The Inter‐play between International Humanitarian Law and International Human Rights Law

Abstract

While International Humanitarian Law and International Human Rights Law have traditionally been regarded as two distinct branches of law, recent developments in international law, national jurisprudence and national law have increasingly led to a recognition that these two bodies of law overlap substantially in practice. The concurrent application of these two bodies of law in certain contexts has been expressly recognised by various international courts and tribunals. This article examines the similarities and differences between International Humanitarian Law and International Human Rights Law, as well as the areas of their overlap and of concurrent applicability.

Notes

1 ICTY: Prosecutor v Kunarac, Kovac, and Vukovic, Case no. IT‐96‐23‐T and IT‐96‐23/1, Trial Chamber II, Judgment, para. 470 (22 February 2001); Cerone, John (2007) Jurisdiction and power: the intersection of Human Rights Law and the Law of Non‐International Armed Conflict in an Extraterritorial Context, International Law Forum, Research Paper No 12‐07, p. 5.

2 Ibid., p. 5.

3 This paper is based in part on the contents of Droege, Cordula (2007) The interplay between International Law and International Human Rights Law in situations of armed conflict, International Law Forum, Research Paper No 14‐07.

4 Droege, Cordula (2007) The interplay between International Humanitarian Law and International Human Rights Law in situations of armed conflict, Isr. L. Rev. 40(2), at p. 312.

5 Ibid., at p. 313.

6 Ibid., at p. 313 and see, for example, the Lieber Code: US War Department, Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field, General Orders No 100, 24 April 1863, reprinted in Schlinder, Dietrich and Toman, Jiri (Eds) (1988) The Laws of Armed Conflicts, p. 3.

7 Droege, op. cit., n 4, at p. 313.

8 Article 2, ICCPR: While the preambles of the ICCPR and the ICESR both speak of duties of individuals, no normatice content for this language has been determined. The idea of duties under human rights law is generally employed in the context of permissible restrictions on rights made through, e.g. claw‐back clauses. See Article 19(3), ICCPR. Finally, although the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights (ACHPR) sets forth duties in its operative text, these provisions have never been used by the African Commission to find individuals responsible for breaches of the Charter. Indeed there are no procedures for alleging a breach of these duties. ACHPR, adopted on 27 June 1981, OAU Doc. CAB/LEG/67/3 rev. 5, reproduced in 21 I.LM 58 and came into force on 21 October 1986.

13 Human Rights Committee General Comment 31[80] Article 2 of the Covenant: The Nature of the General Legal Obligation Imposed on States Parties to the Covenant, UN Doc. CCPR/C/74/CRP.4/Rev.6 (2004) at para. 8.

9 European Human Rights Law Keir Starmer, p. 194, para. 5.1.

10 Ibid., p. 194, para 5.2.

11 Emphasis added.

12 See, for example, General comment No. 31, Human Rights Committee General Comments 6, 10, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 27, 28 and 31. Human Rights Committee General Comments are available at: http://www.ohcr.org/english/bodies/hrc/comments.htm (last accessed 10 October 2008).

14 See Article 1 of the African Charter on Human & People’s Rights, Article 1(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights, Article 1 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms: Article 1 of the European Convention requires the High Contracting Parties to ‘secure’ the rights contained in the Convention. The European Court has interpreted Article 1 to entail a scope of obligations similar to that encompassed by the phrase ‘to respect and to ensure’ as interpreted by the Human Rights Committee. The African Commission on Human and People’s Rights has gone even farther, interpreting Article 1 of the African Charter, which obliges states to ‘recognise’ rights and to ‘adopt … Measures to give effect to them’, to entail the obligations to respect, protect, promote, and fulfil the rights contained in the Charter. See Decision Regarding Communication 155/96 (Social and Economic Rights Action Center/Center for Economic and Social Rights v Nigeria). Case No. ACHPR/COMM/A044/1, printed in Fifteenth Annual Activity Report of the African Commission on Human and People’s Rights (2001), available at: http://www.achpr.org/english/activity-reports/activity (last accessed 10 October 2008)15‐en.pdf.

15 Ibid.; Velasquez‐Rodriguez, Case, Inter‐Am Ct. H.R. 9Ser. C, No. 4 (1988); Applic. 15599/94, A v. UK, Eur. Ct. H.R. report of 18 September 1997; Kilic v. Turkey, Applic. No. 22492/93 (given 28 March 2000), available at: http://www.echr.coe.int (last accessed 10 October 2008); as stated by the Velasquez‐Rodriguez Court, ‘An illegal act which violates human rights and which is initially not directly imputable to a State (for example, because it is the act of a private person or because the person responsible has not been identified) can lead to international responsibility of the State, not because of the act itself, but because of the lack of due diligence to prevent the violation or to respond to it as required by the Convention’. Velasquez‐Rodriguez case at para. 172. The ‘due diligence’ standard ‘has been generally accepted as a measure of evaluating a State’s responsibility for violation of human rights by private actors’. Preliminary report submitted by the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences, Radhika Coomaraswamy, E/CN.4/1995/42, para. 103 [citing Moore, Int. Arb. 495 (1872)]. Application of the ‘due diligence’ standard can be seen in the reports of UN special rapporteurs, UN special representatives, and the secretary‐General; comments, views and concluding observations of human rights treaty bodies; reports on expert group meetings; resolutions of the Commission on Human Rights and the Economic and Social Council; Declarations by the General Assembly, and the writings of publicists. See Cerone, John (2002) The human rights framework applicable to trafficking in persons and its incorporation into UNMIK regulation 2001/4, 7 Int. Peacekeeping: Y. B. Int. Peace Op. 43–98. See also Cerone, John (2007) Jurisdiction and power: the intersection of human rights law & the law of non‐international armed conflict in an extraterritorial context, Isr. L. Rev., 40(2), pp. 72–128.

