“That’s Not My Daughter”

Human Rights Law ◽

Forced Marriage ◽

Internal Armed Conflict

During Algeria’s internal armed conflict in the 1990s, thousands of women were raped by jihadist groups. There is virtually no English-language documentary record of these crimes—a gap this chapter seeks to fill by documenting the use of sexual violence and forced marriage by fundamentalist armed groups during the conflict. Based on interviews and accounts from Algerian journalists, the chapter records the general phrases of violence against women, the experiences of specific women, and the limited response from families, society, and the state. It explores the complexity of documenting sexual violence in places where the topic is extremely taboo, questioning whether international human rights law and its emphasis on testimony are useful or appropriate in such contexts. It closes with a critique of the politics involved in producing human rights writing and provides suggestions for broadening documentation methodology.

Jurisdictional Immunities of the State for Serious Violations of International Human Rights Law or the Law of Armed Conflict

Canadian Yearbook of international Law/Annuaire canadien de droit international ◽

10.1017/s0069005800010857 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 50 ◽

pp. 243-287 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Paul David Mora

Keyword(s):

Human Rights ◽

International Law ◽

Armed Conflict ◽

The State ◽

Human Rights Law ◽

Customary International Law ◽

Law Of Armed Conflict ◽

SummaryIn its recent decision in Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v Italy: Greece Intervening), the International Court of Justice (ICJ) held that Italy had failed to respect immunities enjoyed by Germany under international law when the Italian courts allowed civil actions to be brought against Germany for alleged violations of international human rights law (IHRL) and the law of armed conflict (LOAC) committed during the Second World War. This article evaluates the three arguments raised by Italy to justify its denial of immunity: first, that peremptory norms of international law prevail over international rules on jurisdictional immunities; second, that customary international law recognizes an exception to immunity for serious violations of IHRL or the LOAC; and third, that customary international law recognizes an exception to immunity for torts committed by foreign armed forces on the territory of the forum state in the course of an armed conflict. The author concludes that the ICJ was correct to find that none of these arguments deprived Germany of its right under international law to immunity from the civil jurisdiction of the Italian courts.

Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law - 2010 - Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law ◽

The Law of Armed Conflict and International Human Rights Law: Some Paradigmatic Differences and Operational Implications

10.1007/978-90-6704-811-8_6 ◽

2011 ◽

pp. 213-243 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Rob McLaughlin

Keyword(s):

Human Rights ◽

Armed Conflict ◽

Human Rights Law ◽

Law Of Armed Conflict ◽

International Human ◽

The Law

25. International humanitarian law

10.1093/he/9780198767237.003.0025 ◽

2017 ◽

Author(s):

Sandesh Sivakumaran

Keyword(s):

Human Rights ◽

Armed Conflict ◽

International Humanitarian Law ◽

Humanitarian Law ◽

Human Rights Law ◽

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.

Marriage: A Get Out of Jail Free Card?

International Journal of Law Policy and the Family ◽

10.1093/lawfam/ebaa004 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 34 (2) ◽

pp. 168-190

Author(s):

Siane Richardson

Keyword(s):

Human Rights ◽

Sexual Violence ◽

Sexual Offenders ◽

Intimate Relationships ◽

Sexual Offending ◽

Human Rights Law ◽

Sexual Offences ◽

Abstract Marital rape is a particularly heinous form of sexual violence that occurs within intimate relationships. However, throughout much of the world, the marriage contract affords legal immunity to marital partners who would otherwise be convicted as sexual offenders. By reviewing the laws of the Commonwealth jurisdictions, this research highlights the necessity for reform in many jurisdictions that continue to allow for marital exemptions to sexual offending. This review identified three main forms of marital exemption, that is the general marital exemption to the primary sexual offence, the creation of spousal-specific sexual offences, and the use of marital exemptions to remove or reduce liability for sexual offences involving minors. The operation of these marital exemptions is then considered in the context of international human rights law and its prohibition on sexual violence within intimate relationships. An analysis of the jurisprudence surrounding Article 2 of CEDAW, Article 19 of the CRC and the prohibition of torture informs the argument that international human rights law requires the prohibition of marital exemptions to sexual offending throughout the Commonwealth nations. Marital exemptions continue to afford sexual offending with impunity across many Commonwealth jurisdictions in breach of the international human rights obligations of those nations and reform should occur in order to uphold the rights of sexual violence survivors.

