5 Combatants and Non-Combatants

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ipsen Knut
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
Direct Part ◽  
Minimum Standard ◽  
Individual Protection ◽  
The Many ◽  
Enemy Combatant ◽  
The Individual

This chapter examines the regulation of combatant status in treaty law and the many challenges for combatant status in recent armed conflicts. The primary status under international law of persons in an international armed conflict will be one of two categories of persons: ‘combatants’ and ‘civilians’. Combatants may fight within the limits imposed by international law applicable in international armed conflict, that is, they may participate directly in hostilities, which members of medical or religious personnel and ‘non-combatants’ may not do because they are excluded—by international law and by a legal act of their party to the conflict—from the authorization to take a direct part in hostilities. The chapter then discusses ‘unlawful combatants’, or what may be considered the better term: ‘unprivileged belligerents’. The term ‘unlawful enemy combatant’ was particularly used after 11 September 2001, to introduce a third category of persons which under existing law may be either combatants or civilians, but are denied such status as not fulfilling essential conditions. To use this third category in order to reduce the individual protection below the minimum standard of human rights is under no circumstances legally acceptable.

Legal Protection of Children in Non-International Armed Conflicts in Nigeria

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-27
Author(s):  
Olaitan Oluwaseyi Olusegun
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
Conflict Situations ◽  
Legal Frameworks ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Domestic Law

Abstract Armed conflicts are characterised by violence and human rights violations with various implications on the citizens, economy and development of nations. The impact is however more pronounced with life-long consequences on children, the most vulnerable members of the society. This article examines the impact of non-international armed conflicts on children in Nigeria and identifies the laws for the protection of children against armed conflicts, both in international law and Nigeria’s domestic law. It also addresses the challenges involved in the protection of children in armed conflict situations in Nigeria. The study found that legal efforts to protect children have not been given sufficient attention in Nigeria. This is mostly due to various challenges including the fragmentation of legal framework and the refusal to domesticate relevant treaties. It is thus recommended that these challenges be addressed through the implementation of effective legal frameworks.

The Application of International Human Rights Law in Non-International Armed Conflicts

2013 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 220-261 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jean-Marie Kamatali
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Three Solutions ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
International Human

Since the end of the Cold War, the world has experienced a decrease in international conflict and a significant increase in non-international armed conflict (niac). Despite this change, however, international law has been very slow in adapting its laws that initially were crafted with international armed conflict in mind to the new niac environment. There is a growing recognition that international humanitarian law (ihl) is not well equipped to deal with issues of human rights violations committed during niac. New efforts to make international human rights law (ihrl) applicable in such conflicts have, however, raised more questions than answers. There is still no consensus on whether international human rights law applies to niac. Furthermore, the question on whether non-international armed groups are bound by international human rights obligations remains controversial. This article tries to analyze where international law stands now of these questions. It proposes steps international law could follow to move from its current rhetoric to a more practical solution on these questions. The three solutions proposed are: individual agreements to respect human rights during armed conflict, the possibility of an icj advisory opinion and the option of a protocol additional to international human rights treaties relating to their application in niac.

scholarly journals Emergence of the Individual as an International Juristic Entity: Enforcement of International Human Rights

2004 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 534-572 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julie Cassidy
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Minority Groups ◽  
The State ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
International Norm ◽  
State Practice ◽  
International Rights ◽  
The Many ◽  
The Individual

In this article it is contended that state practice, as evidenced in the declarations of the judiciary and the many treaties and conventions guaranteeing human rights, reveals a consensus of opinion acknowledging the individual to be an international juristic entity. So extensive is this practice that it could be seen as marking the emergence of a new customary international norm; or at least a general principle of international law, yet to crystallise into a custom; acknowledging the individual as the beneficiary of international rights. This is important for individuals and minority groups because if they possess international rights independently of the State, enforcement of their rights will no longer depend on the interests of the State. Where the State is often the offender of human rights, international law will not effectively confer any real rights unless the individual is so recognised as an inter- national juristic entity.

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.

