The protection of the right to life and the duty to rescue persons in distress at sea are the fundamental obligations under two specialized international law regimes which are the international human rights law and the law of the sea. These rules when read together form a strong protection of the human rights of the asylum-seekers stranded at sea. However, often states failed to honour this obligation for various reasons ranging from national security to economic reasons. This article will analyse Malaysia’s responsibilities as regards the right to life and the duty to rescue of these asylum-seekers. It will also identify the existing international and domestic legal framework relevant to the application of these obligations upon Malaysia and whether it has acted in breach of such obligations. The article then proceeded with suggestions for further improvement that Malaysia can adopt in order to better perform its obligations. This study is a pure doctrinal legal research which is qualitative in nature. The data used in this research is collected from library-based resources. These data were then analyzed by using methods of content analysis as well as critical analysis. The article found that Malaysia has a duty to protect the right to life under international human rights law. Additionally, Malaysia is also bound under the law of the sea to perform its duty to rescue. In view of Malaysia’s failure to perform these duties in two occasions in the past consequently had resulted in a violation of international law. Therefore, it is suggested that Malaysia should initiate a revision of its national laws and policies regarding treatment of asylum-seekers stranded at sea to be in line with Malaysia’s duty under international law. Besides, the Malaysian Maritime Enforcement Agency is call upon to comply with the international standards of treatment of persons in distress at sea which includes the asylum-seekers.  


2017 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Eyassu Gayim

Laws regulate conducts by responding to social and political requirements. This holds true for the law of nations as well. Contemporary international law follows two separate tracks when it comes to regulating human rights and humanitarian questions. If international human rights law and international humanitarian law are intended to protect the dignity and worth of human beings, as it is often said, why follow separate tracks? Does humanity really exist? If it does, how does it relate to human rights? If the two are distinct, where do they converge? This article highlights these questions by revisiting the contours of international law.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document