Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T10:48:56.639Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the relationship between human rights law protection and international humanitarian law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 April 2010

Hans-Joachim Heintze
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Research Article
Information
International Review of the Red Cross , Volume 86 , Issue 856 , December 2004 , pp. 789 - 814
Copyright
Copyright © International Committee of the Red Cross 2004

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 This approach is in line with the ICRC's Avenir statement, which stresses that “the relationship between humanitarian law and human rights law must be strengthened.” See Forsythe, David, “1949 and 1999: Making the Geneva Conventions relevant after the Cold War”, International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 81, No. 834, 1999, p. 271Google Scholar.

2 Tomuschat, Christian, “Obligations arising for States against their will”, Recueil des Cours, No. 241, Vol. IV/1993, Nijhoff, The Hague, 1994, p. 195Google Scholar.

3 See Kimminich, Otto, Schutz der Menschen in bewaffneten Konflikten, Beck, München, 1979, p. 28Google Scholar.

4 Bluntschli, Johann Caspar, Das moderne Volkerrecht der civilisierten Staaten, 3rd ed., Beck, Nördlingen 1878, para. 529Google Scholar.

5 Preamble, Convention (IV) respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, signed at The Hague, 18 October 1907, in: Schindler, Dietrich and Toman, Jiri (eds.), The Law of Armed Conflicts: A Collection of Conventions, Resolutions and Other Documents, 4th ed., Nijhoff, Leiden, 2004, p. 55Google Scholar.

6 Fleck, Dieter (ed.), Handbook of Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflict, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1995Google Scholar.

7 Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, ICJ Reports 1996, para. 26.

8 Legal consequences of the construction of a wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, 9 July 2004, paras. 102–106. Not yet published but available at the website of the ICJ:

http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket/imwp/imwpframe.htm (last visited 25 October 2004).

9 UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1991/55.

10 See Rossas, Allan and Meron, Theodor, “Combatting lawlessness in grey zone conflicts through minimum humanitarian standards”, American Journal of International Law, Vol. 89, No. 2, 1995, p. 215Google Scholar.

11 Cerna, Christina M., “Human rights in armed conflict: Implementation of international humanitarian law norms by regional intergovernmental human rights bodies”, in Kalshoven, Frits and Sandoz, Yves (eds.), Implementation of International Humanitarian Law, ICRC, Geneva, 1989, p. 39Google Scholar.

12 Heintze, Hans-Joachim, “Children need more protection under international humanitarian law — Recent developments concerning Article 38 of the UN Child Convention as a challenge to the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement”, Humanitäres Völkerrecht — Informationsschriften, Vol. 8, No. 3, 1995, p. 200Google Scholar.

13 UN Doc. E/CN.4/1989, p. 55, Add.1, p. 6.

14 This aspect was not taken into consideration by Happold, Matthe, “The Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict”, in: Fischer, Horst (ed.), Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law, Vol. 3, 2000, Asser Press, The Hague, 2002, p. 242Google Scholar.

15 Stephens, Dale, “Human rights and armed conflict: The Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice in the Nuclear Weapons case”, Yale Human Rights & Development Law journal, Vol. 4, No. 1, p. 2Google Scholar.

16 According to Sperber, Melysa H., “John Walker Lindh and Yaser Esam Hamdi: Closing the loophole in international humanitarian law for American nationals captured abroad while fighting with enemy forces”, American Criminal Law Review, Vol. 40, Winter 2003, p. 239Google Scholar, human rights law is invoked by an individual against a State. However, humanitarian law is not at present enforced against a State by individuals. See also Quénivet, Noelle, “The Varvarin case: The legal standing of individuals as subjects of international humanitarian law”, Journal of Military Ethics, Vol. 3, No. 2, 2004, pp. 181–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

17 Gasser, Hans-Peter, “International humanitarian law and human rights law in non-international armed conflict: Joint venture or mutual exclusion?”, German Yearbook of International Law, Vol. 45, Duncker & Humblot, Berlin, 2002, p. 162Google Scholar.

18 See e.g. David Forsythe, op. cit. (note 1), p. 271. The Human Rights Sub-Commission of the UN Commission on Human Rights also refers in its Resolution 1989/26 to “Convergence”.

19 Meron, Theodor, Human Rights in Internal Strife: Their International Protection, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1987, p. 28Google Scholar.

20 Walter Kälin (ed.), Human Rights in Times of Occupation: The Case of Kuwait”, Stimpfli, Bern, 1994, p. 27.

21 UNTS, Vol. 993, p. 3.

22 UNTS, Vol. 1465, p. 85. See Blatt, Deborah, “Recognizing rape as a method of torture”, New York University Review of Law and Social Change, Vol. 19, No. 4, 1994, P. 821Google Scholar.

