157. One of the most contentious issues is the degree of synergy that exists between the law of belligerent occupation and the law of human rights. The doctrinal debate is confounded by two countervailing linguistic snags. On the one hand, there is an etymological affinity between the cognate terms ‘humanitarian’ – central to the expression ‘international humanitarian law’ (IHL) – and ‘human’ in ‘human rights’. On the other hand, the jargon of human rights scholars and the argot used by IHL (LOIAC) experts often sound like two different dialects. Even the staple phrase ‘effective control’ may have a different connotation in LOIAC and in human rights law. The disharmony in the use of the phrase caught the limelight in the UK House of Lords decision in the Al-Skeini case of 2007.

The international law of human rights

Before we get into the substance of the interaction between human rights and LOIAC, a compact aperçu of the law of human rights is in order. This law (which establishes corresponding obligations for States) is of quite recent origins in international law, having developed largely in the post-WWII era. Yet, by now, there exists a rich normative tapestry of international human rights. The interwoven threads consist of both customary jus non scriptum (obligating all States) and jus scriptum. The written law is mostly treaty law (see infra 159), but the seminal instrument is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1948.