Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-11T03:19:25.475Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The law of military occupation put to the test of human rights law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

Danio Campanelli
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article outlines the debate on the general relationship between the law of armed conflicts and human rights and examines particularly the applicability of human rights during military occupation. Complementarity and compatibility should be evaluated case by case, on the basis of the rules making up each of these regimes and any exceptions that these rules contain. The different interests and values at stake – the interests of the occupying forces and those of the civilian population, the protection of human rights and the derogations necessary to maintain order – reveal many grey areas that still exist in the interaction between human rights law and the law of military occupation.

Type
Human Rights
Information
International Review of the Red Cross , Volume 90 , Issue 871: Human Rights , September 2008 , pp. 653 - 668
Copyright
Copyright © 2008 International Committee of the Red Cross

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 See Roberts, Adam, ‘Transformative military occupation: applying the laws of war and human rights’, American Journal of International Law (2006), p. 589.Google Scholar

2 Jean Pictet, Humanitarian Law and the Protection of War Victims, Sijthoff/Henry Dunant Institute, Leyden/Geneva, 1975, p. 15.

3 Ibid.

4 First report on the effects of armed conflicts on treaties (report by Mr Ian Brownlie, Special Rapporteur of the International Law Commission), UN Doc. A/CN.4/552, 21 April 2005, para. 84.

5 As the International Committee of the Red Cross writes, ‘The year 1945 marked the close of a war waged on an unprecedented scale; the task had to be faced of developing and adapting the humanitarian elements of International Law in the light of the experience gained’. The Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, ICRC, Geneva, 1989, preliminary remarks, p. 2. See also Roberts, above note 1, p. 590.

6 Geneva Convention relative to the protection of civilian persons in time of war, 12 August 1949.

7 On this point see Kolb, Robert, ‘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’, International Review of the Red Cross, No. 324 (1998) (special issue), pp. 409–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8 See, for example, Yoram Dinstein, ‘Human rights in armed conflict: international humanitarian law’, in Theodor Meron (ed.), Human Rights in International Law, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1985, p. 345 ff.; Pictet, above note 2.

9 Dietrich Schindler, ‘The International Committee of the Red Cross and human rights’, International Review of the Red Cross, No. 208 (1979), p. 14.

10 Ben-Naftali, Orna and Shany, Yuval, ‘Living in denial: the application of human rights in the Occupied Territories’, Israel Law Review, (2003–4), p. 42.Google Scholar

11 European Convention, Art. 15(1), and the American Convention, Art. 27.

12 Art. 4(1).

13 Ben-Naftali and Shany, above note 10, p. 50. See, in particular, the Concluding Observations of the Human Rights Committee: Israel, UN Doc. CCPR/CO/78/ISR (2003), 5 August 2003, para. 11.

14 Benvenisti, Eyal, ‘The applicability of human rights conventions to Israel and to the Occupied Territories’, Israel Law Review (1992), p. 29.Google Scholar

15 Ben-Naftali and Shany, above note 10, p. 49.

16 Roberts, above note 1, p. 591.

17 For further developments on the relationship between human rights and humanitarian law, which cannot be addressed in the present writing, see Marco Sassòli, ‘Le droit international humanitaire, une lex specialis par rapport aux droits humains?’, in Andreas Auer, Alexandre Flückiger and Michel Hottelier (eds.), Les droits de l'homme et la constitution – Etudes en l'honneur du Professeur Giorgio Malinverni, Schulthess, Geneva, 2007, pp. 375–95; ‘La Cour européenne des droits de l'homme et les conflits armés’, in Stephan Breitenmoser et al. (eds.), Droits de l'homme, démocratie et Etat de droit – Liber amicorum Luzius Wildhaber, Nomos Publishers, Baden-Baden, 2007, pp. 709–31; Droege, Cordula, ‘The interplay between international humanitarian law and international human rights law in situations of armed conflict’, Israel Law Review (2007), pp. 310–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

