Ethnic Cleansing, Genocide, and Gross Violations of Human Rights: The State versus Humanitarian Law

2020 ◽  
pp. 157-184
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
The State ◽  
Ethnic Cleansing ◽  
Humanitarian Law

Derecho Internacional Humanitario, Jurisdicción Penal Militar y Responsabilidad del Estado por violación a los Derechos Humanos. Un comentario a la Sentencia de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos «Masacre de Santo Domingo vs. Colombia»

2013 ◽  
pp. 149-164
Author(s):  
Jorge Ernesto ROA ROA
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Structural Features ◽  
The State ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Santo Domingo ◽  
Military Conflict ◽  
Human Rights Protection ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
Derechos Humanos

LABURPENA: Kasuen ikerketa-metodologia erabiliz, Santo Domingo vs. Kolonbia epaiari buruzko iruzkinean, nagusiki, inter-amerikar esparruko giza eskubideen babesari lotutako egiturazko alderdiak aipatzen dira; besteak beste, eta bereziki: nola erabiltzen duen Inter-amerikar Auzitegiak Nazioarteko Zuzenbide Humanitarioa barne-gatazka armatuetako egoeretan; zer erlazio dagoen zigor-jurisdikzio militarraren eta Indar Armatuetako kideek egindako giza eskubideen urraketen ikerketaren artean; zein diren Estatuaren erantzukizuna aitortzeko egintzetarako baldintzak, eta zer elkarreragin dagoen nazioetako eta nazioarteko instantzia judizialen artean giza eskubideen urraketen ordainaz den bezainbatean. Egokiera-arrazoiengatik, alde batera utziko da Kolonbiako Estatuak urratu zituen Amerikar Konbentzioko eskubideetako bakoitzari buruz Giza Eskubideetarako Nazioarteko Auzitegiak erabakitakoaren azterketa. RESUMEN: Mediante la aplicación de la metodología de estudio de caso, el comentario a la Sentencia Santo Domingo vs. Colombia se centra en aspectos estructurales sobre la protección de los derechos humanos en el ámbito interamericano, en especial, el uso que la Corte Interamericana hace del Derecho Internacional Humanitario en situaciones que se producen en contextos de conflictos armados internos, la relación entre la jurisdicción penal militar y la investigación de las violaciones a los derechos humanos cometidas por miembros de las Fuerzas Armadas, los requisitos de los actos de reconocimiento de la responsabilidad del Estado y la interacción entre las instancias judiciales nacionales e internacionales en materia de reparación de violaciones a los derechos humanos. Por razones de oportunidad, se prescinde del análisis del pronunciamiento de la Corte IDH sobre cada uno de los derechos de la Convención Americana que fueron violados por el Estado de Colombia. ABSTRACT: By means of the problem based learning methodology, the analysis of the judgment Santo Domingo vs. Colombia focuses on structural features of the human rights protection within the Inter-American area, specially, the use made by the Inter-American Court of International Humanitarian Law in situations within contexts of internal military conflict, the relationship between military criminal jurisdiction and the investigation of human rights violations committed by Army forces, the requirements of the acts of recognition of the State responsibility and the interaction between the national and international judicial instances regarding the redress for human rights violations. For reasons of practical expediency, we will not analyze the judgment by the Inter-American Court on each of the rights of the American Convention breached by the State of Colombia.

Part 1 Freedom of Religion or Belief, 1.3.2 Places of Worship

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bielefeldt Heiner, Prof ◽  
Ghanea Nazila, Dr ◽  
Wiener Michael, Dr
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
The State ◽  
Religious Communities ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Sacred Sites ◽  
The Relationship

This chapter discusses various human rights violations that arise in the context of constructing, owning, accessing, using, protecting, and preserving places of worship or other religious sites. When members of religious communities wish to construct and own places of worship they often face restrictions that are imposed by the State or competing claims by other religious communities. In this context, the conversion of places of worship as well as their confiscation and unfair restitution provisions may lead to further problems for religious communities. Furthermore, access to religious sites and their use is often unduly restricted by the State, impeded in practice by non-State actors, or hampered by religious precepts which discriminate against some people within the same religious or belief community. The chapter also discusses issues of interpretation, including the relationship between international human rights law and international humanitarian law in the context of religious sites, the obligations of various duty-bearers, and sacred sites of indigenous peoples.

