Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-11T03:18:10.347Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The relationship between international humanitarian law and human rights law: A brief history of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the 1949 Geneva Conventions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 November 2010

Robert Kolb
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Today there can no longer be any doubt: international humanitarian law and international human rights law are near relations. This oft-repeated observation must now be accepted by all. Many believe that the close relationship between these two areas existed and was perceived “from the outset”. That is not at all the case. Formerly assigned to separate legal categories, it was only under the persistent scrutiny of modern analysts that they revealed the common attributes which would seem to promise many fruitful exchanges in the future. Let us try to clarify the situation.

Type
50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Human rights and international humanitarian law
Information
International Review of the Red Cross (1961 - 1997) , Volume 38 , Special Issue 324: 1948—1998 Human rights and international humanitarian law , September 1998 , pp. 409 - 419
Copyright
Copyright © International Committee of the Red Cross 1998

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.)

References

1 On this point, see “The relationship between international humanitarian law and human rights law: Bibliography”, p. 572.

2 For an overall view of the development of the relationship between the two branches of international law, see Robertson, A.H., “Humanitarian law and human rights”, in Swinarski, C. (éd.), Études el essais sur le droit international humanitaire et sur les principes de la Croix-Rouge/Studies and essays on international humanitarian law and Red Cross principles, en l'honneur de/in honour of Jean Pictet, CICR/Martinus Nijhoff, Genève/La Haye, 1984, p. 793 Google Scholar ; Schindler, D., “The International Committee of the Red Cross and human rights”, IRRC, No. 208, January-February 1979, p. 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3 See for example D. Schindler, ibid., pp. 4–7.

4 A. H. Robertson, op. cit. (note 2), p. 794; D. Schindler, op. cit. (note 2), p. 7; Migliazza, A., “L'évolution de la réglementation de la guerre à la lumière de la sauvegarde des droits de l'homme”, RCADI, Vol. 137, 1972-III, pp. 164–165.Google Scholar

5 Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1949, p. 281. par. 18: “It was considered that if the Commission, at the very beginning of its work, were to undertake this study [on the laws of war], public opinion might interpret its action as showing lack of confidence in the efficiency of the means at the disposal of the United Nations for maintaining peace”. On this point, see the more apt comments of members of the International Law Institute, in 1957, on the reconsideration of the principles of the law of war, Annuaire de l'Institut de droit international, Vol. 47–1, 1957, p. 323 ff.Google Scholar , and the opinion of the rapporteur J.-P. A. Francois (ibid., p. 367 ff.). See also Kunz, J., “The chaotic status of the laws of war and the urgent necessity for their revision”, American Journal of International Law, Vol. 45, 1951, p. 37 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; J. Kunz, “The laws of war”, ibid., Vol. 50, 1956, p. 313 ff.; Lauterpacht, H., “The revision of the laws of war”, British Yearbook of International Law, Vol. 29, 1952, p. 360 ff.Google Scholar

6 See for example the remarks made by Sokal (Poland) and Politis (Greece) in the Disarmament Commission: League of Nations, Preparatory Committee for the Disarmament Conference, 8th Series, 1929, pp. 87 and 91Google Scholar ; contra: Rutgers (Netherlands), ibid., p. 90. See also the characteristic comment of Strupp, K., Elements du droit international public universel européen et américain. Vol. II, Paris, 1930, p. 503 Google Scholar , note 1, whereby jus in hello is subordinated to the preventive law of war. Sereni, A.P., Diritto internazionale, Vol. IV, Milan, 1965, p. 1823 Google Scholar ff., believes this to be an “illusion”. In general, see Kunz, J., “Plus de lois de la guerre?”. Revue générate de droit international public, Vol. 41, 1934, p. 22 ff. and p. 40 ff.Google Scholar

7 See the amendment proposed by Woolton (United Kingdom) and adopted by the 17th International Conference of the Red Cross (Stockholm, 1948). It urged the ICRC, “in view of the non-political character of the constituent bodies of the International Red Cross, to exercise the greatest care in regulating [its] relationship with intergovernmental, governmental or non-governmental organizations”. Seventeenth International Red Cross Conference. Report, Stockholm, 1948, p. 48.Google Scholar

8 D. Schindler, op. cit. (note 2), p. 7. See also Lossier, J. G., “The Red Cross and International (sic) Declaration of Human Rights”, IRRC, No. 5, May 1949, p. 184–189.Google Scholar

9 For a synoptic table of the stages in the preparatory work, see Eide, A. et al. (eds), The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: A commentary, Oslo, 1992, p. 3 Google Scholar . On debates in the Third Committee, see doc. A/C.43/SR.88–116, 119–170, 174–178. On older literature: Economic and Social Council, Bibliography on the Protection of Human Rights, E/CN.4/540 (1951), pp. 36–40.

10 See the Report of the Drafting Committee to the Commission on Human Rights, suggestions submitted by the representative of France (R. Cassin), doc. E.CN.4/21, pp. 48 and 68; see also the comment of Mexico, doc. E/CN.4/85. p. 8.

11 Doc. A/C.3/SR.116, p. 268.

12 “…in a peaceful world, it was essential to ensure respect for human rights.” UN General Assembly, Plenary sessions, Third session, 181st meeting, p. 886.

