On the relationship between human rights law protection and international humanitarian law

Abstract

As States tend not to be willing to push for the further codification of international humanitarian law and, especially, of mechanisms of implementation, the question is posed as to which developments have been made in the abutting bodies of law and how they influence international humanitarian law. 1 Particular attention must be paid to international human rights law, as today human rights are an integral part of international law for the common welfare of humanity and represent common values that no State may revoke, even in times of war. 2 While international humanitarian law and human rights law vary in terms of origin and the situations in which they apply, the two bodies of law share the objective of protecting and safeguarding individuals in all circumstances. Relationship between international humanitarian law and human rights lawClassic international public law recognized the separation between the law of peace and the law of war. Depending on the state of international relations, either the corpus juris of the law of peace or that of the law of war was applied. The adoption of the United Nations Charter in 1945 and of subsequent major human rights documents changed this surgically clear division. Since then there have been norms which are valid both in peacetime and in times of war. As with every innovation, this development was not immediately accepted by all. In particular, those who subscribed to the so-called separation theory rejected the application of human rights norms during armed conflicts with the argument that they and the norms of the jus in hello were two separate fields, which could not be applied at the same time.' This position is rather surprising because, in classic international public law, human

War Profiteering and Armed Conflicts: Examining Applicable Aspects of International Law

“…77 On this score, Heintze reiterates the fact that human rights instruments generally shows that human rights are an inherent part of the rules governing armed conflicts. 78 What the above discussion shows is that both regimes of law intersect to the extent that, while IHL applies solely to armed conflicts governing the regulation of method and means of warfare by parties to an armed conflict as well as the protection of the civilian population, IHRL applies in both armed conflicts situations as well as in peacetime. 79 Compared to IHL, IHRL is more varied with its sources in a broad range of treaties, customary international law, as well as state practice.…”

Israel’s Associated Regime: Exceptionalism, Human Rights and Alternative Legality

“…140 In this Opinion the ICJ stated the supremacy of humanitarian law over human rights law, designating humanitarian law as lex specialis and conceding that the human right to life might be derogated under humanitarian law. 141 This lex specialis principle, however, should not been seen as applying to the general and overall relationship between the two branches of international law, but rather relating to specific rules in specific circumstances. 142 In both the Nuclear Weapons Advisory Opinion and the Construction of a Wall Advisory Opinion, the ICJ made it clear that human rights continued to apply in time of war, furthering its assertion that the two bodies of law co-exist.…”

Reimagining protection: Dignity, wellbeing and safety

“…Beyond this more pragmatic view of protection, a myriad of conceptualisations and perspectives have been formulated over the years. The legal basis of protection and how international human rights law and international humanitarian law relate to the concept of civilian protection is a traditional starting point (Heintze, 2004). International humanitarian organisations with formal mandates, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) or the UN refugee organisation UNHCR, will often prejudice such an interpretation in their protection activities.…”