Conflict of Laws Cross to Public International Laws: The Conflicting Models in the Conceptualisation of Disability Rights Under International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights Law

An Analysis of the Adequacy of Protection Afforded by the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) in Situations of Armed Conflict

“…Traditionally, IHRL and IHL have been two distinctive branches of public international law ( [9], [28] (p. 311)). The International Law Commission's report mentioned that IHRL relates to the protection of individual rights from the abusive behaviours of state actors [29], whereas IHL aims to minimise unnecessary suffering inflicted on non-combatants and those combatants that have withdrawn from taking part in armed hostilities [30] Common Article 3.…”

“…Therefore, the underpinning of the medical model of disability in public laws that are conventionally most suited to states of "jus in bellum" must help in appreciating the significance of armed conflict-disabling trends in shaping the disability-related obligations of state and non-state actors across the spectrum of "jus ad bellum", "jus in bello" and "jus post bellum". Such a perspective is important for analysing the role of protective obligations under international disability law that are tailor-made for solving the varied trend of problems when it comes to persons with disabilities before, during and after situations of armed conflict [9,64].…”

“…Additionally for purposes of streamlining disability and its obligations under these fields of public international law, having similar approaches to disability remains an area of law that IHL and the CRPD might need to address for future complementarity between IHRL and IHL [9]. Certainly, the research foresees a need for complementarity in defining disability as part of the solutions to the problems facing persons with disabilities during and after armed conflicts.…”

“…In responding to the above concerns, the essay shall be investigating and analyses how the conceptualisation of disability-related obligations under the CRPD treaty and the conceptualisation of similar obligations under IHL might have some contradictions [9] (p. 54). This analysis contends that such contradictions could arise from the likelihood of having irreconcilable inconsistences in models and approaches to the understanding of disability and disabling factors in the two treaty regimes [10].…”

“…Thus, the model advances the argument that problems of persons with disabilities necessitate adaptation of measures that are externally supportive to persons with disabilities rather than focusing on their impairments [16] (pp. [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16].…”