scholarly journals An Analysis of the Security Council Procedures in Managing Severe Violations of the International Human Rights

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):  
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.


2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohammed R.M. Elshobake

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to explore the most prominent human rights violations during the COVID-19 pandemic in accordance with international human rights law. Design/methodology/approach Through doctrinal and legal study and content analysis, this paper analyses the important relevant legal provisions under International human rights law and applies these provisions to the reality of managing the COVID-19 crisis to identify the most prominent human rights violations during the COVID-19 outbreak. This research paper considered as a review paper in that it provides a review of the most prominent measures taken during the COVID-19 crisis, which constitutes violations of international human rights law. Findings It is concluded that some measures that have been taken by countries to confront the COVID-19 pandemic have constituted violations of human rights and did not comply with the legal conditions to restrict human rights. Indeed, the COVID-19 pandemic has shown the ugly fractures in health-care systems, health inequities, racism and discrimination, Undermining the right to freedom of expression and the right to access information, gross negligence in protecting detainees from COVID-19 infection, all of these constitute clear violations of the principles of international human rights law. Research limitations/implications The spread of COVID-19 has not stopped, and its effects still continue, including human rights violations. Therefore, this paper cannot enumerate all human rights violations that occur during the spread of COVID-19. Practical implications Based on the results in this paper, governments need to be more prepared to face any health crisis at all levels including health care, which would reduce human rights violations. Social implications This research paper reflects positively on the social reality, as the adoption of its recommendations leads to the provision of adequate health care to all members of society in accordance with the principles of human rights, granting them the right to access information, protecting their right to freedom of expression, reducing the phenomenon of racism and discrimination and providing adequate health care to all detainees. Originality/value This paper studies an up-to-date topic that we are still living and seeing its effects. The benefit of this paper is to provide recommendations that protect human rights during the COVID-19 pandemic.


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.


2020 ◽  
Vol 23 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 203-225
Author(s):  
Nigel D. White

Abstract It is argued in this article that due diligence, grounded on positive duties under international human rights law, is a standard against which to measure the performance of UN peacekeeping forces. Its adoption by the UN will improve accountability, but in a controlled and principled way. A requirement that the UN act diligently to prevent human rights violations would not impose over-onerous obligations. For responsibility to be incurred an organisation must have clearly failed to take measures that were within its power to take. It is argued that the UN not only should be bound by norms of due diligence but is in fact bound by positive obligations derived from customary international human rights law. The development of some due diligence-type measures by the UN to prevent sexual abuse by peacekeepers and to protect civilians within areas of peacekeeper deployment, and the adoption of an explicit due diligence policy to delineate its relationship with non-UN security actors, are positive signs. However, the article demonstrates that the UN needs to further internalise and develop its due diligence obligations if it is to limit human rights violations committed under its watch. Furthermore, it needs to create accountability mechanisms to ensure that it develops the rather limited measures taken thus far, including provision for victims to be able to hold the organisation to account for failure to protect them from human rights violations. Only by accepting its responsibility and liability to such victims will be the UN be driven to improve its due diligence when mandating, preparing, training, deploying and directing peacekeeping operations.


2021 ◽  
Vol 19 (32) ◽  
pp. 32
Author(s):  
Sidney Cesar Silva Guerra ◽  
Luz E. Nagle ◽  
Ádria Saviano Fabricio da Silva

This article aims to revisit the interrelationship between International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and International Human Rights Law (IHRL), in honour of their respective normative scopes and in order to carry out an analysis of their complementary or supplementary application, towards the construction of a more appropriate tool for the protection of human beings in extreme situations, as it occurs during armed conflicts. This is because, amid the multifaceted vulnerabilities that accumulate in today's conflicts, it is essential to provide the most effective source of protection - proportional to the demands for protection that are manifested today, particularly in military occupations around the world, whose occurrence will be the focus of this research. As for the method of approach concerning the logical basis of the investigation, the hypothetical-deductive method was selected, insofar as the corroboration or falsification of the main hypothesis about the effective complementary and harmonious application of IHRL will be tested to cases of human rights violations in International Armed Conflicts in the military occupation modality. Given this framework, the core of this work lies in the understanding of the praxis for the complementary application of both aspects in armed conflicts, considering not only International Human Rights Law as lex generalis, but their effective overlap to the detriment of International Humanitarian Law, when it is most beneficial to human protection in the cases of Military Occupations.


REVISTA ESMAT ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (17) ◽  
pp. 209
Author(s):  
Mona Paré

This article examines the impact that the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) has had on international human rights law. While it seems that the convention may have a narrow focus, as it focuses on a specific group of people, this paper argues that it has had an impact on international human rights law more generally. This impact started with the negotiation of the convention between 2002 and 2006, and is continuing with its implementation since its entry into force in 2008. The impact is of both procedural and substantive nature. On the one hand, the procedure that led to the development and adoption of the CRPD was innovative, as are the mechanisms that have been put into place to monitor its implementation. On the other hand, the convention introduces and develops concepts in a novel way in international law, such as new ways of considering the concept of equality, and to understand development, for example. The article concludes that the international community should capitalize on the new approaches, and that their application and interpretation should be closely monitored.


2013 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 201-220 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fulvia Staiano

Diplomatic immunities significantly contribute to a protection gap for domestic workers in diplomatic households who are victims of egregious forms of exploitation and abuse, and thus, of serious human rights violations. The abuse of such immunities by diplomatic agents in order to shun judicial review by the courts of the receiving States constitutes indeed a serious obstacle to obtaining redress. The resulting conflict between international rules on immunity and domestic workers’ human rights epitomizes the increasingly frequent challenges posed by international human rights law to classic rules of international law, and raises the issue of how to find balanced solutions to such conflicts. Against this background, the uncertain and discretional character of diplomatic measures prevents them from constituting a tool of legal protection for domestic workers experiencing human rights violations. With that in mind, this contribution inquires on alternative remedies available in international and domestic law, with a specific focus on the relationship between international rules on immunities and two other bodies of law, i.e. international human rights law and peremptory norms of international law.


2013 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 47-71 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yuval Shany

Abstract International human rights law (IHRL) has struggled to define a standard for determining the extraterritorial applicability of its norms that would reconcile the ethos of universal entitlement, on the one hand, with the centrality of borders in delineating state powers and responsibilities under international law, on the other hand. The case law of the UN Human Rights Committee and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) favors barring states from engaging in conduct outside their borders that would be impermissible if undertaken inside their borders. Still, attempts to demarcate the precise scope of extraterritorial application through allusion to degrees of control over individuals or areas, or by the nature of the obligation itself – have led to unsatisfactory, if not arbitrary results. This article opines a move to functionalism as the basis for extraterritorial applicability – requiring states to protect IHRL in situations they can do so. Under this approach, which takes universality seriously, borders lose much their normative significance. I suggest limiting the functional approach to extraterritorial applicability in accordance with two key notions: (1) the intensity of power relations – factual relations of power entailing direct, significant and foreseeable potential impact – should result in the application of IHRL obligations; or, alternatively, (2) special legal relations – relations of power that put the state in a unique legal position to afford IHRL protection would also justify the imposition of extraterritorial obligations.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document