Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-21T03:28:35.894Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

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

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2014

Noam Lubell
Get access

Abstract

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.

Type
Research Article
Information
Israel Law Review , Volume 40 , Issue 2 , Summer 2007 , pp. 648 - 660
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and The Faculty of Law, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Lecturer in International Human Rights Law, Irish Centre for Human Rights, National University of Ireland, Galway.

References

1 Draper, G.I.A.D., The Relationship between the Human Rights Regime and the Law of Armed Conflicts, 1 Isr. Y.B. Hum. Rts. 191 (1971)Google Scholar; Suter, K., An Inquiry into the Meaning of the Phrase “Human Rights in Armed Conflicts,” 15 Revue de Droit Pénal Militaire et de Droit de la Guerre 393, 394 (1976)Google Scholar.

2 International Conference on Human Rights, April 22-May 13, 1968, Proclamation of Tehran, UN Doc. A/CONF. 32/41 (1968).

3 In addition to the majority of views in this volume, see, e.g., Doswald-Beck, L. & Vité, S., International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights Law, 293 Int'l Rev. Red Cross 94 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; UN Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights Working Paper, Francoise Hampson & Ibrahim Salama, The Relationship between Human Rights Law and International Humanitarian Law, UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/2005/14 (June 21, 2005).

4 Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 29: States of Emergency (article 4), ¶3, UN Doc. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.11 (July 24, 2001).

5 The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Concluding Observation: Israel; UN Doc. E/C.12/1/Add.69 (Aug, 31, 2001).

6 Bámaca-Velásquez v. Guatemala, Case No. Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (Ser. C.) No. 70, at 28 (Nov. 25, 2000); Abella v. Argentina, Case 11.137, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., No. 55/97, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.95 Doc. 7 rev. at 271 (Nov. 18, 1997).

7 The Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, 1996 I.C.J. 226 (July 8), at para. 25 [hereinafter Nuclear Weapons case]; Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, 2004 I.C.J. 136 (July 9), at para. 106 [hereinafter Wall case]; Case Concerning Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (DRC v. Uganda), 2005 I.C.J. 116, (Dec. 19), at paras. 216-217 [hereinafter DRC v. Uganda].

8 For a further comprehensive publication devoted to this subject, see Extraterritorial Application of Human Rights Treaties (Coomans, F. & Kamminga, M. eds., 2004)Google Scholar. See also Cerone, John, Jurisdiction and Power: The Intersection of Human Rights Law & the Law of Non-International Armed Conflict in an Extraterritorial Context, 40(2) Isr. L. Rev. 396 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Dennis, Michael, Non-Application of Civil and Political Rights Extraterritorially During Times of International Armed Conflict, 40(2) Isr. L. Rev. 453 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Droege, Cordula, The Interplay Between International Humanitarian Law and International Human Rights Law in Situations of Armed Conflict, 40(2) Isr. L. Rev. 310 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; McGoldrick, Dominic, Human Rights and Humanitarian Law in the UK Courts, 40(2) Isr. L. Rev. 527 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wilde, Ralphe, Triggering State Obligations Extraterritorially: the Spatial Test in Certain Human Rights Treaties, 40(2) Isr. L. Rev. 503 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9 Especially the phrase of “within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction” in International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, art. 2(1), Dec. 16, 1966, 999 U.N.T.S 171.

10 X v. United Kingdom, App. No.7547/76, 12 Eur. Comm'n H.R. Dec. & Rep. 73 (1977); see also mention of the ECHR position of this in Al-Skeini v. Sec. of State for Defence [2005] EWCA 1609 (Civ.), at para. 48 [hereinafter Al-Skeini (CA)].

11 Loizidou v. Turkey, 310 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A)(1995)(Preliminary Objections), at para. 62-64 [hereinafter Loizidou (Preliminary Objections)]. Cyprus v. Turkey, 2001–IV Eur. Ct. H.R., at para. 77 (GC); Wall case, supra note 7, at paras. 107-112; Concluding Observations: Israel, ¶10, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/79/Add.93 (Aug. 18, 1998).

12 Id.

13 Banković v. Belgium, 2001–XII Eur. Ct. H.R., at paras. 70-71 (GC) 333.

14 Loizidou (Preliminary Objections), supra note 11; Cyprus v. Turkey, supra note 11; X v. United Kingdom, supra note 10; Hess v. United Kingdom, App. No. 6231/73, 2 Eur. Comm'n H.R. Dec. & Rep. 72(1975).

15 Issa v. Turkey, 41 Eur. Ct. H.R. 27 (2004).

16 Öcalan v. Turkey, Eur. Ct. H.R (GC) Judgment of May 12, 2005, available at http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?item=l&portal=hbkm&action=html&highlight=%D6calan&sessionid=1751995&skin=hudoc-en (last visited August 12, 2007).

17 Ilaşcu v. Moldova and Russia, 2004-VII Eur. Ct. H. R. (GC).

18 Hague Regulations Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land (annex to the Convention (IV) Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, art. 42 (1), Oct.18, 1907, 36 Stat. 2277. “Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.”

19 Al-Skeini v. Sec. of State for Defence [2004] EWHC 2911 (Admin.)[hereinafter Al-Skeini (HC)]; Al Skeini (CA), supra note 10.

