Occupazione militare e tutela della proprietŕ privata

Author(s):  
Noemi Corso

Moving from the complementary relationship between International Humanitarian Law and International Human Rights Law, this article analyses the issue of private property in occupied territory from the civilians perspective. In the attempt to verify if contemporaneous practice has modified customary international law obligations of Occupying Powers, the Author highlights the complex and heterogeneous evolution of the protection of the right to private property. On the one hand, practice confirms the strengthening of its safeguard by the extensive interpretation of the absolute prohibition on confiscation, forbidding an occupying power to take "permanent" measures of dispossession and de facto transfer of title. The same result is achieved by the enlargement of the material scope of application of the crime of pillage, and by the narrow interpretation of the derogation clause of the "absolute necessity of military operations", contained in the rule prohibiting the destruction of private property. Moreover, practice's development proves the existence of a privileged class of assets (such as foodstuffs, houses, or medical supplies), whose essential nature to the well-being of the civilian population makes them object of a stronger guarantee. On the other hand, recent trends show a weakening in the protection of the right to private property, above all within the context of prolonged occupation as well as trans- formative one. The occupant's widest powers of requisition of private property in these particular cases interfere in a deeper manner with the enjoyment of the right in hand, partly justified by the more and more flexible interpretation given to the general conservationist principle of military occupation law. Actually, this weakening is only apparent. From a broader point of view, the less protection of the right to private property is counterbalanced by the use of the proportionality test, to assess if occupying power action respects the other human rights of the civilian population.

1992 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 118-132 ◽  
Author(s):  
James Griffin

I want to look at one aspect of the human good: how it serves as the basis for judgments about the moral right. One important view is that the right is always derived from the good. I want to suggest that the more one understands the nature of the human good, the more reservations one has about that view.I. OneRoute toConsequentialismMany of us think that different things make a life good, with no one deep value underlying them all. My own list includes: enjoyment, accomplishing something with one's life, deep personal relations, certain sorts of understanding, and the elements of a characteristically human existence (autonomy, liberty).Most of us also think that moral right and wrong are based, in some way or other, in how well individual lives go, and that the moral point of view is, in some sense or other, impartial between lives. Utilitarianism is a prominent, but not the only, way of spelling out this intuition. There is no reason why an account of the human good needs to be confined, in the classical utilitarian way, to happiness or to fulfillment of desire (on the usual understanding of that notion). Nor is there any reason why impartiality has to be confined to maximizing the good, counting everybody for one and nobody for more than one. We may generalize.Let us broaden the notion of the good. We might say, for instance, that though happiness is a good, so are the other items on my list. But though broadened, this notion of the good stays within the confines of individual goods; it still has to do with human well-being, with what promotes the quality of one person's life.


Author(s):  
Gentian Zyberi ◽  
Anna Andersson

This chapter analyses from a European perspective the complex relationship between international human rights law (IHRL) and international humanitarian law (IHL) in the context of multinational military operations. In construing a European perspective, the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) is given specific attention. Due attention is also paid to relevant documents by the Council of Europe (CoE), the EU, UN organs, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), as well as state practice. The chapter adopts an instrumental approach, inquiring whether the interaction between IHRL and IHL helps to ensure a higher level of protection for civilians and civilian objects from the effects of armed conflicts. After discussing their shared foundational value, namely protecting human dignity, the degree of convergence between IHRL and IHL is assessed in four main areas, namely the protection of civilians, the right to humanitarian assistance, detention, and the right to reparations for victims of armed conflicts.


Author(s):  
J.F.R. Boddens Hosang

This chapter analyses the interaction between rules of engagement (ROE) and international human rights law. To support the analysis, the chapter first discusses the extraterritorial applicability of international human rights law in the context of international military operations, drawing on the case law of several human rights law bodies. The chapter then discusses the interaction between international humanitarian law (IHL) and international human rights law, including a discussion of the differences in meaning of the concepts of necessity and proportionality in each paradigm. The role of international human rights law in the ROE is discussed, especially regarding the right to life.


2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 723-752 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simone Hutter

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.


Author(s):  
Hans Boddens Hosang

The chapter explores the challenges related to the conduct of operations and the preparations for such operations as regards implementing international humanitarian law and international human rights law, exploring some of the differences between the two systems. In particular, the concepts of necessity and proportionality are examined, as well as the right to life and issues related to capture and detention, and the different meanings of those concepts and their scope in each of the two paradigms. As regards international humanitarian law, the chapter also discusses a number of challenges to interoperability in multinational military operations. The discussion on international human rights law, on the other hand, focuses on the inherent challenges in implementing that body of law in the context of (multinational) military operations outside a nation’s own borders.


Author(s):  
Petra Molnar

This chapter focuses on how technologies used in the management of migration—such as automated decision-making in immigration and refugee applications and artificial intelligence (AI) lie detectors—impinge on human rights with little international regulation, arguing that this lack of regulation is deliberate, as states single out the migrant population as a viable testing ground for new technologies. Making migrants more trackable and intelligible justifies the use of more technology and data collection under the guide of national security, or even under tropes of humanitarianism and development. Technology is not inherently democratic, and human rights impacts are particularly important to consider in humanitarian and forced migration contexts. An international human rights law framework is particularly useful for codifying and recognizing potential harms, because technology and its development are inherently global and transnational. Ultimately, more oversight and issue specific accountability mechanisms are needed to safeguard fundamental rights of migrants, such as freedom from discrimination, privacy rights, and procedural justice safeguards, such as the right to a fair decision maker and the rights of appeal.


2021 ◽  
pp. 092405192199274
Author(s):  
Cathérine Van de Graaf

Fair procedures have long been a topic of great interest for human rights lawyers. Yet, few authors have drawn on research from other disciplines to enrich the discussion. Social psychological procedural justice research has demonstrated in various applications that, besides the final outcome, the manner in which one’s case is handled matters to people as well. Such research has shown the impact of procedural justice on individuals’ well-being, their acceptance of unfavourable decisions, perceptions of legitimacy and public confidence. The ECtHR has confirmed the desirability of these effects in its fair trial jurisprudence. Thus far, it remains unclear to what extent the guarantees offered by Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights (the right to a fair trial) coincide with the findings of empirical procedural justice research. This article aims to rectify this and uncover similarities between the two disciplines.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document