scholarly journals The Conservationist Principle under International Humanitarian Law versus a Transformative Occupation in a Human Rights Context

2019 ◽  
Vol 06 (01) ◽  
pp. 27-49
Author(s):  
Maria Yánez

This article presents a discussion about the necessary evolution of the law of occupation facing the obligations set for by the International Human Rights regime, based on the law of State responsibility. In the first section of this two-part study, the article delivers a state of the art through the analysis of doctrine and both universal and regional jurisprudences on State responsibility based on the extraterritorial application of International Human Rights Law. On the second part, the article provides analysis on temporal (beginning and end) and territorial aspects of occupation that have a direct impact on the obligation to respect and to ensure the rights of every subject to the State’s jurisdiction. In the final section, the article discusses the clash between the traditional conservationist principle and the transformative occupation principle. This study employed a logic-inductivist method. To conclude the discussion, this study is in the position that the conservative principle under International Humanitarian Law is considered archaic; and should give way to better protection of human rights in an international occupation context.

2018 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 44-58
Author(s):  
Sardar M. A. Waqar Khan Arif

Human rights are available to everyone on the basis of humanity. Universality, non-discrimination, equality and inalienability are core principles governing International Human rights Law (IHRL). The law governing armed conflict or war is known as International humanitarian Law (IHL). In the case of armed conflict, IHRL poses certain obligations on states along with humanitarian obligations. In this context, this article identifies the international human rights obligations of States in armed conflict. It argues that States must respect, promote, protect and fulfill human rights obligations of individuals, in the case of armed conflict, with increasing and serious concern, by analyzing the applicable legal framework under IHRL. It also addresses the extraterritorial application of IHRL and its limitations and derogations in armed conflict. Further, it discusses contemporary challenges for States in jurisdictional applicability and implementation of IHRL. To that extent, the argument developed throughout this article is that States have obligations under IHRL, irrespective of humanitarian obligations, not only in peace situations but also in the case of war or armed conflict.


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.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document