Chapter X. Collateral Damages of Military Operations: Is Implementation of International Humanitarian Law Possible Using International Human Rights Law Tools?

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.


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.


Author(s):  
Féilim Ó hAdhmaill ◽  
Mike Ritchie

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.


2019 ◽  
pp. 297-304
Author(s):  
Knut Traisbach

This chapter is a comment on a reflection by Frédéric Mégret on the limits of the laws of war. It proposes a jurisprudence of limits that focuses less on absolute ideals but on the compromising and enabling space ‘in-between’ these absolutes. Relying on Hannah Arendt’s views on different conceptions of humanity, the comment critically engages with a thinking in terms of inherent opposing interests and oscillations between them. A conception of limits as reproducing inherent absolutes is disabling and passive. Instead, limits can be understood as facilitating a space that enables us to judge and to act, also through compromise. International humanitarian law and international human rights law, perhaps more than other areas of international law, depend on preserving and actively seeking this politically relevant space.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document