20 Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 31 [80]: Article 2 of the Covenant: The Nature of the General Legal Obligation Imposed on States Parties to the Covenant, ¶10, UN Doc. CCPR/C/74/CRP.4/Rev.6, (May 26, 2004) [hereinafter General Comment No. 31]. See also Human Rights Committee, Delia Saldias de Lopez v. Uruguay, Communication No. 52/1979, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/OP/1 at 88 (1984); Alejandre Jr. et al. v. Republica de Cuba (“Brothers to the Rescue”) Case 11.589, Inter-Am. C.H.R., Report No. 86/99, OEA/Ser.L/V/II. 106 Doc. 3 rev. (1999), at 586, para. 23; Issa v. Turkey, supra note 15.

21 See also R. Lawson, Life After Bankovic: On the Extraterritorial Application of the European Convention on Human Rights, in Coomans & Kamminga, supra note 8, at 83, 120; See the opinion of Lord Justice Sedley: “it is not an answer to say that the UK, because it is unable to guarantee everything, is required to guarantee nothing.” Al-Skeini (CA), supra note 10, at para. 197; Meron recognizes that not all ICCPR obligations are equally suited to extra-territorial application, see Meron, T., Agora: The 1994 U.S. Action in Haiti: Extraterritoriality of Human Rights Treaties, 89 Am. J. Int'l L. 78, 80 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; M. Scheinin, Extraterritorial Effect of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, in Coomans & Kamminga, supra note 8, at 73, 76-77.

22 Loizidou (Preliminary Objections), supra note 11, at paras. 62-64; Cyprus v. Turkey, supra note 11, at para. 77.

23 Hess v. United Kingdom, supra note 14; Coard v. the United States of America, Case 10.951, Inter-Am. C.H.R., OEA/ser.L/V/II.106.doc.3rev, ¶37 (1999); Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., Decision on Request for Precautionary Measures (Detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba) 41 ILM 532 (2002); Al-Skeini (HC), supra note 19.

24 Al Skeini (HC), supra note 19; Al-Jedda v. Sec. of State for Defence [2006] EWCA 327 (Civ.).

25 For an approach that appears to lead in this direction, see Martin, F. F., Using International Human Rights Law for Establishing a Unified Use of Force Rule in the Law of Armed Conflict, 64 Sask L. Rev. 347 (2001)Google Scholar.

26 See discussion of foundations of the two bodies of law in sources cited in supra note 3; See also Vinuesa, R. E., Interface, Correspondence and Convergence of Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law, 1 Y.B. Int'l Human. L. 69 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Provost, René, International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

27 U.N. Sub-commission for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, supra note 3, at para. 45.

28 Prud'homme, Nancie, Lex Specialis: Oversimplifying a More Complex and Multifaceted Relationship?, 40(2) Isr. L. Rev. 356 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

29 Schabas, William A., Lex Specialis? Belt and Suspenders? The Parallel Operation of Human Rights Law and the Law of Armed Conflict, and the Conundrum of Jus ad Bellum, 40(2) Isr. L. Rev. 592 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

30 Supra note 7.

31 Roberts, A., The Laws of War in the War on Terror, 32 Isr. Y.B. Hum. Rts. 193, 225–244 (2003); Third Expert Meeting on the Notion of Direct Participation in Hostilities: Summary Report, available at http://www.icrc.org/Web/eng/siteengO.nsf/htmlall/participation-hostilities-ihl-311205/$File/Direct_participation_in_hostilities_2005_eng.pdf Google Scholar (last visited June 16, 2007).

32 Aoláin, Fionnuala Ni, The No-Gaps Approach to Parallel Application in the Context of the War on Terror, 40(2) Isr. L. Rev. 563 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

33 Provost, René, The International Committee of the Red Widget? The Diversity Debate and International Humanitarian Law, 40(2) Isr. L. Rev. 614 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

34 Pincus, W., U.S. Strike Kills Six in Al Qaeda, Washington Post, November 5, 2002 Google Scholar; Pakistan Tries to Ease Tension after US Attack, Financial Times, January 16, 2006.

35 While State armed forces are not considered civilians, practice is not clear as to whether members of armed opposition groups are civilians subject to Rule 6 on loss of protection from attack in the event of direct participation or whether members of such groups are liable to attack as such, independently of the operation of Rule 6. This is a quote needs to be in 1 Henckaerts, J. & Doswald-Beck, L., Customary International Humanitarian Law 19, & 17–24 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; see also International Humanitarian Law and the Challenges of Contemporary Armed Conflicts, 28th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, ICRC, Geneva, 2003, 27–36, available at http://www.icrc.org/Web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/5XRDCC (last visited June 16, 2007)Google Scholar.

36 Eight UN Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials, ¶9, UN Doc. A/CONF.144/28/Rev.1 (1990); G.A. Res. 34/169, UN Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials, annex, ¶3, 34 UN GAOR Supp. (No. 46) UN Doc. A/34/46 (1979); McCann and Others v. United Kingdom, 21 Eur. H.R. Rep. 97 (1995), at paras. 147-149; Boyle, C.K., The Concept of Arbitrary Deprivation of Life, in The Right to Life in International Law 221 (Ramcharan, B.G. ed., 1985)Google Scholar.

37 See e.g., the articles in this volume by McGoldrick, supra note 8; Dennis, supra note 8; Droege, supra note 8; see also Lubell, Noam, Challenges in Applying Human Rights Law to Armed Conflict, 860 Int'l Rev. Red Cross 737 (Dec. 2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.