The Copenhagen Process on Detainees: A Necessity

2009 ◽  
Vol 78 (4) ◽  
pp. 489-498 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Winkler
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
International Law ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Military Operations ◽  
Military Operation ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Two Bodies ◽  
Full Protection

AbstractThe traditional distinction between military and law enforcement operations is increasingly difficult to uphold. This gives rise to a number of difficult and complicated challenges in regard to the handling of detainees. Legal ambiguity may lead to operational uncertainty, which may hamper the efficiency of a given United Nations (UN)-mandated international military operation. It is in the interest of no one, not least the detained individual. The author argues that the Copenhagen Process on the Handling of Detainees in UN-mandated international military operations is a necessity to ensure the full protection of any individual detained during an UN-mandated international military operation and thereby ensuring the efficiency of the efforts of the international community to bring stability and peace to States and regions in dire need. On the key legal question concerning the relationship between international humanitarian law and human rights law, it is necessary to conduct a thorough analysis of the relevant provisions of both bodies of international law in context. When this is done, most of the claimedincongruities between the two bodies of law disappear – and thereby also the basis for the sometime heateddiscussions between the advocates of one or the other body of law.

14. The law of armed conflict

2019 ◽  
pp. 279-302
Author(s):  
Anders Henriksen
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Military Operations ◽  
Basic Principles ◽  
Law Of Armed Conflict ◽  
The Relationship

This chapter examines those parts of international law that regulate how military operations must be conducted—jus in bello. It begins in Section 14.2 with an overview of the most important legal sources. Section 14.3 discusses when humanitarian law applies and Section 14.4 examines the issue of battlefield status and the distinction between combatants and civilians. Section 14.5 provides an overview of some of the most basic principles governing the conduct of hostilities while Section 14.6 concerns belligerent occupation and Section 14.7. deals with the regulation of non-international armed conflict. Finally, Section 14.8 explores the relationship between international humanitarian law and human rights law in times of armed conflict.

14. The law of armed conflict

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anders Henriksen
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Military Operations ◽  
Basic Principles ◽  
Law Of Armed Conflict ◽  
The Relationship

This chapter examines those parts of international law that regulate how military operations must be conducted — jus in bello. It begins in Section 14.2 with an overview of the most important legal sources. Section 14.3 discusses when humanitarian law applies. Section 14.4 examines the issue of battlefield status and the distinction between combatants and civilians. Section 14.5 provides an overview of some of the most basic principles governing the conduct of hostilities while Section 14.6 deals with the issue of regulation of non-international armed conflict. Finally, Section 14.7 explores the relationship between international humanitarian law and human rights law in times of armed conflict.

14. The law of armed conflict

2021 ◽  
pp. 273-295
Author(s):  
Anders Henriksen
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Military Operations ◽  
Basic Principles ◽  
Law Of Armed Conflict ◽  
The Relationship

This chapter examines those parts of international law that regulate how military operations must be conducted jus in bello. It begins in Section 14.2 with an overview of the most important legal sources. Section 14.3 discusses when humanitarian law applies and Section 14.4 examines the issue of battlefield status and the distinction between combatants and civilians. Section 14.5 provides an overview of some of the most basic principles governing the conduct of hostilities while Section 14.6 concerns belligerent occupation and Section 14.7 deals with the regulation of non-international armed conflict. Finally, Section 14.8 explores the relationship between international humanitarian law and human rights law in times of armed conflict.

25. International humanitarian law

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sandesh Sivakumaran
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
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.

scholarly journals The Relationship between IHL and IHRL in Peacekeeping Operations: Articulating the Emerging AU Position

2017 ◽  
Vol 61 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-22 ◽  
Author(s):  
James Fowkes
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
Peacekeeping Operations ◽  
International Human ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Two Bodies

AbstractModern peacekeeping is increasingly expansive, and much of it occurs in Africa. The African Union's attitude to the challenges of regulating this modern peacekeeping is therefore an important source for the associated legal debates, but one that is often neglected (in part because the sources are limited and often in draft form). This article seeks to articulate and then critique the AU's emerging view on the application of international humanitarian law and international human rights law to peacekeeping activity and the relationship between the two bodies of law in this context. It argues that the AU's emerging position treats international humanitarian law as a narrowed lex specialis, only displacing international human rights law in relation to peacekeepers while they are actively engaged in armed conflict. Even this position, however, underestimates the extent to which the pervasive rights-based concerns in AU sources imply a still more pervasive application of international human rights law to its peacekeeping activities.

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

2005 ◽  
Vol 87 (857) ◽  
pp. 39-68 ◽  
Author(s):  
Silvia Borelli
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
International Law ◽  
War On Terror ◽  
International Standards ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
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 Role of Necessity in International Humanitarian and Human Rights Law

2013 ◽  
Vol 47 (2) ◽  
pp. 225-251 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lawrence Hill-Cawthorne
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
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.

The Copenhagen Process and the Copenhagen Process Principles and Guidelines on the Handling of Detainees in International Military Operations

2014 ◽  
Vol 5 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 258-288 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Winkler
Keyword(s):  
United Nations Security Council ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Military Operations ◽  
Common Goal ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
Legal Questions ◽  
The Relationship

The article describes some of the key legal questions and challenges encountered and dealt with during the Copenhagen Process on Handling of Detainees in International Military Operations, including the relationship between international humanitarian law and international human rights law. It also addresses some of the criticism directed at the process, and looks at the way ahead for ensuring the best possible protection of individuals detained during international military operations. The article concludes that the Copenhagen Process Principles and Guidelines does constitute an important step forward in that regard, and that application of the Principles and Guidelines by the participants and the international community more broadly, including by the United Nations Security Council, is paramount in ensuring this common goal.

17 International Humanitarian Law and International Human Rights Law

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sassòli Marco
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
International Human ◽  
The Relationship

This chapter assesses the relationship between international human rights law (IHRL) and international humanitarian law (IHL). While IHRL, unlike IHL, was not founded specifically to protect people affected by armed conflicts, both branches of international law apply simultaneously during such conflicts. This raises the question of how they interrelate and also how possible contradictions between them can be resolved. Today, genuine armed conflicts are mainly not of an international character. In such situations, the relationship between IHL and IHRL is particularly controversial and difficult to determine. Nevertheless, both IHL and IHRL lead, in most cases, to the same results. In the few instances where results differ, states could do a lot to harmonize their obligations under both branches, by resorting to derogations permitted under IHRL, one of the means offered by international law to harmonize their IHRL obligations with their IHL obligations. Beyond this, legal reasoning allows for differentiated solutions on when and on which issues one or the other branch prevails.

The Obligation to Afford Reparation to Injured Individuals

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carla Ferstman
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Human Rights Treaties ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Right ◽  
Right Of Access ◽  
The Relationship

This chapter considers the consequences of breaches of human rights and international humanitarian law for the responsible international organizations. It concentrates on the obligations owed to injured individuals. The obligation to make reparation arises automatically from a finding of responsibility and is an obligation of result. I analyse who has this obligation, to whom it is owed, and what it entails. I also consider the right of individuals to procedures by which they may vindicate their right to a remedy and the right of access to a court that may be implied from certain human rights treaties. In tandem, I consider the relationship between those obligations and individuals’ rights under international law. An overarching issue is how the law of responsibility intersects with the specialized regimes of human rights and international humanitarian law and particularly, their application to individuals.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document