16 Article 4 of the ICCPR; Article 15 of the ECHR; Article 27 of the American Convention on Human Rights 1969. The African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights contains no derogation clause, but in general it has more far‐reaching limitation clauses.

17 See for example Article 15(2) of the ECHR. This applies to the right to life in Article 2 ECHR (save to the extent that death is the result of a lawful act of war); the prohibition against torture and inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment in Article 3; the prohibition on slavery and servitude in Article 4(1) ECHR and the prohibition on the retrospective application of criminal law in Article 7 ECHR.

18 See Humanitarian Law, Human Rights and Refugee Law—Three Pillars, available at: www.icrc.org/web/siteeng0.nsf/html/6T7G86 (last accessed 28 April 2008).

19 Cerone, op. cit., n 1, p. 2.

20 Bothe, Michael (2004) The Historical Evolution of International Humanitarian Law, International Human Rights Law, Refuge Law and International Criminal Law, in H. Fischer, Ulrike Froissart, Wolff Heintschel von Heinegg and Christian Raap (Eds) Crisis Management and Humanitarian Protection, p. 37.

21 Abresch, William (2005) A human rights law of internal armed conflict: the European court of human rights in Chechnya, 16 Eur. J. Int. 741; see also Bothe, n 20, at p. 90.

22 See the UN Principles on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra‐legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions, recommended by Economic and Social Council resolution 1989/65 of 24 May 1989; Principles on the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment; among the relevant body of jurisprudence see Human Rights Committee, Concluding Observations on Serbia and Montenegro, p. 9, UN Doc. CCPR/CO/81/SEMO, (12 August 2004); Finucane v. the United Kingdom [2003] VIII Eur. Ct. H.R. at para. 69 (summary of its constant jurisprudence).

23 Emmerson QC, Ben, Ashworth, Andrew and Macdonald, Alison (2007) Human Rights and Criminal Justice (Sweet & Maxwell) by Ben Emmerson Q.C., Prof Andrew Ashworth and Alison Macdonald, Ch. 18 (especially at paras 18‐01–18‐02).

25 The court referred here to its judgment in LCB v United Kingdom [1999] 27 EHRR 212, para. 36.

26 Osman v United Kingdom [2000] 29 EHRR 245 at para. 115.

24 Osman v United Kingdom [2000] 29 EHRR 245.

27 Emmerson et al., op. cit., n 23, at p. 93, para. 2–59.

28 Ibid., and X and Y v Netherlands [1985] 8 EHRR 235.

29 A v United Kingdom [1999] 27 EHRR 611.

30 Mrs W v United Kingdom [1983] 32 DR 190; Mrs W v Ireland [1983] 32 DR 211; Osman v United Kingdom, Judgment of 28 October 1998; Z and others v United Kingdom, Application No. 29392/95, Judgment 10 May 2001 (concerning the liability of the social services under Article 3 for failure to take an abused child into care).

31 Deweer v Belgium [1979–80] 2 EHRR 439 at para. 49.

32 McCann, Savage and Farrell v United Kingdom [1996] 21 EHRR 97 at para. 161.

33 Aydin v Turkey [1998] 25 EHRR 251 at paras 103–109. See also Emmerson et al., op. cit., n 23, at p. 93, para. 2‐59.

34 See Article 14 ECHR, Article 16 ICCPR, Article 7 UDHR.

35 The most recent codification of the prohibition of the use of weapons of a nature to cause unnecessary suffering is in Article 35(b) of 1977 Protocol I. The reasoning, however, is most clearly stated in the St Petersburg Declaration of 1868: ‘… the only legitimate object which States should endeavour to accomplish during war is to weaken the military forces of the enemy … this object would be exceeded by the disabled men, or render their death inevitable …’.

36 Article 54.

37 Articles 14 and 15 of the Fourth Geneva Convention and Articles 59 and 60 of 1977 Protocol I. It should be noted, however, that a non‐defended area was protected from bombardment in customary law.

38 Article 12 of the ESC Covenant recognises that everyone has the right to ‘the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health’. This goes much further of course than what is provided for in humanitarian law, but it is the only human rights provision under which the right to receive medical treatment could be categorised.

39 Article 55 of the Fourth Geneva Convention and Article 69 of Additional Protocol I.

40 Article 23 of the Fourth Geneva Convention and Article 70 of Additional Protocol I.

41 Articles 68 and 75 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

42 Articles 48 and 52.

43 Article 52(5)(b).

44 Delbruck, J. (1984) Proportionality, in Encyclopaedia of Public International Law, Vol. 7 (Elsevier Science Publishers), p. 398.

45 For example, Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions prohibits ‘violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture’.

46 Commonwealth Manual on Terrorism. The common law (as well as international law) and ‘the importance a civilized society attaches to proper behaviour by the police’ compel the exclusion of ‘evidence’ obtained by torture. It is excluded as inherently unreliable, unfair, offensive to ordinary standards of humanity and decency and incompatible with principles which should inform a tribunal seeking to administer justice; A & Others v Secretary of State Home Affairs (UK House of Lords, December 2005); R v Mushtaq (UK House of Lords 2005); Lam Chi‐Ming v The Queen (Privy Council, 1991). See also Article 69 Rome Statute (International Criminal Court) and the Rules of Procedure of the International Criminal Tribunals (Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda).

47 See for example Articles 4(1) and (2) of the ECHR.

48 Article 4(2)(f).

49 Article 74 in particular.

50 Articles 42 and 43 in particular.

51 See for instance Article 8(1) of the ECHR.

52 See Article 8(2) of the ECHR.

53 For further detail, see Plattner, D. (1984) Protection of children in international humanitarian law, IRRC, No. 240, May–June, pp. 140–152.

54 The articles are too numerous to list individually, but the majority are to be found in the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols.

