scholarly journals The Horizontal Effect of International Human Rights Law in Practice

2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-88 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lottie Lane
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
United Nations ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Limited Evidence ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
Treaty Monitoring ◽  
International Human ◽  
State Actors

This article critically examines whether, and how, five United Nations human rights treaty monitoring bodies deal with situations in which human rights have been interfered with by non-State actors. The article uses the concepts of ‘direct’ and ‘indirect’ horizontal effect of international human rights law. An in-depth comparative analysis reviews the monitoring bodies’ general comments and views on individual communications from the bodies’ establishment until August 2017. The analysis identifies very limited evidence of ‘direct’, and two main kinds of ‘indirect’ horizontal effect of human rights applied by the bodies. First, it finds that while the bodies do engage with the ways in which non-State actors can interfere with human rights, they predominantly focus on the positive and procedural obligations of States. Second, it finds that where non-State actors are sufficiently ‘State-like’ in their nature and actions, they may be re-categorised as public actors for the purposes of human rights.

Conflict, ‘terrorism’ and non-state actors

2020 ◽  
pp. 141-154
Author(s):  
Féilim Ó hAdhmaill ◽  
Mike Ritchie
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Conflict Situation ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
International Human ◽  
State Actors ◽  
Global Peace

International Human Rights Law is supposed to operate at all times. However, during war/conflict it is often suspended to address an ‘emergency’. International Humanitarian Law attempts to deal with human rights protections during the specific circumstances of war. However, what happens when states refuse to recognise a conflict situation as a ‘war’? In a world where violent conflict increasingly involves non-state actors, where does that leave existing international human rights’ mechanisms? This chapter looks at the changing forms of conflict globally and the development of what has been termed ‘terrorism’. It critically assesses the concept of ‘terrorism’ and discusses the difficulties it poses for social science, universal human rights and the development of equality, stability and global peace.

Setting the Scene

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna Lawson ◽  
Lisa Waddington
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
Persons With Disabilities ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
International Human

This chapter introduces the book and provides important context for all the subsequent chapters. In particular, it explains the aim of the research presented in the book and situates it within the emerging literature on comparative international (human rights) law, as well as the literature on the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). It also sets out the methodology used and explains how the book is structured, with jurisdiction-specific chapters, and chapters providing comparative analysis across jurisdictions illuminating the differences and similarities in the interpretation and use of the CRPD by domestic courts and judges.

International law and armed non-state actors in Afghanistan

2011 ◽  
Vol 93 (881) ◽  
pp. 47-79 ◽  
Author(s):  
Annyssa Bellal ◽  
Gilles Giacca ◽  
Stuart Casey-Maslen
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Legal Responsibility ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
International Human ◽  
State Actors ◽  
Peremptory Norms

AbstractAn effective legal regime governing the actions of armed non-state actors in Afghanistan should encompass not only international humanitarian law but also international human rights law. While the applicability of Common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions to the conflict is not controversial, how and to what extent Additional Protocol II applies is more difficult to assess, in particular in relation to the various armed actors operating in the country. The applicability of international human rights law to armed non-state actors – considered by the authors as important, particularly in Afghanistan – remains highly controversial. Nevertheless, its applicability to such actors exercising control over a population is slowly becoming more accepted. In addition, violations of peremptory norms of international law can also directly engage the legal responsibility of such groups.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document