Human Rights Protection in Occupied Territories

2022 ◽  
pp. 137-152
Author(s):  
Mariam Jikia

The chapter discusses the protection mechanisms of human rights in occupied territories, namely it concerns the issue of application of international human rights law and international humanitarian law in occupied territories. The author gives detailed information about the main system for administration of occupied territories, in particular about the conventional and customary law, as well as secondary resources such as court decisions and UN resolutions. The chapter analyses international treaties, customary law, and case law to identify the main problems related to human rights protection in occupied territories, the positive obligations of states to protect population living in occupied territories, and the relevance of existing legal norms with the state practice.

Author(s):  
Eibe Riedel

This chapter examines the protection of economic, social, and cultural rights in armed conflict under international human rights law (IHRL) and international humanitarian law (IHL). It analyses the relationship between such human rights protection and IHL rules and suggests that, despite the differences in the scope of the applicability of these two bodies of law, they are intricately interwoven and have become more so in recent times. It also compares the implementation mechanisms of IHL and IHRL and shows that human rights procedures are more varied, comprehensive in scope, and potentially more effective.


Author(s):  
Gori Gisella

This article examines the compliance of States with international human rights law. It explains the distinction between judicial and non-judicial compliance mechanisms, focusing on the United Nations (UN) in the context of non-judicial mechanisms and the Council of Europe and the Organization of American States (OAS) in the context of judicial mechanisms. It highlights the central role of the principle of subsidiarity in all international mechanisms for human rights protection and explains that this principle provides a conceptual tool for understanding the relation between the role of states in human rights protection and the role of the international human rights protection mechanisms that states create at the global and regional levels.


2012 ◽  
Vol 94 (886) ◽  
pp. 687-709 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Asaro

AbstractThis article considers the recent literature concerned with establishing an international prohibition on autonomous weapon systems. It seeks to address concerns expressed by some scholars that such a ban might be problematic for various reasons. It argues in favour of a theoretical foundation for such a ban based on human rights and humanitarian principles that are not only moral, but also legal ones. In particular, an implicit requirement for human judgement can be found in international humanitarian law governing armed conflict. Indeed, this requirement is implicit in the principles of distinction, proportionality, and military necessity that are found in international treaties, such as the 1949 Geneva Conventions, and firmly established in international customary law. Similar principles are also implicit in international human rights law, which ensures certain human rights for all people, regardless of national origins or local laws, at all times. I argue that the human rights to life and due process, and the limited conditions under which they can be overridden, imply a specific duty with respect to a broad range of automated and autonomous technologies. In particular, there is a duty upon individuals and states in peacetime, as well as combatants, military organizations, and states in armed conflict situations, not to delegate to a machine or automated process the authority or capability to initiate the use of lethal force independently of human determinations of its moral and legal legitimacy in each and every case. I argue that it would be beneficial to establish this duty as an international norm, and express this with a treaty, before the emergence of a broad range of automated and autonomous weapons systems begin to appear that are likely to pose grave threats to the basic rights of individuals.


2021 ◽  
Vol 52 (3) ◽  
pp. 507-540
Author(s):  
Craig Land

Samoa's 2020 Land and Titles Court reforms, which contributed to the Human Rights Protection Party losing support at the April 2021 elections after almost 40 years of government, have recentred attention on the tensions of legal pluralism in the South Pacific. Although Samoa maintains a system of English common law, 81 per cent of Samoan land falls under the traditional matai titles system, giving a central role to the customary Land and Titles Court (LTC). In December 2020, the Samoan parliament passed three Acts – the Constitution Amendment Act 2020, the Land and Titles Act 2020 and the Judicature Act 2020 – establishing the LTC in a parallel court hierarchy with equivalent status to the Samoan Supreme Court and Court of Appeal. This proposal has prompted debate between those favouring incorporation and promotion of Samoan custom over Western legal norms, and others who argue the amendments undermine human rights protections and the rule of law. This article evaluates the effects of these changes on the role and administration of custom in Samoa, contextualising them within broader socio-legal debates around customary legal systems. It first analyses the effect of the three Acts with regard to the bifurcation of the court system, procedural reforms in the LTC hierarchy and the introduction of a judicial guidance clause. This leads into a critical evaluation of these changes, highlighting impacts upon judicial coherence; constitutional human rights; consistency between customary and common law procedures; and resourcing constraints. The article concludes by providing broad options for future reform. It does not focus on issues which have received attention elsewhere, such as the amendments' potential impacts on judicial independence.