55 See for instance Article 9(1) of the ECHR.

56 See Article 9(2) of the ECHR.

57 Article 34, Third Geneva Convention, and Articles 27 and 38(3), Fourth Geneva Convention.

58 Articles 33 and 35–37, Third Geneva Convention, and Articles 38(3), 58 and 93, Fourth Geneva Convention.

59 Article 17, First Geneva Convention; Article 120, Third Geneva Convention; Article 130, Fourth Geneva Convention.

60 See Droege, op. cit., n 4, pp 312–318 for more historical developments leading to the convergence of both IHL and IHRL.

61 Ibid., p. 313.

62 Although the Lieber Code did make some mention of forms of protection that could be accorded in civil wars, treaty law did not do so until common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.

63 Droit des conflits armes, reprinted in Schlinder, Dietrich and Toman, Jiri (Eds) (1996) Droit des Conflicts Armes, p. 251.

64 Droege, op. cit., n 4, p. 314.

65 GA Res. 804 (VIII), UN Doc, A804/VIII (3 December 1953) (on the treatment of captured soldiers and civilians in Korea by North Korean and Chinese forces).

66 GA Res. 1312 (XIII), UN Doc. A38/49 (12 December 1958).

67 GA Res. 237, 2, UN Doc. A237/1967 (14 June 1967); see also GA Res. 2252 (ES‐V), UN Doc. A2252/ESV (4 July 1967), which refers to this resolution.

68 Resolution XXIII, ‘Human Rights in Armed Conflicts’, adopted by the International Conference on Human Rights, Tehran, 12 May 1968.

69 Article 74 in particular.

70 Final Act of the International Conference on Human Rights, UN Doc. A/Conf. 32/41(22 April–13 May 1968).

71 Droege, op. cit., p. 315.

72 Report on Respect for Human Rights in Armed Conflict, UN Doc. A/7729 (20 November 1969) see especially Ch. 3: Report on Respect for Human Rights in Armed Conflict, pp. 20–29, annex 1, UN Doc. A/8052 (18 September 1970).

73 ICRC, Draft Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949—Commentary131 (1973); see also Pictet, Jean S. (1975) Humanitarian Law and the Protection of War Victims, p. 15.

74 Sandoz, Y., Swinarski, C. and Zimmermann, B. (Eds) (1987) Commentary on the Additional Protocols, see especially para. 4429.

75 See also Security Council Resolutions 670 (1990) on Iraq’s occupation of Kuwait and Resolution 780 (1992) establishing a Commission of Experts to enquire into breaches of humanitarian law committed in the territory of the former Yugoslavia. See also the interim Report of the Commission of Experts established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992): S/25274.

76 S.C. Res. 1019, UN Doc. S/Res/1019 (9 November 1995); and S.C. Res. 1034, UN Doc. S/Res/1034 (21 December 1995) (in regard to former Yugoslavia); S.C. Res. UN Doc S/Res/1635 (28 October 2005) and S. C. Res 1653, UN Doc. S/Res/1653 (27 January 2006) (Great Lakes region); G.A. Res. 50/193, UN Doc. A/Res/50/193 (22 December 1995) (Former Yugoslavia); G.A. Res. 325 (XXX), UN Doc. A/3525 (15 December 1975) (territories occupied by Israel); G.A. Res. 46/135, UN. Doc. A/Res/46/135 (19 December 1991) (Kuwait under Iraqi occupation); G.A. Res. 52/145, UN Doc. A/Res/52/145 (12 December 1997) (Afghanistan); Commission on Human Rights Resolutions and Decisions see, e.g., Resolutions and: UN Docs. E/CN.4/1992/84 (3 March 1992) (Iraq); E/CN.4/2003/77 (25 April 2003) (Afghanistan), A/E/CN.4/Res/2003/16 (17 April 2003) (Burundi); E/CN.4/Res/2001/24 (20 April 2001) (Russian Federation); E/CN.4/Res/2003/15 (17 April 2003) (Congo); OHCRH/STM/CHR/03/2 (2003) (Colombia); OHCHR/STM/CHR/03/3 (2003) Timor‐Leste; see also the Report of the Special Rapporteur of the UN Commission on Human Rights on the Situation of Human Rights in Kuwait under Iraqi occupation, UN Doc. E/CN.4/1992/26 (16 January 1992).

77 Commission on Human Rights Resolution, UN Doc. E/CN.4/1991/67 (6 March 1991).

78 The Secretary‐General, Progress Report on UNOMIL, UN Doc. S/1996/47 (23 January 1996).

79 The Secretary‐General, Progress Report on UNOMSIL, UN Doc. S/1998/750 (12 August 1998).

80 Commission on Human Rights Resolution, UN Doc. E/CN. 4/S5/1 (19 October 2000).

81 G.A. Res. 804 (VIII), UN Doc. A804/VIII (3 December 1953) (on treatment of captured soldiers and civilians in Korea by North Korean and Chinese forces).

82 G.A. Res. 2546 (XXIV), UN Doc. A/Res/2546/XXIV (11 December 1969); G.A. Res. 3525 (XXX), UN Doc. A/ Res/46/135 (19 December 1991) (Kuwait under Iraqi occupation); see also the Report of the Special Rapporteur of the UN Commission on Human Rights on the situation of human rights in Kuwait under Iraqi occupation, UN Doc. E/CN.4/1992/26 (16 January 1992).

83 Droege, op. cit., n 4, at p. 317.

84 Ibid., p. 314. See also the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 1 July 2002, 2187 UNTS 3; see also The Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict, the Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian and the Draft Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities adopted by G.A. Res. 61/106, UN Doc. A/Res/61/106 (13 December 20006), especially Article 11.

85 Council of Europe (1991) Convention on the Rights of the Child, in Human Rights in International Law (Strasbourg: Basic Texts).

86 Resolution 46/136 on the situation of human rights in Afghanistan. See also Resolution 46/135 on the situation of human rights in Kuwait under Iraqi occupation and the Declaration 47/133 on the protection of all people against forced disappearances.