23 Walter Kälin, op. cit. (note 20), p. 27.

24 UN Doc. S/1999/957.

25 Ibid., para. 36.

26 Fleck, Dieter, “Humanitarian protection against non-State actors”, in: Frowein, Jochen A. et al. (eds.), Verhandeln für den Frieden, Liber Amicorum Tono Eitel, Springer, Berlin, 2003, p. 78Google Scholar.

27 Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, op. cit. (note 7), p. 26.

28 According to Greenwood this viewpoint was taken by Malaysia, Salomon Islands and Egypt. See Greenwood, Christopher J., “Jus beltum and jus in bello in the Nuclear Weapons Advisory Opinion”, in: de Chazournes, Laurence Boisson and Sands, Philippe (eds.), International Law, the International Court of Justice and Nuclear Weapons, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1999, p. 253Google Scholar.

29 Legal consequences of the construction of a wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, op. cit. (note 8), para. 101.

30 UN Doc. CCPR/C/74/CPR.4/Rev.6.

31 Laurence Boisson de Chazournes and Philippe Sands, op. cit. (note 29), p. 253.

32 Matheson, Michael J., “The opinions of the International Court of Justice on the threat or use of nuclear weapons”, American Journal of International Law, Vol. 91, No. 3, 1997, p. 423CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

33 See Reimann, Heinrich B., “Menschenrechtsstandard in bewaffneten Konflikten”, in: Swinarski, Christophe (ed.), Studies and Essays on International Humanitarian Law and Red Cross Principles in Honour of Jean Pictet, ICRC and Nijhoff, Geneva and The Hague, 1984, p. 773Google Scholar.

34 Vbneky, Silja, Die Fortgeltung des Umweltvölkerrechts in internationalen bewajfneten Konflikten, Springer, Berlin, 2001, p. 286Google Scholar.

35 Gardam, Judith, “The contribution of the International Court of Justice to international humanitarian law”, Leiden Journal of International Law, Vol. 14, No. 2, 2001, p. 353CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

36 See Drewicki, Krzysztof, “The possible shape of a reporting system for international humanitarian law: Topics to be addressed”, in: Bothe, Michael (ed.). Towards a Better Implementation of International Humanitarian Law, Berlin Verlag, Berlin, 2001, p. 73Google Scholar.

37 UN Doc. HRI/ICM/2003/3, para. 15.

38 UN Doc. HRI/ICM/2003/4.

39 Hampson recommended such an approach already in 1992: Hampson, Francoise J., “Using international human rights machinery to enforce the international law of armed conflict”, in: Revue de Droit Militaire et de Droit de la Guerre, Vol. 31, No. 1, 1992, p. 118Google Scholar.

40 Vera Gowlland-Debbas, “The right to life and genocide: The Court and the international public policy”, in: Laurence Boisson de Chazournes and Philippe Sands, op. cit. (note 29), p. 324.

41 Manfred Nowak, CCPR-Commentary, Engel, Kehl, 1993, p. 81.

42 UN Doc. A/57/40, para. 29.

43 Doswald-Beck, Louise, “Implementation of international humanitarian law in future wars”, in: Schmitt, Michael N. and Green, Leslie C. (eds.), The Law of Armed Conflict into the Next Millennium, American Naval Academy, Newport, 1998, p. 52Google Scholar.

44 See Svensson-McCarthy, Anna-Lena, The International Law of Human Rights and States of Exception, Kluwer, The Hague, 1998, pp. 392 et seqGoogle Scholar.

45 UN Doc. A/57/40, para. 31.

46 Rüdiger Wolfrum, “The reporting system under international human rights agreements: From collection of information to compliance assistance”, in: Michael Bothe (ed.), op. cit. (note 37), p. 25.

47 See http://www.wcl.American.edu/pub/humanright/digest/lnter-American/app9213.htm. (last visited 25 October 2004).

48 See Weisbrodt, David and Andrus, Beth, “The right to life during armed conflict: Disabled Peoples' International v. United States”, Harvard International Law Journal, Vol. 29, No. 1, 1988, p. 59Google Scholar.

49 Zegveld, Liesbeth, “The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and international humanitarian law: A comment on the Tablada case”, International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 80, No. 324, 1998, p. 505CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

50 “…the Commission must necessarily look to and apply definitional standards and relevant rules of humanitarian law as sources of authoritative guidance in its resolution of this and other kinds of claims alleging violations of the American Convention in combat situations”. Case 11.137. Inter-Am. C.H.R., No. 55/97, para. 161 (1997).

51 Advisory Opinion OC-1/82, 24 September 1982.

52 Inter-Am.Ct.H.R. (Ser.C), No. 67 (2000).

53 Op. cit. (note 52), para. 33.

54 Martin, Fanny, “Application du droit internationale humanitaire par la Cour interaméricaine des droits de l'homme”, International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 83, No. 844, 2002, p. 1066Google Scholar.