Author(s):  
Emilie M. Hafner-Burton

In the last six decades, one of the most striking developments in international law is the emergence of a massive body of legal norms and procedures aimed at protecting human rights. In many countries, though, there is little relationship between international law and the actual protection of human rights on the ground. This book takes a fresh look at why it's been so hard for international law to have much impact in parts of the world where human rights are most at risk. The book argues that more progress is possible if human rights promoters work strategically with the group of states that have dedicated resources to human rights protection. These human rights “stewards” can focus their resources on places where the tangible benefits to human rights are greatest. Success will require setting priorities as well as engaging local stakeholders such as nongovernmental organizations and national human rights institutions. To date, promoters of international human rights law have relied too heavily on setting universal goals and procedures and not enough on assessing what actually works and setting priorities. This book illustrates how, with a different strategy, human rights stewards can make international law more effective and also safeguard human rights for more of the world population.


Author(s):  
Bożena Drzewicka

Conceptions And Interpretations of Human Rights in Europe and Asia: Normative AspectsThe issue of confronting values between civilizations has become very important. It influences not only the level of international politics but also the international normative activity. It is very interesting for the modern international law and its doctrine. The most important factor of causing huge changes in the system of international law is still the international human rights protection and the international humanitarian law which is related to it. It is very difficult to create one catalogue of executive instruments and procedures but it is possible to influence the attitude toward the basic paradigms. The frictions appear from time to time and move to other planes. The West and Asia are still antagonists in the dialogue on the future of the world. The article is a contribution to the intercivilizational dialogue.


Author(s):  
Tilman Rodenhäuser

Chapter 5 adds to the contemporary discourse on human rights obligations of non-state armed groups by showing that in many situations, there is a clear legal need for these obligations. This chapter first engages in the debate on whether and to what extent certain human rights treaties address armed groups directly. Second, it shows that under the law of state responsibility, states are generally not responsible for human rights violations committed by non-state entities. Third, it recalls that under international human rights law, states have an obligation to protect human rights against violations committed by armed groups. However, it argues that because this cannot be a strict obligation but is one that depends on states’ capacities and the particular circumstances, often this framework cannot adequately protect individuals against human rights violations by armed groups. The result is a legal and practical need for human rights obligations of non-state armed groups.


2009 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 219-245
Author(s):  
Ekaterina Yahyaoui Krivenko

AbstractInternational constitutionalism relates to processes of limiting traditionally unrestricted powers of states as ultimate subjects, law-makers and law-enforcers of international law. Human rights occupy a central, but very confusing and confused role in the theorisation of international constitutionalism. If feminist scholars have criticised the inadequacies, shortcomings and gaps of international law of human rights at least since 1991, the doctrine of international law theorising constitutionalisation of international law until now has remained blind to these critiques idealising human rights and often using them as the ultimate legitimating factor. Thus, legitimacy and legality become confused and the distinction between them blurred in the doctrine of international constitutionalism. This in turn creates a danger of failure of the constitutionalists project itself, as it will serve to reinforce existing inadequacies and gaps in human rights protection. To illustrate this argument, I discuss some examples related to the protection of women's and migrants' rights. In order to avoid this dangerous development, I argue that international lawyers theorising international constitutionalism shall adopt an adequate, inclusive notion of legitimacy. In order to develop this adequate understanding of legitimacy, they should first take seriously feminist and other critiques of international human rights law and international law more generally. In the final parts of this article I develop my own more detailed proposals on the future of legitimacy and international constitutionalism. In doing so, I draw on the 'self-correcting learning process' developed in the writings of Jürgen Habermas, 'democracy to come' and more general views on the nature of sovereignty and human rights expressed by Jacques Derrida, as well as Levinasian 'responsibility-to-and-for-the-Other'.


Author(s):  
Jorge Ernesto ROA ROA

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.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document