Prisoners Dilemma: Ascertaining and Augmenting the Multinational NIAC Detention Regime

2017 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 436-458 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yateesh Begoore
Keyword(s):  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Treatment Standards ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
Geneva Conventions ◽  
Prisoners Dilemma ◽  
Comprehensive Framework

While International Humanitarian Law (IHL) contains a comprehensive framework of rules and procedural protections for detainees in international armed conflicts (IACS), there is a conspicuous absence of such rules and protections for detainees in the case of non-international armed conflicts (NIACS). In fact, as the recent Serdar Mohammad v. Ministry of Defence case pointed out, the rules pertaining to NIACS make no mention of detention authority at all, leading some scholars to conclude that International Human Rights Law (IHRL), and not IHL, governs NIAC detention. Contrarily, this paper contends that not only does IHL govern (as well as grant authority for) NIAC detentions, the regime’s shortcomings regarding procedural safe-guards and treatment standards may be remedied through the application of the Copenhagen Process Principles – as evolutive interpretation or interpretation based on subsequent agreement – to Common Art. 3 of the Geneva Conventions.

The Interplay between International Humanitarian Law and International Human Rights Law in Situations of Armed Conflict

2007 ◽  
Vol 40 (2) ◽  
pp. 310-355 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cordula Droege
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
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.

scholarly journals HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS PERPETRATED BY STATE AGENTS IN MILITARY OCCUPATIONS: ANALYSIS OF THE INCURSION OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW TO THE NORMATIVE TERRITORY OF THE ARMED CONFLICTS

2021 ◽  
Vol 19 (32) ◽  
pp. 32
Author(s):  
Sidney Cesar Silva Guerra ◽  
Luz E. Nagle ◽  
Ádria Saviano Fabricio da Silva
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
International Human ◽  
Military Occupations

This article aims to revisit the interrelationship between International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and International Human Rights Law (IHRL), in honour of their respective normative scopes and in order to carry out an analysis of their complementary or supplementary application, towards the construction of a more appropriate tool for the protection of human beings in extreme situations, as it occurs during armed conflicts. This is because, amid the multifaceted vulnerabilities that accumulate in today's conflicts, it is essential to provide the most effective source of protection - proportional to the demands for protection that are manifested today, particularly in military occupations around the world, whose occurrence will be the focus of this research. As for the method of approach concerning the logical basis of the investigation, the hypothetical-deductive method was selected, insofar as the corroboration or falsification of the main hypothesis about the effective complementary and harmonious application of IHRL will be tested to cases of human rights violations in International Armed Conflicts in the military occupation modality. Given this framework, the core of this work lies in the understanding of the praxis for the complementary application of both aspects in armed conflicts, considering not only International Human Rights Law as lex generalis, but their effective overlap to the detriment of International Humanitarian Law, when it is most beneficial to human protection in the cases of Military Occupations.

scholarly journals The Use of Force during Territorial Occupation

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 78-106
Author(s):  
Sardar Muhammad Abdul Waqar Khan Arif
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
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.

Parallel Application of International Humanitarian Law and International Human Rights Law: An Examination of the Debate

2007 ◽  
Vol 40 (2) ◽  
pp. 648-660 ◽  
Author(s):  
Noam Lubell
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
Critical Examination ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
International Human ◽  
The Relationship

This article provides a critical examination of the debate over the relationship between international humanitarian law and international human rights law. On the question surrounding the very fact of co-application, it appears that the dominant view supports the co-applicability of the two legal regimes. Opinion is however far from settled on the scope of application of international human rights law, especially insofar as it relates to the issue of extra-territorial applicability. The approach taken in the event of co-applying the two frameworks to specific circumstances, and whether and how one is to use the doctrine of lex specialis, reveals further questions in need of coherent answers. Finally, there remain particular areas in which the co-application faces challenges that must be surmounted, if it is to prove a useful approach. These include the issues of the so-called “war on terror,” the distinction between the jus ad bellum and the jus in bello, non-international armed conflicts, and more. Whilst the co-application of the two regimes is now almost undisputed, it appears therefore that obstacles remain that must be dealt with in order for the relationship of the regimes to be of a fully harmonious nature.

Hassan v. The United Kingdom (Eur. Ct. H.R.)

2015 ◽  
Vol 54 (1) ◽  
pp. 83-129 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Stubbins Bates
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
European Convention ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
International Human ◽  
Article 5

On September 16, 2014, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (the Court) gave its judgment in the case of Hassan v. United Kingdom.This is the Court’s first explicit engagement with the co-applicability of international humanitarian law and international human rights law in relation to detention in international armed conflicts. The judgment is significant for its rejection of the government’s argument that international humanitarian law operates as lex specialis to displace international human rights law entirely during the “active hostilities phase of an international armed conflict.” It is also noteworthy for the majority’s ruling that provisions on detention of prisoners of war and the internment of protected persons in the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions of 1949 could be read into Article 5 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights (the European Convention), creating a new ground for detention under Article 5(1) in international armed conflicts and modifying the procedural guarantees in Article 5(4).

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

2015 ◽  
Vol 64 (2) ◽  
pp. 293-325 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lawrence Hill-Cawthorne
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
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.

Road to Nowhere? The Future for a Declaration on Fundamental Standards of Humanity

2012 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 43-72 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emily Crawford
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Grey Zone ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Geneva Conventions ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
Current Terminology

In the years following the adoption of the Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions in 1977, debate emerged regarding the extant lacunae in the international rules relating to armed conflict. It was argued that there were gaps in international humanitarian law (IHL) and international human rights law with regards to so-called ‘grey-zone conflicts’ – armed conflicts that did not reach the minimum threshold of either Protocol II or Common Article 3. Therefore, it was proposed that a declaration outlining the minimum humanitarian standards applicable in all situations of violence and conflict be adopted. By 1990, this debate had crystallised around the Turku Declaration on Minimum Humanitarian Standards. However, progress on the declaration quickly stalled once discussion was moved to the United Nations. Since 1995, there have been nine reports by the Secretary-General on the question of fundamental standards of humanity to use the current terminology. Over the years, the scope and content the fundamental standards of humanity has become clearer, yet the adoption of a document on these fundamental standards is no more imminent than when the issue first moved to the United Nations. This article will therefore examine why and how this apparently vital piece of international policy has stalled.

Features of legal regulation of human rights in armed conflicts

2021 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 43-51
Author(s):  
Volodymyr F. Pylypenko ◽  
Pavlo B. Pylypyshyn ◽  
Nataliia M. Radanovych
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
Human Rights Protection ◽  
International Human

The purpose of this study is to identify the problems of protecting human rights and freedoms during armed conflicts based on the analysis of existing international legal and national acts, including their features in Ukraine. As one of the main methods of analysis, comparative analysis is used, which compares the Ukrainian practice of implementing the human rights protection system with the legal framework for regulating the object of research in some countries and at the international level, and analyses international humanitarian law and international human rights law. It is noted that international humanitarian law plays a significant role in the observance and regulation of human rights during armed conflicts. The study describes the international acts of humanitarian law and its main differences from international human rights law. The study analyses the protection of human rights within the framework of international human rights law and within the framework of international humanitarian law, and provides a retrospective analysis of their development. According to the comparative analysis results, it is concluded that the vast majority of modern armed conflicts are not of an international nature; therefore, the specific features of protecting human rights in these conditions are determined. The study analyses the establishment of legal regulation and its changes from the very beginning of the armed conflict in Ukraine and the state of human rights protection

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document