The Application of International Human Rights Law in Non-International Armed Conflicts

From Rhetoric to Action

in Journal of International Humanitarian Legal Studies
Restricted Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?



Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.



Help

Have Institutional Access?



Access content through your institution. Any other coaching guidance?



Connect

Since the end of the Cold War, the world has experienced a decrease in international conflict and a significant increase in non-international armed conflict (niac). Despite this change, however, international law has been very slow in adapting its laws that initially were crafted with international armed conflict in mind to the new niac environment. There is a growing recognition that international humanitarian law (ihl) is not well equipped to deal with issues of human rights violations committed during niac. New efforts to make international human rights law (ihrl) applicable in such conflicts have, however, raised more questions than answers. There is still no consensus on whether international human rights law applies to niac. Furthermore, the question on whether non-international armed groups are bound by international human rights obligations remains controversial. This article tries to analyze where international law stands now of these questions. It proposes steps international law could follow to move from its current rhetoric to a more practical solution on these questions. The three solutions proposed are: individual agreements to respect human rights during armed conflict, the possibility of an icj advisory opinion and the option of a protocol additional to international human rights treaties relating to their application in niac.

Sections

References

17

Communication of 12 May 2003, un Doc. E/cn.4/2004/7/Add.1 (2004), para. 572.

55

 See Hampson, supra note 39, at 559–562.

63

Cassese, supra note 58, at 423–429.

73

 See Zegveld, supra note 58, at 52 (“Many suggest that the application of human rights treaties to armed opposition groups has been exceptional, not reflecting general practice of relevant bodies”.).

96

 See Tomuschat, supra note 77.

103

Tomuschat, supra note 77, at 586.

105

Tomuschat, supra note 77, at 587.

106

Zegveld, supra note 58, at 149.

111

 For more details see Tomuschat, supra note 77, at 577–584.

116

A. Clapham, supra note 77, at 512.

120

Steiner, Alston, and Goodman, supra note 82, at 396.

122

 See Art. 6, Convention IV, supra note 59. Particularly its commentary in Pictet, supra note 104, at 58–64.

133

 See Zegveld, supra note 58, at 210. See also un Commission on Human Rights, supra note 109.

144

Zegveld, supra note 58, at 17 and 51.

150

Meron, supra note 84, at 600.

151

Alston, supra note 72, at 21.

154

 See Hampson, supra note 39, at 572.

160

Zegveld, supra note 58, at 152.

176

Meron, supra note 84 p. 603.

177

Sassoli, supra note 20, at 94.

178

Meron, supra note 84, at 603.

179

Sassoli, supra note 20, at 93–94.

Information

Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 7 7 2
Full Text Views 6 6 5
PDF Downloads 3 3 2
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0