55 Kleffner, Jann K. and Zegveld, Liesbeth, “Establishing an individual complaints procedure for violations of international humanitarian law”, in: Fischer, Horst (ed.), Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law, Vol. 3, 2000, Asser, The Hague, 2002, p. 388Google Scholar.

56 Zwanenburg, Marten C., Accountability under International Humanitarian Law for United Nations and North Atlantic Treaty Organization Peace Support Operations, Proefschrift, Leiden, 2004, p. 291Google Scholar.

57 Inter-Am. Ct.H.R. (Ser.C) No. 70 (2000).

58 Op. cit. (note 57), para. 207.

59 See Wilson, Richard J. and Perlin, Jan, “The Inter-American human rights system: Activities from late 2000 through October 2002”, American University International Law Review, Vol. 18, No. 3, 2002, p. 670Google Scholar.

60 See Harris, David J., O'Boyle, Michael and Warbrick, Colin, Law of the European Convention on Human Rights, Butterworth, London, 1995, pp. 489 et seqGoogle Scholar.

61 See Brannigan and McBride v. UK, ECtHR Series A 258-B, 26 May 1993, paras. 67–73.

62 Frowein, Jochen A., “The relationship between human rights regimes and regimes of belligerent occupation”, Israel Yearbook of Human Rights, Vol. 28, 1999, Nijhoff, The Hague, 1999, p. 10Google Scholar.

63 Reidy, Aisling, “The approach of the European Commission and Court of Human Rights to international humanitarian law”, International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 80, No. 324, 1998, p. 519Google Scholar.

64 Case Loizidou v. Turkey, Application No. 15318/89, Judgement of 18 December 1996, para. 43, available at http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int (last visited 16 November 2004).

65 Op. cit. (note 65), para. 49.

66 It is surprising that the ECtHR in llascu v. Moldova and Russia refers to occupation, Application No. 48787/99, Judgement of 8 July 2004 available at http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int (last visited 16 November 2004). The Court argues that in exceptional circumstances the State may be prevented from exercising its authority in part of its territory and goes on: “That may be as a result of military occupation by the armed forces …”. As an example the Court mentioned the Loizidou case (Op. cit. note 64), para. 312.

67 Individual dissenting opinion, Series A, No. 310, pp. 43–44.

68 Op. cit. (note 64), para. 43.

69 Case Bankovic v. Belgium, Application 52207/99, Inadmissibility Decision of 12 December 2001, available at http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int (last visited 16 November 2004).

70 For comments on the decision, see inter alia Martin, Francisco Forrest “Colloquy on the law of armed conflict: The unified use of force and exclusionary rules: The unified use of force rule - amplifications in light of the comments of Professors Green and Paust”, Saskatchewan Law Review, Vol. 65, 2002, pp. 462–467Google Scholar; Schäfer, Bernhard, “Der Fall Bankovic oder wie eine Lücke geschaffen wird”, Menschenrechtsmagazin, Vol. 3, 2002, pp. 149–163Google Scholar.

71 See also “The Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory”, op. cit. (note 8), para. 109.

72 Shelton, Dinah, “The boundaries of human rights jurisdiction in Europe”, Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law, Vol. 95, No. 1, 2003, p. 128Google Scholar.

73 Op. cit. (note 66).

74 See Reidy, Aisling, Hampson, Francoise and Boyle, Kevin, “Gross violations of human rights: Invoking the European Convention on Human Rights in the case of Turkey”, Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights, Vol. 15, 1997, p. 161CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

75 Case Ergi v. Turkey, Application No. 23818/93, Judgment of 28 July 1998, available at http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int (last visited 16 November 2004).

76 Op. cit. (note 75), para. 79.

77 Case Gülec v. Turkey, Application No. 21593/93, Judgment, 27 July 1998, available at http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int (last visited 16 November 2004).

78 Under these circumstances it can be presumed that the hostilities reached the threshold of common Article 3, which is the lowest threshold in international humanitarian law. Therefore the norms of international humanitarian law could be applied.

79 Op. cit. (note 77), paras. 71 et seq.

80 Frowein, Jochen and Peukert, Wolfgang, EMRK Kommentar, Engel, Kehl, 1996, p. 34Google Scholar.

81 Laursen, Andreas, “NATO, the war over Kosovo, and the ICTY investigation”, American University International Law Review, Vol. 17, No. 4, 2002, p. 804Google Scholar.

82 Case Engel v. The Netherlands, Application No. 5370/72, Judgment of 23 November 1976, available at http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int (last visited 16 November 2004).

83 See Merrills, John G., The Development of International Law by the European Court of Human Rights, 2nd ed., Manchester University Press, Manchester, 1993, p. 225Google Scholar.

84 Kalshoven, Frits and Zegveld, Liesbeth, Constraints on the Waging of War, ICRC, Geneva, 2001, p. 201Google Scholar.