The aim of the article is to present the current state of interaction between the hrl and the loac, and to discuss the possibility of using the hrl to tame the recent tendencies in interpretation of the loac as the norms authorizing the use of force. These expansive tendencies in interpretation of the loac are particularly prominent and dangerous if we take into account the impact of globalisation with its technological development and the corresponding more global character of warfare. Globalisation facilitates states’ use of power including in the form of armed force. Therefore, the need to consider to what extent and how human rights can restrain this growing power of states. The first part addresses the tension between these two regimes in terms of the increasingly broad territorial scope of application. It examines whether the loac can be applied worldwide and whether the hrl can be applied extraterritorially. The second part describes the main differences between the principles of the loac and the hrl on the use of lethal force. Those differences often are interpreted as excluding any possibility of applying both regimes in armed conflicts, particularly by members of armed forces who – allegedly – cannot live up to legal expectations of law enforcement operations and combat operations at the same time. The third part is devoted to the possible application of the hrl and the loac at the same time in all armed conflicts, and to the theoretical and practical results of this solution.