87 See Lubell, Noam (2005) Challenges in applying human rights law to armed conflict, International Review of the Red Cross, 87(860), December, at p. 742.

88 See discussion of this approach in Reidy, A. (1998) The approach of the European Commission and Court of Human Rights to international humanitarian law, International Review of the Red Cross, No. 324, September, pp. 514–516; see also Lubell, op. cit., n 87, at p. 742.

89 ECHR, Ergi v Turkey.

90 See also Lubell, op. cit., n 87, at pp. 742–743.

91 See also Ibid., at p. 743. Examples of these and others are cited in O’Donnell, D. (1998) Trends in the application of international humanitarian law by United Nations human rights mechanisms, International Review of the Red Cross, No. 324, September, p. 481.

92 Droege, op. cit., n 4, at p. 320; and see Concluding Observations on: Democratic Republic of Congo, UN Doc. CCPR/C/COD/CO/3 (26 April 2006); Belgium, 6, UN Doc. CCPR/CO/81/BEL (12 August 2004); Colombia, UN Doc. CCPR/CO/80/COL (26 May 2004); Sri Lanka, UN Doc. CCPR/CO/79/LKA (1 December 2003); Israel, 11 UN Doc. CCPR/CO/78/ISR (21 August 2003); Guatemala, UN Doc. CCPR/CO/72/GTM (27 August 2001); Netherlands, 8, UN Doc. CCPR/CO/72/NET (27 August 2001); Belgium, 14 UN Doc CCPR/C/79/Add 99 (19 November 1998); Israel, 10, UN Doc. CCPR /C/79/Add. 93 (18 August 1998); UN Doc. CCPR A/46/40 (1991); UN Doc. CCPR A/46740 (1991); United States of America, UN Doc. CCPR/C/USA/CO/NON/ENCORE PUBLIE; Sarma v Sri Lanka, UN Doc. CCPR/C/78/D/950/2000 (31 July 2003); Bautista v Colombia, UN Doc. CCPR/C/55/D/563/1993 (13 November 1995); Guerrero v Colombia, UN Doc. CCPR/C/157D/45/1979 (31 March 1982).

93 Concluding Observations on: Sri Lanka, pp. 256–302, UN Doc. A/57/38 (Part I) (7 May 2002); Democratic Republic of the Congo, pp. 194–238, UN Doc. A/55/381 (February 2000); Colombia, pp. 337–401 UN Doc. A/54/38 (4 February 1999).

94 Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Concluding Observations on Guatemala, UN Doc. E/C.12/1/Add. 93 (12 December 2003); Concluding Observations on Guatemala, UN Doc. E/C.12/1/Add. 93 (12 December 2003); Concluding Observations on Israel, pp. 14–15, UN Doc. E/C.12/1/Add.90 (23 May 2003); Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination: Concluding Observations on Israel, UN Doc. CERD/C/304/Add. 45 (30 March 1998); Committee on the Rights of the Child: Concluding Observations on the Democratic Republic of Congo, UN Doc. CRC/C/15/Add. 153 (9 July 2001); Concluding Observations on Sri Lanka, UN Doc. CRC/C/15/Add. 207 (2 July 2003); Concluding Observations on Colombia, UN Doc. CRC/C/cOL/CO/3 (8 June 2006).

95 Among some examples, see the Report of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances (E/CN.4/1993/25 paras 508–510) and its Addendum on the situation in Sri Lanka (E/CN.4/1993/25/Add. I para. 40.42), and the Report on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions (E/CN.4/1993/46 paras 60, 61, 664 and 684).

96 Report on the situation of human rights in Kuwait under Iraqi occupation, prepared by Mr Walter Kalin (E/CN.4/1992/26).

97 Ibid., para. 33.

98 As in Articles 63, 62, 142 and 158 common to the four 1949 Geneva Conventions. The Rapporteur considers that the principles set out in these articles are relevant to the case he is examining and that they belong both to human rights and to humanitarian law.

99 See for example, Isayeva, Yusupova and Basayea v Russia, Isayeva v Russia, at paras 172–178; Ergi v Turkey [1998] IV Eur. Ct. H.R at paras 79–81; Ozkan v Turkey [2004] Eur. Ct. H.R., Judgment of 6 April 2004, at para. 297, available at: http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.

100 Cyprus v Turkey, for an overview see Reidy, op. cit., n 88, pp. 513–529.

101 Bamaca Velasquez v Guatemala, Case 10. 11/129, Inter‐Am. C.H.R. para. 209; Coard v. the United States of America, Case 10.951, Inter‐Am. C.H.R., OEA/ser.L/V/II.106 doc.3rev (1999), at para. 37; Alejandre v. Cuba, Case 11.589, Inter‐Am. C.H.R., Report No. 86/99, OEA/Ser.L/V/IIIII, doc. 20 rev at 289 (1998), at para. 18; Rafael Ferrer‐Matorra and others v the United States, Case No. 9903, Inter‐Am. C.H.R., Report No 51/01, OEA/Ser.L/V/IIIII, doc 20 rev 289 (1980), at para. 179; Request for Precautionary Measures Concerning the Detainees at Guatanamo Bay, Cuba, Inter‐Am. C.H.R. decision of 12 March 2002, 41 ILM 532 (2002).

102 For further details on the Grenada affair, see Weissbrodt, D. and Andrus, B. (1988) The right to life during armed conflict: Disabled Peoples’ International v United States, Harvard International Law Journal, 29, p. 59.

103 Inter‐Am. CHR, Juan Carlos Abella v Argentina, Case No. 11.137, Report No. 55/97, 18 November 1997, para. 271.

104 Inter‐Am. CHR, Las Palmeras v Colombia, Case No. 67, Judgment on Preliminary Objections, 4 February 2000.

105 Inter‐Am. CHR, Bamaca Velasqez v Guatemala Judgment, Case No. 70, 25 November 2000.

106 Bamaca Velazquez v Guatemala, Case 10. 11/129, Inter‐Am. C.H.R, at paras 207–209. The Human Rights Committee has stated that it can take other branches of law into account to consider the lawfulness of derogations: Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 29: States of Emergency (Article 4), p. 10, UN Doc. CCPR/C?21/Rev.1/Add 11 (24 July 2001).