Zero-Tolerance Comes to International Law

AJIL Unbound ◽

10.1017/s2398772300001707 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 109 ◽

pp. 337-341 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Aya Gruber

Keyword(s):

Human Rights ◽

International Law ◽

Violence Against Women ◽

Zero Tolerance ◽

Theoretical Perspective ◽

Human Rights Law ◽

Marital Rape ◽

It is difficult to engage from a theoretical perspective an advocacy piece that largely reads like a brief in favor of particular claim of law, namely, that a state’s failure to (vigorously) criminalize marital rape violates international human rights law. In a brief, the litigant pulls together various sources to prove the legal claim is correct. Opponents typically respond by cobbling together their own sources to undermine that claim. In their essay, Criminalizing Sexual Violence Against Women in Intimate Relationships, Randall and Venkatesh set out to prove that international human rights law, in fact, requires states to criminalize marital rape. I suspect there are international lawyers who can persuasively argue that international human rights law does not, in fact, require such criminalization.

Involuntary Sterilisation as a Form of Violence against Women in Africa

Journal of Asian and African Studies ◽

10.1177/0021909617714637 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 53 (5) ◽

pp. 721-732 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Ebenezer Durojaye

Keyword(s):

Human Rights ◽

Supreme Court ◽

Violence Against Women ◽

Historical Context ◽

Emotional Trauma ◽

Human Rights Law ◽

International Human ◽

Human Rights Violation

This article examines the meaning and nature of sterilisation. It equally discusses the historical context of involuntary sterilisation and its likely human rights implications. More importantly, it discusses the decision of the Namibian Supreme Court in Government of Namibia v LM and argues that the court fails to consider involuntary sterilisation as a form of human rights violation, particularly violence against women. The article contends that given the attendant mental, physical and emotional trauma a woman may suffer upon undergoing forced sterilisation, this would amount to an act of violence against women as recognised under international human rights law.

The Application of International Human Rights Law in Non-International Armed Conflicts

Journal of International Humanitarian Legal Studies ◽

10.1163/18781527-00402002 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 4 (2) ◽

pp. 220-261 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Jean-Marie Kamatali

Keyword(s):

Human Rights ◽

International Law ◽

Armed Conflict ◽

Armed Conflicts ◽

Advisory Opinion ◽

Human Rights Law ◽

Three Solutions ◽

Since the end of the Cold War, the world has experienced a decrease in international conflict and a significant increase in non-international armed conflict (niac). Despite this change, however, international law has been very slow in adapting its laws that initially were crafted with international armed conflict in mind to the new niac environment. There is a growing recognition that international humanitarian law (ihl) is not well equipped to deal with issues of human rights violations committed during niac. New efforts to make international human rights law (ihrl) applicable in such conflicts have, however, raised more questions than answers. There is still no consensus on whether international human rights law applies to niac. Furthermore, the question on whether non-international armed groups are bound by international human rights obligations remains controversial. This article tries to analyze where international law stands now of these questions. It proposes steps international law could follow to move from its current rhetoric to a more practical solution on these questions. The three solutions proposed are: individual agreements to respect human rights during armed conflict, the possibility of an icj advisory opinion and the option of a protocol additional to international human rights treaties relating to their application in niac.

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 ◽

International Humanitarian Law ◽

Humanitarian Law ◽

Human Rights Law ◽

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.

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

Pakistan Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences ◽

10.52131/pjhss.2018.0601.0032 ◽

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 ◽

Humanitarian Law ◽

Human Rights Law ◽

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.

International Human Rights Law in Time of Armed Conflict

10.1093/law/9780199559695.003.0026 ◽

2014 ◽

Author(s):

Derek Jinks

Keyword(s):

Human Rights ◽

Armed Conflict ◽

Text Structure ◽

Armed Conflicts ◽

Human Rights Law ◽

Geneva Conventions ◽

International Human ◽

Legal Frameworks

The Geneva Conventions of 1949 govern automatically warfare as well as international and non-international armed conflicts. The applicability of the ‘law of war’ was previously delimited by formal acts of state such as a declaration of war or a formal ‘recognition of belligerency’, a formalistic approach that was significantly revised by the Geneva Conventions. This chapter examines the relationship between IHL and international human rights law (IHRL). It first discusses the nature of the ‘armed conflict’ inquiry and considers IHL aslex specialisdisplacing or qualifying the application of IHRL. It then outlines three fundamental respects in which thelex specialisclaim misconstrues or distorts IHL: IHL and affirmative authorization, ‘armed conflict’ as determinant of regime boundaries, and reciprocity and humanitarian protection as inducement for compliance. It argues that the very notion of competing legal frameworks is incompatible not only with the text, structure, and history of the Geneva Conventions, but also with the institutional and behavioral foundations of contemporary IHL.