scholarly journals Armed Non-State Actors and International Human Rights Law: An Analysis of the Practice of the U.N. Security Council and the U.N. General Assembly

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jessica Burniske ◽  
Naz K. Modirzadeh ◽  
Dustin A. Lewis
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.


2008 ◽  
Vol 41 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 87-174 ◽  
Author(s):  
Grant T. Harris

Various political realities influence the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip and, more generally, the vitality of the international law of occupation. The law of occupation—though ill-suited to modern international relations and ill-equipped for prolonged occupation—has been almost universally invoked as applicable to the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT). At the same time, international human rights law is increasingly viewed as applicable to occupation. This creates a dilemma for Israel because international humanitarian law and international human rights law contain conflicting prescriptions and policy goals with respect to the administration of occupied territory. In many instances, occupants seek United Nations Security Council action in order to reconcile this tension and to secure legal and political cover for their actions. By acting under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter; the Security Council can create a select legal patchwork applicable to a particular occupation. This use of Chapter VII resolutions by the Security Council to create international law by fiat is an important trend in modern occupation. Yet geopolitics determines access to—and the content of—such resolutions, and the sensitive political context of the OPT currently makes this avenue unavailable to Israel. For the same reason, opponents of the Israeli occupation are unable to secure Security Council action to clarify and enforce Israeli legal obligations in the OPT. This Article considers these issues from the perspectives of both Israel and Palestinians in order to examine why the relative gain and loss in each case is not immediately clear. This Article also discusses how the legality of Israeli conduct in the OPT may be gauged in light of the conflicting international legal obligations imposed by human rights law and the law of occupation. A broader exploration of the impact of these phenomena reveals that these political realities serve to increase the influence of the Security Council while further undercutting the utility and relevance of the international law of occupation.


2016 ◽  
Vol 9 (8) ◽  
pp. 33
Author(s):  
Abdolsamad Doulah ◽  
Mirshahbiz Shafee

The UN Security Council is primarily in charge of maintaining international peace and security. There has been raised various debates on how the Security Council manage international crises in the world, particularly severe violations of international human rights law. On the one hand, the traditional view to international peace has altered and the Security Council is also in charge of observing the standards of the international human rights. On the other hand, the international community has faced inconsistencies in the use of the veto by its permanent members on the international human rights violations. However, many analysts believe that the Security Council could take timely action to prevent violations of international human rights law. At that time, they fell into the trap of politics and proved insufficient. This article is in response to this important issue, indicating that the management of the Security Council has been fair in the case of international human rights violations. This study also aims to investigate whether the Security Council has been successful in adopting a procedure independent from the interests of its permanent members.


Author(s):  
Freedman Rosa

This chapter focuses on the Human Rights Council. As the principal UN human rights body, the Council is arguably the lynchpin of the UN human rights machinery, bringing together states, independent experts, UN staff, and civil society actors, as well as reporting to the full UN membership via the General Assembly. The Human Rights Council is also quite a unique body, combining the most intensely political elements, a high degree of reliance on expertise, and in situ human rights investigations in order to fulfil its duties to protect, to promote, and to develop international human rights law. Many of the criticisms of the Council fail to take into account the ways in which it is hampered by its mandate, powers, and mechanisms. The chapter then considers the Council’s creation, its mandate and functions, and details the body’s strengths and weaknesses.


2011 ◽  
Vol 93 (881) ◽  
pp. 47-79 ◽  
Author(s):  
Annyssa Bellal ◽  
Gilles Giacca ◽  
Stuart Casey-Maslen

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