Gaps in Corporate Liability

2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (5) ◽  
pp. 486-502
Author(s):  
Jelena Aparac
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Transitional Justice ◽  
Corporate Responsibility ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
Human Rights Council ◽  
Commissions Of Inquiry ◽  
Fact Finding ◽  
Corporate Liability

Abstract Fact-finding is a fundamental step in providing documentation that can be used in domestic and international proceedings. The United Nations establishes commissions of inquiry to investigate international law violations, often in contexts of armed conflict, under the mandate of the Human Rights Council or other more political organs of the UN. They vary in mandate, as well as in investigative and geographic scope. However, to this day, fact-finding mechanisms or inquiry commissions have only rarely conducted investigations into corporate crimes, even in cases where the UN has explicitly recognized the part played by economic actors in armed conflicts. Because corporations are not subjects of international law, they are presumed not to have any direct obligations under international law. Moreover, the mandates of fact-finding missions de facto exclude corporations from investigations because such mandates are always designed to investigate international law violations. By voluntarily dismissing any investigation of corporate crimes, the UN is significantly limiting prospects for corporate responsibility and impeding the process of transitional justice.

scholarly journals REVISITING THE BIPOLAR DISTINCTION IN THE CHARACTERISATION OF ARMED CONFLICTS

2010 ◽  
Author(s):  
W Ochieng
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Geneva Conventions ◽  
Traditional Understanding

Since the Geneva Conventions, the architecture of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) has been founded upon a distinction between international armed conflict and non-international armed conflict. Today, this claim stands to be revisited since international and non-international armed conflicts are no longer strict organising frameworks for the categorisation of rules of armed conflicts. This is seen in that over fifty years ago, when the four Geneva Conventions were negotiated, the principles of sovereignty and non-intervention were the cornerstones of international law and while their force today is still apparent, the interdependence of states, and global concerns such as terrorism and the commission of widespread human rights violations have eroded the traditional inviolability of borders. The dichotomy in humanitarian law is as implausible today as it is also fundamentally unworkable given the current conditions of conflicts. This dualist conception is no longer adequate to deal with current features of armed conflict, which do not fit neatly into the two categories and frequently contain mixed elements which thus make the task of classification highly complex. The codification of customary rules of international humanitarian law has narrowed the grounds on which the distinctions are predicated. In addition, the two regimes apply simultaneously on multiple situations. Moreover, the question of contemporary armed conflicts raises serious doubts as to whether the traditional understanding of international law still suffices to explain the complexities of modern day armed conflicts. This essay seeks to offer a different perspective on armed conflicts by suggesting a systematic rethinking of the categorisation of conflict. It argues that some of the dilemmas of contemporary conflicts may be attenuated by a new conceptualisation of this bipolar distinction namely a need for a unitary conception of armed conflict.

Human Rights and Protocol II

1983 ◽  
Vol 23 (236) ◽  
pp. 246-254 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sylvie Junod
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Nations ◽  
International Law ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Human Beings ◽  
The United Nations

Human rights, particularly civil and political, have influenced the latest developments in international humanitarian law, especially 1977 Protocol II relating to non-international armed conflicts. At the Teheran Conference in 1968 the United Nations began to reconcile these two branches of international law; it was at this Conference that international humanitarian law was first called “human rights in periods of armed conflict”. This rapprochement was helped further by the adoption in the 1977 Protocols of some basic rules identical to those in the Human Rights Conventions; it helps strengthen the protection of human beings in situations of armed conflict.

A Brief Outline of International Humanitarian Law

1984 ◽  
Vol 24 (241) ◽  
pp. 187-226 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stanislaw E. Nahlik
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Essential Difference ◽  
Humanitarian Law

The term “humanitarian law” applies to those rules of international law which aim to protect persons suffering from the evils of armed conflicts as well as, by extension, objects not directly serving military purposes.There is therefore an essential difference between humanitarian law and “human rights”, for the latter do not apply only in time of armed conflict.

Introduction

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kubo Mačák
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Research Methodology ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
Normative Framework ◽  
Comprehensive Examination

This chapter introduces the central aim of this book: to provide a comprehensive examination of the notion, process, and effects of internationalization of armed conflicts in international law. It presents a brief research overview, outlining the scope of the enquiry, the research methodology, and the structure of the book. It then lays out the conceptual and normative framework for the rest of the book. To that end, it first justifies the need for the present study by confirming the continuing distinction between international and non-international armed conflicts in international law. Then, it puts forward a conception of internationalization that expresses the legal transformation from a non-international to an international armed conflict.

Of Rebels, Insurgents, and Belligerents

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tilman Rodenhäuser
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
Laws Of War ◽  
Armed Group ◽  
State Practice

The first chapter opens the substantive analysis of the organization requirement for non-state parties to armed conflicts. First, it briefly examines why the laws of war have originally been state-focused, and shows how this state focus coined international law requirements of main characteristics of a party to an armed conflict. Second, it analyses how philosophers broadened the legal notion of ‘war’ as to include conflicts involving certain non-state entities. Subsequently, this chapter examines state practice to identify which qualities a non-state armed group needed to possess to obtain the ‘belligerent’ status. It also examines the question of which kind of entities could qualify as ‘insurgents’ or ‘rebels’.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document