18 See, in this regard, General Assembly Resolutions 2444 (XXIII) of 19 December 1968, 2674 (XXV) of 9 December 1970, 2852 (XXVI) of 20 December 1971, 2853 (XXVI) of 20 December 1971, 3032 (XXVII) of 18 December 1972, 3102 (XXVIII) of 11 December 1973, 3319 (XXIX) of 14 December 1974, 3500 (XXX) of 15 December 1975, 31/19 of 24 November 1976, and 32/44, of 8 December 1977; Security Council Resolutions 1265 (1999) and 1296 (2000); and reports of the Secretary-General, UN Docs. S/1999/957 and S/2005/740.

19 UN General Assembly Resolution 2853 (XXVI) of 29 December 1971, fourth preambular paragraph.

20 ‘Recognizing that existing humanitarian rules relating to armed conflicts do not in all respects meet the need of contemporary situations and that it is therefore necessary to strengthen the procedure for implementing these rules and to develop their substance.’ Ibid., fifth preambular paragraph. See also the third preambular paragraph of General Assembly Resolution 3032 (XXVII) of 18 December 1972, and the first preambular paragraph of General Assembly Resolutions 3319 (XXIX) of 14 December 1974, 3500 (XXX) of 15 December 1975, and 31/19 of 24 November 1976.

21 UN General Assembly Resolution 2852 (XXVI) of 20 December 1971, para. 3(b).

22 Ibid., para. 6.

23 UN Security Council Resolution 1265 (1999), para. 4.

24 UN Security Council Resolution 1296 (2000), para. 19.

25 See UN Security Council Resolutions 1483 (2003) and 1546 (2004).

26 Report of the Secretary-General to the Security Council on the protection of civilians in armed conflict, UN Doc. S/1999/957, 8 September 1999, para. 6.

27 Ibid., para. 35.

28 International Court of Justice, Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, ICJ Reports 1996, p. 240, para. 25.

29 International Court of Justice, Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, ICJ Reports 2004, 9 July 2004, para. 106; Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda), Judgment, ICJ Reports 2005, para. 216.

30 On this point see Dinstein, Yoram, ‘The international law of belligerent occupation and human rights’, Israel Yearbook on Human Rights, 1978, p. 112Google Scholar.

31 Philippe Burrin, ‘Entre guerre et paix: l'occupation militaire’, in Michel Porret, Jean-François Fayet and Carine Fluckiger (eds.), Guerres et paix: Mélanges offerts à Jean-Claude Favez, Georg, Geneva, 2000, pp. 257–66.

32 The European Court of Human Rights did so on two occasions: in Loizidou v. Turkey (1996) and Cyprus v. Turkey (2001). Likewise, the International Court of Justice, in its advisory opinion of 9 July 2004 (Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, above note 29, paras. 107–112), affirmed the applicability of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to the occupied Palestinian territory. See also Concluding Observations of the Human Rights Committee: Israel, UN Doc. CCPR/C/79/Add.93, 18 August 1998, para. 10, available at www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/CCPR.C.79.Add.93.En?Opendocument (last visited 21 October 2008), and Concluding Observations of the Human Rights Committee: Israel, UN Doc. CCPR/CO/78/ISR, 21 August 2003, para. 11, available at www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/CCPR.CO.78.ISR.En?OpenDocument (last visited 21 October 2008). Lastly, it should be noted that a number of recent military manuals – including the United Kingdom military manual of 2004 – contain references concerning respect for human rights during military occupation (see The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, UK Ministry of Defence, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2004, p. 282, para 11.19).

33 Roberts, above note 1, p. 589.

34 Dennis, Michael, ‘Application of human rights treaties extraterritorially in times of armed conflict and military occupation’, American Journal of International Law (2005), p. 139Google Scholar; Roberts, above note 1, p. 600.

35 See, in this regard, Arts. 46, 47 and 52 of the Hague Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land, The Hague, 18 October 1907.

