Life and Natural Resources

Humanitarian Law ◽

Human Rights Law ◽

Loss Of Life ◽

The Right ◽

This chapter analyses the potential role that human rights law can play when control over natural resources is associated with loss of life. It examines three different approaches. The first focuses on livelihood and examines situations where life is in danger for lack of access to natural resources essential to sustaining life, and explores how the right to life can be interpreted to include access to essential natural sources such as water and food. The second approach focuses on accountability for crimes during ‘resources conflicts’, and examines the relationship between international human rights law, international humanitarian law, and international criminal law with the objective of analysing the criminal approach to armed conflicts connected to natural resources. The third approach relates to the protection of individuals who have lost their lives, or whose physical integrity is in jeopardy, as result of their personal engagement to protect natural resources. It focuses on the rights of ‘environmental defenders’ and ‘land and natural resources defenders’—those who have become human rights defenders as a result of their actions taken to protect natural resources.

SHOULD INTERNATIONAL LAW RECOGNIZE A RIGHT OF HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION?

International and Comparative Law Quarterly ◽

10.1017/s0020589317000057 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 66 (2) ◽

pp. 441-466 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Chris O'Meara

Keyword(s):

Human Rights ◽

International Law ◽

Humanitarian Intervention ◽

International Criminal Law ◽

International Humanitarian Law ◽

Humanitarian Law ◽

Human Rights Law ◽

Syrian Civil War ◽

The Right

AbstractThe ongoing Syrian civil war calls for a re-evaluation of using force to protect human rights. This article does not rake over the much-debated issue of whether a right of humanitarian intervention exists as lex lata. Instead, it addresses the little reviewed normative issue of whether the right should exist in international law to support and reflect a pluralistic understanding of sovereignty. Despite advancements in international human rights law, international humanitarian law and international criminal law, this wider fabric of international law preserves Westphalian sovereignty and the principle of non-intervention. It denies any right of humanitarian intervention.

Challenges in applying human rights law to armed conflict

International Review of the Red Cross ◽

10.1017/s1816383100184541 ◽

2005 ◽

Vol 87 (860) ◽

pp. 737-754 ◽

Cited By ~ 44

Author(s):

Noam Lubell

Keyword(s):

Human Rights ◽

Armed Conflict ◽

Armed Conflicts ◽

Humanitarian Law ◽

Human Rights Law ◽

Cultural Rights ◽

Joint Application ◽

Starting Point ◽

AbstractThe debates over the relationship between International Humanitarian Law and International Human Rights Law, have often focused on the question of whether human rights law continues to apply during armed conflict, and if so, on how these two bodies of law can complement each other. This article takes the continuing applicability of human rights law as an accepted and welcome starting point, and proceeds to lay out some of the challenges and obstacles encountered during the joint application of IHL and Human Rights Law, that still need to be addressed. These include extra-territorial applicability of human rights law; the mandate and expertise of human rights bodies; terminological and conceptual differences between the bodies of law; particular difficulties raised in non-international armed conflicts; and the question of economic, social and cultural rights during armed conflict.

Parallel Application of International Humanitarian Law and International Human Rights Law: An Examination of the Debate

Israel Law Review ◽

10.1017/s0021223700013467 ◽

2007 ◽

Vol 40 (2) ◽

pp. 648-660 ◽

Cited By ~ 7

Author(s):

Noam Lubell

Keyword(s):

Human Rights ◽

Armed Conflicts ◽

Critical Examination ◽

International Humanitarian Law ◽

Humanitarian Law ◽

Human Rights Law ◽

International Human Rights ◽

International Human ◽

This article provides a critical examination of the debate over the relationship between international humanitarian law and international human rights law. On the question surrounding the very fact of co-application, it appears that the dominant view supports the co-applicability of the two legal regimes. Opinion is however far from settled on the scope of application of international human rights law, especially insofar as it relates to the issue of extra-territorial applicability. The approach taken in the event of co-applying the two frameworks to specific circumstances, and whether and how one is to use the doctrine of lex specialis, reveals further questions in need of coherent answers. Finally, there remain particular areas in which the co-application faces challenges that must be surmounted, if it is to prove a useful approach. These include the issues of the so-called “war on terror,” the distinction between the jus ad bellum and the jus in bello, non-international armed conflicts, and more. Whilst the co-application of the two regimes is now almost undisputed, it appears therefore that obstacles remain that must be dealt with in order for the relationship of the regimes to be of a fully harmonious nature.

Starvation in Armed Conflicts

Journal of International Criminal Justice ◽

10.1093/jicj/mqz056 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 17 (4) ◽

pp. 723-752 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Simone Hutter

Keyword(s):

Human Rights ◽

Armed Conflict ◽

Armed Conflicts ◽

Humanitarian Law ◽

Human Rights Law ◽

Military Operations ◽

International Human Rights ◽

International Human ◽

The Right

Abstract Armed conflict can cause food shortages, which continue long after the fighting is over, and increase the chance that a famine may occur. When it occurs during the context of an armed conflict, death resulting from hunger is tolerated by the international community. Yet, the prevention or alleviation of famines, even within environmentally precarious regions, is often within human control. This gives rise to the following questions. Can a state use the outbreak of an armed conflict as an excuse to remain passive while starvation takes its course? Is it justified for a state to allocate most of its resources to its military operations, while claiming to have difficulties to collect sufficient resources to meet its minimum core obligations under international human rights law? This article aims to clarify these complex questions and elaborates on how the framework of human rights law includes provisions to prevent starvation in armed conflicts. With a focus on the right to food, this analysis scrutinizes the human rights-based obligations to respect, protect and fulfil, which impose clear duties on states with respect to famines. As it is generally accepted that international human rights law continues to apply in situations of armed conflict, both human rights law and international humanitarian law apply simultaneously in these scenarios. The analysis thus also examines the complex relationship between obligations under human rights law and humanitarian law and the influence of the former on the assessment of latter. Finally, the article touches upon the scope of obligations held by armed non-state actors.

17 International Humanitarian Law and International Human Rights Law

The Oxford Guide to International Humanitarian Law ◽

10.1093/law/9780198855309.003.0017 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Sassòli Marco

Keyword(s):

Human Rights ◽

International Law ◽

Armed Conflicts ◽

International Humanitarian Law ◽

Humanitarian Law ◽

Human Rights Law ◽

International Human Rights ◽

International Human ◽

This chapter assesses the relationship between international human rights law (IHRL) and international humanitarian law (IHL). While IHRL, unlike IHL, was not founded specifically to protect people affected by armed conflicts, both branches of international law apply simultaneously during such conflicts. This raises the question of how they interrelate and also how possible contradictions between them can be resolved. Today, genuine armed conflicts are mainly not of an international character. In such situations, the relationship between IHL and IHRL is particularly controversial and difficult to determine. Nevertheless, both IHL and IHRL lead, in most cases, to the same results. In the few instances where results differ, states could do a lot to harmonize their obligations under both branches, by resorting to derogations permitted under IHRL, one of the means offered by international law to harmonize their IHRL obligations with their IHL obligations. Beyond this, legal reasoning allows for differentiated solutions on when and on which issues one or the other branch prevails.