14 Human Rights in Armed Conflict

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kleffner Jann K
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
The State ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Legal Relationship ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Individual

This chapter explains the application of human rights in armed conflicts. International humanitarian law has much in common with the law of human rights, since both bodies of rules are concerned with the protection of the individual. Nevertheless, there are important differences between them. Human rights law is designed to operate primarily in normal peacetime conditions, and governs the vertical legal relationship between a state and its citizens and other persons subject to its jurisdiction. Human rights law applies primarily within the territory of the state that is subject to the human rights obligation in question. International humanitarian law, by contrast, is specifically designed to regulate situations of armed conflict. These differences between human rights law and international humanitarian law have led some to argue that human rights law is only intended to be applicable in time of peace. However, it is now generally accepted that human rights continue to apply during armed conflict. Hence, international humanitarian law and human rights law can apply simultaneously in situations of armed conflict.

State responsibility for community defence groups gone rogue

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-25
Author(s):  
Jemma Arman
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
The State ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Community Members ◽  
Human Rights Abuses ◽  
National Crisis ◽  
Security Services

Abstract In situations of national crisis, it is not uncommon to see community members join together to provide security services to their communities, gap-filling or supplementing the security services of the State. These “community defence groups” perform many roles, from operating checkpoints and conducting surveillance missions to patrolling roads and even participating in combined combat operations with the State. Unfortunately, while many community defence groups perform an important service for their community, some have been accused of serious human rights abuses or even war crimes. This article examines the circumstances in which a State might be responsible in relation to wrongful acts of community defence groups operating within their territory. Each community defence group differs in its structure, its activities and its relationship with the State. As such, any assessment of the potential responsibility of the State will depend upon the particulars of each group and its operations. The contribution of this article is to provide a framework for assessing State responsibility in relation to community defence groups. It does so by examining the potential attribution of acts of the community defence group to the State, applying secondary rules of State responsibility. In addition, it also considers the potential responsibilities of the State under primary rules of international law, namely international humanitarian law and international human rights law, in circumstances where the primary wrongful act is not attributable to the State.

Sanctions for violations of international humanitarian law: the problem of the division of competences between national authorities and between national and international authorities

2008 ◽  
Vol 90 (870) ◽  
pp. 359-370 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xavier Philippe
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
The State ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Technical Aspects ◽  
Human Rights Protection ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
Broad Interpretation ◽  
Do So

AbstractThis article seeks to explore the reasons why sanctions for international humanitarian law (IHL) violations are so difficult to put into effect. Beyond the lack of willingness of states to do so for political reasons, some more technical aspects should be emphasized. The implementation of sanctions is too often seen solely through the prism of international law, without enough attention being paid to the complexity and diversity of municipal legal systems. The author puts forward the idea that efficiency starts with a clear sharing of competencies. Three main issues are discussed: first, the influence of the sharing of competencies within the state (between the judiciary, the executive and the legislature) on the implementation of sanctions; second, the broad interpretation of their powers by regional or international bodies in charge of monitoring and reviewing human rights protection; and, third, the creation of new or specific bodies in charge of dealing with and if necessary punishing gross violations of humanitarian law.

State Immunity Against Claims Arising from War Crimes: The Judgment of the International Court of Justice inJurisdictional Immunities of the State

2012 ◽  
Vol 13 (6) ◽  
pp. 773-782 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Christoph Bornkamm
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
The State ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Legal Proceedings ◽  
State Immunity ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
International Court

The recent judgment of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in theCase Concerning Jurisdictional Immunities of the State(Germany v. Italy; Greece Intervening) marks the climax of a series of legal proceedings before Greek, Italian, and German courts, as well as the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) stretching over a period of more than fifteen years. The international community had eagerly awaited the ICJ's findings on the issue at the heart of the dispute, namely the scope of state immunity before foreign courts in cases concerning claims arising from serious violations of international humanitarian law. While most expected the Court to rule in favor of Germany and to uphold state immunity in principle, it was unclear whether the Court would acknowledge the increasing erosion of immunity with respect to serious violations of human rights or international humanitarian law. To the disappointment of many, the Court took a conservative approach and rejected the idea of an emerging exception from state immunity.