107 In Abella v Argentina, Case 11.137, Inter‐Am. C.H.R. Report No. 55/97, OEA/Ser.L/V?II.98, doc 6 rev, (1997) at paras 157–171.

108 Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, advisory Opinion, 1996 I.C.J. 226–593 (8 July) at para. 25 [hereinafter referred to as the ‘Nuclear Weapons Case’].

109 Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory opinion, 2004 I.C.J. (9 July) at para. 106 [hereinafter Wall case]. See also Droege, op. cit., n 4, at pp. 322–323.

110 Case Concerning Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (DRC v Uganda), 2005 ICJ 116, (19 December) at para. 119 [hereinafter DRC v Uganda].

111 As argued by Dennis, Michael J. (2005) Application of human rights treaties extraterritorially in times of armed conflict and military occupation, Am. J. Int. L. 99, pp. 119, 122.

112 See Droege, op. cit., n 4, at p. 323.

113 Summary Legal Position of the Government of Israel, Annex 1 to the Report of the Secretary‐General Prepared pursuant to GA Res, ES‐10713, p. 4, UN Doc. A/ES ‐10/248 (24 November 2003) (relating to the construction of a wall in the occupied Palestinian territory); Annex 1: Territorial Scope of the Application of the Covenant, 2nd and 3rd periodic Reports of the United States of America, Consideration of Reports Submitted by States Parties under Article 40 of the Covenant, UN Doc. CCPR/C/USA/3 (28 November 2005); Summary Record of the 2380th Meeting: United States of America, at 2, UN Doc. CCPR/C/SR. 2380 (27 July 2006).

114 See Article 15(2) of the ECHR and Article of the African Charter of Human Rights.

115 Droege, op. cit., n 4, at p. 318.

116 See for example Section 1(2) of the Human Rights Act 1998 and Emmerson et al., op. cit., n 23, paras 3–24.

117 Article 15(1) of ECHR.

118 This included some ‘closed’ material not shown to the Appellants. The Attorney General was invited to show the ‘closed material’ to the House but expressly declined to do so.

119 Emmerson et al., op. cit., n 23.

120 Paras 55–70.

121 Article 4 ICCPR, Article 15 ECHR and Article 27, American Convention on Human Rights.

122 See Droege, op. cit., n 4, at p. 320.

123 For a detailed analysis of case‐law and views on extraterritorial applicability of human rights see the examination of the case‐law contained in The High Court of Justice; Queen’s Bench Division, Divisional Court, R (Al‐Skeini and others) v Secretary of State for Defence, 14 December 2004; see also Hampson, Francoise and Salama, Ibrahim (2005) Working paper on the relationship between human rights law and international humanitarian law, UN Sub‐Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, E/CN.4/Sub.2/2005/14 (21 June), paras 78–92.

124 See Article 2(1) ICCPR, Article 1 ECHR, Article 1 ACHR, Article 2(1) Convention Against Torture, 10 December 1984, 1465 UNTS 85 [hereinafter (CAT)].

125 Ibid., at p. 739.

126 Legal Consequences paras 107–112; Concluding Observations on the Human Rights Committee: Israel, 18 August 1998, CCPR/C/79/Add. 93; Loizidou case.

127 General Comment 31, Nature of the General Legal Obligation on States Parties to the Covenant, UN Doc. CCPR/C/21/Rev. 1/Add 13 (2004), para. 10.

128 Loizidou v Turkey [1997] 23 EHRR 513; Ilascu v Moldova and Russia [2005] 40 EHRR 46; Issa v Turkey [2005] 41 EHRR 27, paras 65–82.

129 Reinette v France [1989] 63 DR 189.

130 Emmerson et al., op. cit., n 23, paras 1–75.

131 Loizidou v Turkey [1996] VI Eur. Ct. H.R. 2216, 2234–2235, para. 52.

132 Cyprus v Turkey, Appl. No. 6780/74 & 6950/75, Eur. Ct. H.R. Dec. & Rep. 125; European Court of Human Rights: Cyprus v Turkey [2001] IV Eur. Ct. H.R. para. 77.

133 Cyprus v Turkey [2001] IV Eur. Ct. H.R. para. 77.

134 Loizidou v Turkey [1995] 310 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser A) at paras 62–64 (1995) (GC) (Preliminary Objections) [hereinafter Loizidou (Preliminary Objections)].

135 Interim Resolution ResDH (2005) 44, concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 10 May 2001 in the case of Cyprus against Turkey (adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 7 June 2005 at the 928th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies); Interim Resolution ResDH (2006) 26 concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 8 July 2004 (Grand Chamber) Ilascu v Moldova and Russia, (adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 10 May 2006 at the 964th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies).

136 [2001] XII Eur. Ct. H.R. 333 (GC); 11 B.H.R.C. 435.

137 Bankovic v Belgium [2001] 12 Eur. Ct. H.R. 333 (GC).

138 Ibid., at para. 80.

139 See Leach, P. (2005) The British military in Iraq—the applicability of the Espace Juridique doctrine under the European Convention on Human Rights, Pub. L., p. 448 with further references; Condorelli, L. (2005) La protection des droits de l’homme lors d’actions militaries menees a l’etranger, Collegium, 32(89), p. 100.

140 Ocalan v Turkey, Eur. Ct. H.R. Judgment of 12 May 2005; confirmed in Issa v Turkey [2004] 41 Eur. Ct. H.R. 27 at para. 71.