13 Draft Article 26 read as follows: “Everyone is entitled to a good social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set out in this Declaration can be fully realized”. See Economic and Social Council, Third Year, Seventh Session, Supplement No. 2, p. 11.

14 Doc. A/C.3/SR.152, p. 639.

15 Cassin, R., “La declaration universelle et la mise en œuvre des droits de l'homme”, RCADI, Vol. 79, 1951–11, p. 297 ff.Google Scholar The Covenant on human rights was finally adopted in 1966.

16 See. for example, the observations of Australia (doc. E/CN.4/85, p. 5) and the United States (ibid., p. 6).

17 Report of the Drafting Committee, doc. E/CN.4/21, p. 31; also doc. E/CN.4/95, p. 17, E/CN.4/85, p. 59 ff., E/600. Annex B, p. 32 ff. and E/800, p. 17.

18 Quentin-Baxter, R., “Human rights and humanitarian law—confluence or conflict?”. Australian Yearbook of International Law, Vol. 9, 1985, p. 101.Google Scholar

19 Final Record of the Diplomatic Conference of Geneva of 1949, Vol. II, Section A, p. 165.

20 Ibid., p. 323.

21 Jean Pictet (ICRC), ibid., p. 166.

22 Ibid., pp. 813 and 691 ff.

23 De Alba (Mexico), ibid., p. 692; de Geouffre de la Pradelle (Monaco), ibid., p. 693; Cohen-Salvador (France), ibid., p. 696; Nassif (Lebanon), ibid., p. 695. See also the comments of the rapporteur, ibid., p. 777 ff.

24 Ibid., p. 393.

25 Ibid., p. 780.

26 See the preamble to the Convention (IV) respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, The Hague, 1907.

27 Final Record (supra, note 19), p. 466. The special nature of the Martens clause stems from the fact that it mentions the rights of man rather than the principles of international law. Elsewhere this reference to human rights was replaced by the term “humanitarian principles” (Devijver, ibid., p. 480; see also the Report of Committee II, ibid., p. 562).

28 “Nothing in the present Article shall be interpreted in such a way as to deprive persons not covered by the categories named in the said Article of their human rights and in particular of their right to self-defence against illegal acts as it is contained in their national legislation in force before the outbreak of hostilities or occupation”, ibid., p. 480 (Danish amendment). On this subject see the critical comments of Gardner (United Kingdom), ibid., p. 408, and Cohn's reply, Final Record (supra, note 19), Vol. II, Section B, p. 267 ff.

29 Ibid., Vol. II, Section A, p. 671.

30 Ibid., Vol. II, Section B, p. 333.

31 Ibid., p. 536.

32 Ibid., Vol. II, Section A, p. 813 ff.

33 Ibid., p. 321.

34 See Draper, G.I.A.D., “The relationship between the human rights regime and the law of armed conflict”, Israel Yearbook on Human Rights, Vol. 1, 1971, p. 205.Google Scholar

35 See, for example, R. Quentin Baxter, op. cit. (note 18), p. 101; Junod, S., “Human Rights and Protocol II”, IRRC, No. 236, September-October 1983, p. 246 CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; D. Schindler, op. cit. (note 2), p. 8; Doswald-Beck, L./Vité, S., “International humanitarian law and human rights law”, IRRC, No. 293, March-April 1993, p. 119 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; Solf, W. A., “Human rights in armed conflict: Some observations on the relationship of human rights law to the law of armed conflict”, in Han, H. H. (ed), World in Transition: Challenges to Human Rights, Development and World Order, Washington, 1979, p. 43 Google Scholar .—Even authors hostile to any convergence of the traditional law of war and human rights law admit that Article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions constitutes “the sole meeting point” between the two branches of law: Meyrowitz, H., “Le droit de la guerre et les droits de l'homme”, Revue du droit public et de la science politique en France et à l'étranger, Vol. 88, 1972, p. 1104.Google Scholar

36 Gutteridge, J. A. C., “The Geneva Conventions of 1949”, British Yearbook of International Law, Vol. 26, 1949, p. 300.Google Scholar

37 Ibid., p. 325.

38 Commentary published under the general editorship of Pictet, Jean S.: Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field (First Geneva Convention), ICRC, Geneva, 1952 Google Scholar ; Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (Third Geneva Convention), ICRC, Geneva, 1960 Google Scholar ; Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (Fourth Geneva Convention), ICRC, Geneva, 1960.Google Scholar

39 Article 7 and Commentary on the First Geneva Convention, p. 82; Article 7 and Commentary on the Third Geneva Convention, p. 91; Article 8 and Commentary on the Fourth Geneva Convention, p. 78.

40 Article 27 and Commentary on the Fourth Geneva Convention, p. 200.

41 Article 32 and Commentary on the Fourth Geneva Convention, p. 223.

42 Article 99 and Commentary on the Third Convention, p. 470; Article 71 and Commentary on the Fourth Convention, p. 353 with, in note 1, a reference to the Universal Declaration.

43 Article 80 and Commentary on the Fourth Geneva Convention, p. 374.

44 Article 101 and Commentary on the Fourth Geneva Convention, p. 436.

45 Articles 79 ff. of the Fourth Geneva Convention deal with the internment of civilians.

46 Commentary on the Fourth Geneva Convention, p. 372 ff.

47 Ibid., p. 373.