36 See the text accompanying notes 11–13 above.

37 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948; General Assembly Resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948, Art. 2 (emphasis added).

38 Namely, the right to life (Art. 6), the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment (Art. 7), the prohibition of slavery and servitude (Art. 8, paras 1 and 2), the prohibition of arrest on the ground of inability to fulfil a contractual obligation (Art. 11), the principle nulla poena sine lege (Art. 15), the right to recognition as a person before the law (Art. 16) and the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion (Art. 18).

39 Pictet, above note 2, pp. 34 ff.

40 Ben-Naftali and Shany, above note 10, pp. 52–3.

41 See, in particular, the position of Israel and the United States, ibid., p. 17 ff.

42 Concluding Observations: Israel, above note 32, para. 11.

43 As an example, see Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Rights of the Child: Israel, UN Doc. CRC/C/15/Add.195, 9 October 2002, in which the Committee affirms that the Convention on the Rights of the Child is applicable to the occupied Palestinian territories (para. 2); see also Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, UN Doc. CERD/C/304/Add.45, 30 March 1998, in which the Committee invites Israel to report on the implementation of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination ‘in all areas over which it exercises effective control’ (para. 12); lastly see Concluding Observations of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, UN Doc. E/C.12/1/Add.69, 31 August 2001, in which the Committee, after affirming the applicability of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in times of military occupation (para. 11), points out that ‘even during armed conflict, fundamental human rights must be respected and … basic economic, social and cultural rights as part of the minimum standards of human rights are guaranteed under customary international law and are also prescribed by international humanitarian law’ (para. 12).

44 Above note 32, para. 111.

45 The Queen ex parte Al-Skeini and Others v. Secretary of State for Defence, England and Wales Court of Appeal [2005] EWCA Civ 1609, 21 December 2005, available at www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2005/1609.html (last visited 21 October 2008).

46 Ibid., para. 124.

47 Roberts, above note 1, p. 598–9.

48 Art. 42(2) of the Hague Regulations, in the authentic French version, states, ‘L'occupation ne s’étend qu'aux territoires où cette autorité est établie et en mesure de s'exercer’, while Art. 43 states, ‘L'autorité de pouvoir légal ayant passé de fait entre les mains de l'occupant’. For a study of the effectiveness criterion in the law of occupation, see Roberto Ago, Il requisito dell'effettività dell'occupazione in diritto internazionale, ARE, Roma, 1934, p. 125.

49 See, e.g., the cases Gentilhomme v. France, European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) No. 48205/99, 14 May 2002; Banković and Others v. Belgium and 16 Other Contracting States, (dec.) [GC], No. 52207/99, ECtHR 2001-XII; Assanidze v. Georgia [GC], No. 71503/01, ECtHR 2004-II; Ilaşcu and Others v. Moldova and Russia [GC], No. 48787/99, ECtHR 2004-VII; Issa and Others v. Turkey, ECtHR No. 31821/96, 16 November 2004.

50 See Arts. 43–51 of the 1907 Hague Regulations.

51 Benvenisti, The International Law of Occupation, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1992, p. 189.

52 Benvenisti, above note 14, p. 30.

53 Sassòli, Marco, ‘Legislation and maintenance of public order and civil life by occupying powers’, European Journal of International Law (2005), pp. 664–5Google Scholar. In particular, Sassòli focuses on criminal prosecution.

54 Benvenisti, above note 51, p. 189.

55 See Roberts, above note 1, p. 594.

56 See Sassòli, above note 53, pp. 665 ff.

57 Ben-Naftali and Shany, above note 10, p. 104.

58 Dinstein, above note 30, p. 116.

59 UN Security Council Resolution 1483 (2003), para. 8(c), (g) and (i). At the declared end of the occupation, in June 2004, the Security Council entrusted this task to the Special Representative of the Secretary-General and to the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq (Security Council Resolution 1546 (2004), para. 7(b)(iii)).

60 Roberts, above note 1, p. 613.

61 In this regard see ibid., pp. 580–622.