141 Ibid.

142 See opinions of the House of Lords in Al‐Skeini and others (Respondents) v Secretary of State for Defence (Appellant); Al‐Skeini and others (Appellants) v Secretary of State for Defence (Respondent) (Consolidated Appeals) [2007] UKHL 26. Note the distinction made by the Court between the first five claimants and the sixth claimant. Al‐Skeini, paras 284–285.

143 [2007] QB 40.

144 [2006] EWCA Civ. 1609; [2007] QB 140 [Brooke, Sedley and Richards LJJ].

145 Al‐Skeini (CA) at para. 119.

146 Ibid., at para. 124.

147 Ibid., at paras 195–197.

148 [2007] UKHL 26.

149 Lubell, op. cit., n 87, at p. 740.

150 See Al‐Skeini and others (Respondents) v Secretary of State for Defence (Appellant); Al‐Skeini and others (Appellants) v Secretary of State for Defence (Respondent) (Consolidated Appeals) [2007] UKHL 26.

151 See Articles 64 and 65 of the Fourth Geneva Convention; Sassoli, M. (2005) Legislation and maintenance of public order and civil life by occupying powers, Eur. J. Int. 16(661), pp. 663–667.

154 Ibid.

152 Ben‐Naftali, Orna and Shany, Yuval (2003) Living in denial: the application of human rights in the occupied territories, Isr. L. Rev. 37(17), p. 64.

153 Ilascu v Moldova and Russia [2004] VII Eur. Ct. H.R. at para. 392.

155 Droege, op. cit., n 4, at p. 332.

156 Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 31 on Article 2 of the Covenant: The Nature of the General Legal Obligation Imposed on States Parties to the Covenant, 10, UN Doc. CCPR/C/74/CRP.4/Rev. 6 (2004) [hereinafter General Comment No. 31] (emphasis added CD).

157 Concluding Observations on: Cyprus, p. 3, UN Doc. CCPR/C/79/Add.39 (21 September 1994); Israel, p. 10, CCPR/C/79/Add 93 (18 August 1998); Concluding Observations on Israel, 11, UN Doc. CCPR/CO/78/ISR (21 August 2003).

158 Concluding Observations on: Belgium, p. 17, CCPR/C/79/Add 99 (19 November 1998); Netherlands, p. 8, CCPR/CO/72/NET (27 August 2001); Belgium, p. 6, CCPR/CO/81/BEL (12 August 2004).

159 Wall case at paras 108–111.

160 See Droege, op. cit., n 4, at pp. 326–327. See also Replies of the Government of the Netherlands to the Concerns Expressed by the Human Rights Committee, p. 19, UN Doc. CCPR/CO/72/NET/Add. 1 (29 April 2003); Second Periodic Report of Israel to the Human Rights Committee, p. 8, UN Doc. CCPR/C/ISR/2001/2 (4 December 2001); Second Periodic Report of Israel to the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, p. 5, UN doc.E/1990/6/Add 32 (16 October 2001); Conclusions and Recommendations on the United Kingdom, p. 4(b), UN Doc. CAT/C/SR. 703 (12 May 2006); annex 1: Territorial Scope of the Application of the Covenant, 2nd and 3rd periodic reports of the United States of America, Consideration of Reports submitted by States Parties under Article 40 of the Covenant, UN Doc. CCPR/C/USA/3 (28 November 2005).

161 Droege, op. cit., n 4, at p. 326.

162 See e.g. Marab v IDF Commander in the West Bank [2002] Isr. SC 52(2) at 349.

163 Al‐Skeini v Secretary of State for Defence [2004] EWHC 2911 (admin); Al‐Skeini v Secretary of State for Defence [2005] EWCA (Civ) 1609, para. 48 at paras 3–11, 48–53, 189–190; Al‐Jedda v Secretary of State for Defense [2006] EWCA (Civ) 327.

164 Lopez Burgos v Uruguay, Comm. No. 52/1979, UN Doc. CCPR/C/13/D/52/1979 (1981) at para. 12.3; de Casariego v Uruguay, Comm. No. 56/1979, UN Doc. CCPR/C/13/D/56/1979 (1981) at para 10.3.

165 Issa v Turkey [2004] 41 Eur Ct. H.R. 27 at para. 71.

166 Coard v the United States, Case 10.951, Inter‐Am. Commission H.R., OEA/ser.L?V/II.106.doc.3rev (1999) at para. 37.

167 Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Chile, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.66, Doc. 17 (9 September 1985) and Second Report on the Human Rights Situation in Suriname, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.66, doc 21 rev. 1 (2 October 1985) at ch. V, E.

168 Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Chile, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.66, Doc. 17 (9 September 1985).

169 Second Report on the Human Rights Situation in Suriname, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.66, doc 21 rev. 1 (2 October 1985) at ch. V, E.

170 Mrs W v Ireland [1983] 32 DR 211 at para. 14.

171 Emmerson et al., op. cit., n 23, paras 1–75.

172 HRC, 29 July 1981, UN Doc. A/36/40, 176, Communication No. 52/1979; ECHR 46221/99, Judgment 12 March 2003; Grand Chamber Judgment, 12 May 2005.

173 Annex 1: Territorial Scope of the Application of the Covenant, 2nd and 3rd Periodic Reports of the United States of America, Consideration of reports submitted by States parties under Article 40 of the Covenant, UN Doc. CCPR/C/USA/3 (28 November 2005); Summary Record of the 2380th Meeting, 18 July 2006, Second and third periodic reports of the United States of America, UN Doc. CCPR/C/SR. 2380 (27 July 2006); Human Rights First, Submission to the Human Rights Committee, (18 January 2006), at p. 7, available at: http://www.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrc/87ngo_info.htm. See comments by Droege, op. cit., n 4, at pp. 326–327.

174 Ibid., at pp. 326–327.

175 Ibid., at p. 327.

176 Concluding Observations on the United States of America, Advanced Unedited Version, p. 10, UN Doc. CCPR/C/USA/Q/3/CRP.4 (2006).