The Ongoing Genocidal Crisis of the Rohingya Minority in Myanmar

2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 4-24 ◽  
Author(s):  
John P. J. Dussich
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
The State ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
Ethnic Cleansing ◽  
Linguistic Differences ◽  
Racial Hatred ◽  
Religious Conflicts ◽  
Muslim Minority ◽  
Aung San Suu Kyi ◽  
The Military

The serious plight of the Rohingya ethnic group’s extreme victimization in Myanmar has finally emerged on the international stage. They are mostly a stateless Muslim minority from the state of Rakhine which, over recent decades, have been abused by severe and repeated multiple human rights violations. There are now approximately 850,000 displaced Rohingya refugees mostly in Bangladesh and surrounding countries with thousands more waiting in peril between Myanmar and Bangladesh. The saga of the Rohingya dilemma has been fraught with complex ethno-religious conflicts between Buddhist, Muslim and Hindu factions exacerbated by the scale of people involved, rapidity of events, recency of occurrences, abject poverty, racial hatred, linguistic differences, confused ancestral rights, severe humanitarian violations, genocidal policies, surrounded by nations themselves struggling with few resources. The present-day conflicted leadership in Myanmar between the military and the democratically elected leader of her government, Aung San Suu Kyi, has been severely criticized for their brutal continued ethnic cleansing.

scholarly journals Concept of effective Control among the Means of Restoring National Security of Ukraine

2021 ◽  
Vol 81 (2) ◽  
pp. 42-49
Author(s):  
O. V. Cherviakova ◽  
R. V. Sytnyk ◽  
M. M. Honcharenko
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Causal Link ◽  
The State ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
Effective Control ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Level ◽  
General Control

The sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine have been violated for more than seven years, part of the territories of Donetsk and Luhansk regions, the Autonomous Republic of Crimea are temporarily not under the control of the sovereign. Researchers and reintegration experts pay attention to the categories of effective and general control in these circumstances. Both concepts from the point of view of historical and law-making importance have significantly influenced the development of international public law and the state responsibility institution involved in armed conflicts, but accomplish this not directly, but through third parties of the conflict: a state controls the behavior of individuals or groups of individuals on the territory of another state. It is possible to appropriate the actions of individuals to the state through the concepts of state and effective control at the international level, although such evidence is extremely difficult in some cases, since the relationship is carefully concealed and the state denies its involvement in international armed conflict. The establishment and recognition of such a relationship between a state and a person or a group of persons, as well as the disclosure of the causal link between governmental actions and the conduct of individuals becomes the subject matter of proving at the international level in case of applying the concepts of effective and general control. In particular, the United Nations International Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights are actively working with the concepts of effective and general control to deal with cases of violating human rights, international humanitarian law on the territories of armed conflict. All this determines the relevance of the research of these concepts for their subsequent practical application to prove the fact of involvement of certain subjects of international law in armed conflicts. In this aspect, the development of the concept of effective or general control can facilitate the solution of topical issues of Ukraine’s domestic and foreign policy. The analysis of this concept can be taken as arguments that the conflict in Ukraine should be classified as international, armed aggression of the Russian Federation is being carried out against Ukraine.

scholarly journals Features of the status and protection of the rights of persons living on the occupied territories

2021 ◽  
pp. 433-446
Author(s):  
Oleksiy Kresin ◽  
Iryna Kresina
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Private Property ◽  
The State ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
International Human

Based on the concluded study, the authors demonstrate that international law recognizes the unconditional responsibility of the power occupying or exercising effective (overall, general, de facto) control over the territory for the human rights of its population, and in particular the civilian population as protected persons. Such liability exists independently of the personal liability of the representatives (agents) of that State. In this case, the state, which exercises control over the territory, is automatically responsible for any actions of organizations under its control. At the same time, it is quite difficult to determine the share of responsibility of a sovereign state for the implementation of human rights on a territory over which that state does not exercise control. The legislation of Ukraine imposes responsibility for the protection and violations of human rights in the ORDLO on Russia under both international humanitarian law and international human rights law. International humanitarian law imposes on the occupying state the obligation to ensure all the minimum humanitarian needs of the population, its basic rights related to the preservation of life, health and dignity (with special emphasis on the rights of women and children), private property, effective protection of these rights and protection from any unlawful violence, preservation of the infrastructure of the territory. The occupying State cannot be absolved of responsibility for serious human rights violations, including war crimes and crimes against humanity. Decisions of international courts unequivocally extend these obligations, as well as obligations under international human rights law, to all forms of illegal control of the territory of another state. At the same time, the Constitution and legislation of Ukraine do not provide for the refusal of the state to ensure and protect human rights on its territory, even in conditions of state of emergency or war. Ukraine ensures the realization of the rights of the ORDLO population on the territory of other regions of Ukraine. Ukraine also protect and restore human rights in the territory of the ORDLO with the means provided by international law.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document