179 Salas v the United States, Case 10.573, Inter‐Am. C.H.R., Report No. 31/93, OEA/Ser/L/V.85, Doc 9 rev (1994), at para. 6. However the case has been pending since 1993 and has not yet been decided on its merits.

177 For an overview of its jurisprudence see Cerna, C. (2004) Extraterritorial Application of the Human Rights Instruments of the Inter‐American System, in F. Coomans and M.T. Kamminga (Eds) Extraterritorial Application of Human Rights Treaties, pp. 141–174; and Cassel, Douglas in Ibid at pp. 175–181.

178 Coard v the United States, Case 10.951, Inter‐Am. Commission H.R., OEA/ser.L?V/II.106.doc.3rev (1999) at para. 37.

180 Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory Advisory Opinion, 2004 I.C.J. (9 July), at para. 106.

181 McLachlan, Campbell (2005) The principle of systemic integration and Article 31(3)(c) of the Vienna Convention, ICLQ, 54, pp. 279–320; International Law Commission, Report of the Study Group on Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising from Diversification and Expansion of International Law, p. 27, UN Doc. A/CN.4/L.676 (29 July 2005); see also Sands, Philippe (1999) Treaty, custom and the cross‐fertilization of international law, Yale Hum. Rts. Dev. L.J., 1, pp. 85 and 95.

182 Droege, op. cit., n 4, at p. 337.

183 Ibid., at p. 337.

184 Ibid., at p. 341.

185 Sandoz et al., op. cit., n 74, at para. 3092.

186 Article 4 ICCPR; Article 15 ECHR, and Article 27 ACHR.

187 The Human Rights Committee has stated that it can take other branches of law into account to consider the lawfulness of derogations: Human Rights Committee, General Comment 29: States of Emergency (Article 4), p. 10, UN Doc. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add. 11 (24 July 2001) at para. 16.

188 Article 7 ICCPR, Article 2 Convention Against Torture, 10 December 1984, 1465 UNTS 85, Article 3 ECHR, Article 5 ACHR, Article 5 of the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights, adopted 27 June 1981, OAU Doc. CAB/LEG/67/3 rev. 5, 21 ILM 58 (1982), entered into force 21 October 1986 [hereinafter ACHPR].

189 Common Article 3, Article 147 of the Geneva Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Articles 40, 55 & 56, 12 August 1949, 75 UNTS 287.

190 Article 2(1), Convention Against Torture, 10 December 1984, 1465 UNTS 85 [CAT].

191 See ICTY Prosecutor v Kunarac and Others, Case Nos. IT‐96‐23 & IT‐96‐23/1, Trial Chamber (22 February 2001) at para. 491; confirmed by the Appeals chamber judgment, (12 June 2000) at para. 148; Prosecutor v Kvocka and Others, Case No. IT‐98‐30/1‐A, Appeals Chamber (28 February 2005) at para. 284; ICTR: The Prosecutor v Laurent Semanza, ICTR ‐97‐20 (15 May 2003) at para. 32–343; Rome Statute, at Articles 7(1)(f) (Crimes against Humanity) and 8(2)(c)(i) and (ii) (War Crime). See also Droege, op. cit., n 4, at p. 342.

192 Adopted by General Assembly Resolution 61/177 (20 December 2006).

193 The right to know is enshrined in Article 32 of Additional Protocol 1 and communication and information rights of families are enshrined in the fourth Geneva Convention. These have both influenced similar rights in the Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearances.

194 Droege, op. cit., n 4, at pp. 343–344.

195 Ibid., at pp. 343–344.

196 Ibid., at pp. 354–355.

197 [2004] 1 WLR 807.

198 See the UN Principles on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra‐legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions, recommended by Economic and Social Council resolution 1989/65 of 24 May 1989; Principles on the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment; among the relevant body of jurisprudence see Human Rights Committee: Concluding Observations on Serbia and Montenegro, p. 9, UN Doc. CCPR/CO/81/SEMO (12 August 2004); Finucane v the United Kingdom [2003] VIII Eur. Ct. H.R. at para. 69 (summary of its constant jurisprudence).

199 Report of the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions, Sections 33–38, UN Doc. E/CN. 4/2006/53m (8 March 2006) at para. 37.

200 Watkin, Kenneth (2004) Controlling the use of force: a role for human rights norms in contemporary armed conflict, Am. J. Int. 98(1), p. 34.

201 Isayeva, Yusupova and Bazayeva v Russia, op. cit., n 4, at paras 208–213; Myrna Mack‐Chang v Guatemala, op. cit., n 163; Human Rights Committee: Concluding Observations on Colombia, Section 32, UN Doc. CCPR/C/79/Add. 76 (5 May 1997).

202 See Droege, op. cit., n 4, at p. 350.

203 See some of the criticisms raised in the ICRC report on International Humanitarian Law and the Challenges of Contemporary Armed Conflicts, 28th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, ICRC, Geneva, 2003, pp. 59–60. See also Lubell, op. cit., n 87, at p. 743.

204 Hampson and Salama, op. cit., n 123.

205 Bothe, op. cit., n 20, at p. 45, who writes that ‘their very idealism and naiveté are their greatest strength’.

206 Abresch, op. cit., n 21. See also the discussion in Michael Bothe, Humanitares Volkerrecht und Schutz der Menschenrechte: Auf der Suche nach Synergien und Schutzlucken, in Essays in honour of C. Tomuschat, 63 at p. 90.

207 See Droege, op. cit., n 4, at p. 350.

208 Article 106 of the Geneva Convention (IV), relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Articles 40, 55 & 56, 12 August 1949, 75 UNTS 287.

209 See Article 24(2) of the Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, UN Doc. A/Res/61/177 (20 December 2006) [not yet in force].

210 Zegveld, Liesbeth (2003) Remedies for victims of violations of International Humanitarian Law, Int. Rev. Red Cross, 851, pp. 497–528.

211 See the UN Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of Human Rights and Serious Violations of International Human Rights Law.

212 Convention (IV) respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land and its annex: Regulations Concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land, Article 43, 18 Octover 1907, USTS 539, Article 3; Protocol 1 Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, Articles 77(2) and 4(3)(d), 12 December 1977, 1125 UNTS 3, Article 91; see Gillard, Emanuela‐Chiara, Reparation for violations of International Humanitarian Law, Int. Rev. Red Cross, 851, pp. 529–554.

213 Hampson and Salama, op. cit., n 123, at paras 20, 49.

214 See the Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of Human Rights and Serious Violations of International Human Rights Law, adopted by the General Assembly in 2005, GA Res. 60/147 of 16 December 2005.

215 Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, 2004 I.C.J. (9 July), at para. 106.

216 See Gillard, op. cit., n 212, at p. 540.

217 On Germany see Bank, Roland (2001) The new programs for payments to victims of national socialist injustice, German Y.B. Int. L., 44, pp. 307–352; the most comprehensive description of national reparations programmes can be found in the Handbook on Reparations (Pablo de Greif fed, 2006).

218 See Schwager, Elke and Bank, Roland, An individual right to compensation for victims of armed conflicts?, Paper submitted to the ILA Committee on the Compensation for Victims of War, see pp. 45–48; d’Argent, P. (2006) Wrongs of the past, history of the future, Eur. J. Int., 17, pp. 279, 286.

219 Droege, op. cit., n 4, at p. 354.

220 Ibid., at p. 354.

221 Ibid., at pp. 350–351.

222 Vattel, Emerich De (1758) Le Droit Des Gens Ou Principes De La Loi Naturelle, Bk II, ch xvii, at para. 316 (reproduction of Books I and II ed 1758, Geneva, Slatkine Reprints, Henry Dunant Institute, 1983).

223 Grotius, Hugo, De Jure Belli AC Pacis, bk II, sect XXIX.

224 Coard v the United States, Case 10.951, Inter‐Am. Commission H.R. OEA/serL/V/II.106. doc.3rev (1999) at para. 42.

225 Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 31 on Article 2 of the Covenant: The Nature of the General Legal Obligation Imposed on States Parties to the Covenant, p. 10, at para. 11 UN Doc. CCPR/C/74/CRP.4/Rev. 6 (2004) [hereinafter General Comment No 31] (emphasis added CD).

226 DRC v Uganda [2005] ICJ 116 (19 December) at para. 216.

227 Lindroos, A. (2005) Addressing the norm conflicts in a fragmented system: the doctrine of lex specialis, Nordic J. Int. L., 74, pp. 24, 28.

228 See e.g. International Law Commission’s Study Group, note 108; Lindroos, op. cit., n 227, note 115 at 27–28.

229 Prud’homme, Nancie (2007) Lex specialis: oversimplifying a more complex and multifaceted relationship? Isr. L. Rev., 40(2), p. 356.

230 Doswald‐Beck, Louise (1997) International Humanitarian Law and the International Court of Justice on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons, Int. Rev. Red Cross, 316, p. 35.

231 Prud’homme, op. cit., n 229, at p. 14.

232 Provost, Rene (2005) International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law, p. 350.

233 Sands, op. cit., n 181, at pp. 85–105.

234 Kretzmer, David (2005) Targeted killing of suspected terrorists: extra‐judicial executions or legitimate means of defence? Eur. J. Int., 16, pp. 171, 185 at p. 171.

235 Droege, op. cit., n 4, at p. 340.

236 Ibid., at p. 339.

237 See International Law Commission, Report of the Study Group on Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising from Diversification and Expansion of International Law, p. 27, UN Doc. A/CN.4/L.676 (29 July 2005).

238 See Articles 9 and 10 of the UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials, adopted by the Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, Havana, 27 August–7 September 1990, Report prepared by the Secretariat (United Nations publication, Sales No. E.91.IV.2), Ch. 1, sect. B.2, annex [hereinafter UN Basic Principles]; see also Rodley, Nigel (2000) The Treatment of Prisoners Under International Law, pp. 182–188; Kretzmer, op. cit., n 234, at p. 179.

239 Ibid.

240 See the codification in Article 51 5(b) of Additional Protocol 1, to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, Articles 77(2) and 4(3)(d), (12 December 1977), 1125 UNTS 3.

241 Droege, op. cit., n 4. See also the discussion in Bothe, op. cit., n 206.

242 Al‐Skeini v Secretary of State for Defence [2005] EWCA (Civ) 1609, para. 48.

243 Ozkan v Turkey [2004] Eur. Ct. H.R. Judgment of 6 April 2004 at para. 297; Ergi v Turkey [1998] IV Eur. Ct. H.R. at para 79; Isayeva v Russia [2005] Eur. Ct. H.R. Judgement of 14 October 2005. The Court uses a similar, but not identical formulation, in Isayeva, Yusupova and Bazayeva v Russia [2005] Eur. Ct. H.R. Judgement of 24 February 2005 at paras 176–177.

244 See Meron, Theodor (2000) The humanization of humanitarian law, Am. J. Int., 94, p. 239 at p. 241.

245 See Droege, op. cit., n 4, p. 344.

246 Ibid.

247 Ibid., at p. 347.

248 See Humanitarian Law, Human Rights and Refugee Law—Three Pillars, available at: www.icrc.org/web/siteeng0.nsf/html/6T7G86 (last accessed 28 April 2008).

249 See Challenges in applying human rights to armed conflict, International Review of the Red Cross, 87(860), December 2005, p. 741.

250 See Droege, op. cit., n 4, at p. 355.

251 Bothe, op. cit., n 20.

252 Abresch, op. cit., n 21. See also Bothe, op. cit., n 20, at p. 90.

253 See Cerone, op. cit., n 15, pp. 72–128, available at: http://lsr.nellco.org/nesl/neslfwps/papers/2.

254 Ibid.