Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T07:26:56.890Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Elective affinities? Human rights and humanitarian law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

Cordula Droege
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Complementarity and mutual influence inform the interaction between international humanitarian law and international human rights law in most cases. In some cases when there is contradiction between the two bodies of law, the more specific norm takes precedence (lex specialis). The author analyses the question of in which situations either body of law is more specific. She also considers the procedural dimension of this interplay, in particular concerning the rules governing investigations into alleged violations, court access for alleged victims and reparations for wrongdoing.

Type
Human Rights
Information
International Review of the Red Cross , Volume 90 , Issue 871: Human Rights , September 2008 , pp. 501 - 548
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 In the following, “international human rights law”, “human rights law” and “human rights” are used interchangeably.

2 In the following “international humanitarian law”, “humanitarian law” and “law of armed conflict”are used interchangeably.

3 See, e.g., Report of the European Commission of Human Rights, Cyprus v. Turkey, Appl. No. 6780/74 and 6950/75, Eur Comm HR Decisions and Reports (hereinafter DR) 125; European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter ECtHR), Cyprus v. Turkey, Judgment of 10 May 2001, Reports of Judgments and Decisions (hereinafter Reports) 2001-IV.

4 Michael Bothe, “The historical evolution of international humanitarian law, international human rights law, refugee law and international criminal law”, in Horst Fischer, Ulrike Froissart, Wolff Heintschel von Heinegg and Christian Raap (eds.), Crisis Management And Humanitarian Protection, Berliner Wissenschafts-Verlag, Berlin, 2004, p. 37.

5 See, for a brief account, Doswald-Beck, Louise and Vité, Sylvain, “International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights Law”, International Review of the Red Cross, No. 293 (March–April 1993), pp. 94–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 See, e.g., the Lieber Code: United States War Department, Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field, General Orders No. 100, 24 April 1863, reprinted in Dietrich Schindler and Jiri Toman (eds.), The Laws of Armed Conflicts, 3rd edn (1988).

7 First used as a motto on the title page of the “Mémorial des vingt-cinq premières années de la Croix-Rouge, 1863–1888,” published by the International Committee of the Red Cross on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of the foundation of the Committee; the wording was adopted by the Committee on 18 September 1888 following a suggestion by Gustave Moynier. This is now the motto of the International Committee of the Red Cross: see Statutes of the International Committee of the Red Cross 1973, Article 3(2).

8 See Geneva Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, 12 August 1949, 75 UNTS 31 (hereinafter First Geneva Convention); Meron, Theodor, “On the inadequate reach of humanitarian and human rights law and the need for a new instrument”, American Journal of International Law, Vol. 77 (1983), p. 592Google Scholar.

9 Meron, Theodor, “The humanization of humanitarian law”, American Journal of International Law, Vol. 94 (2000), p. 243CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

10 Robert Kolb, “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 Convention”, International Review of the Red Cross, No. 324 (1998).

11 Morsink, Johannes, “World War Two and the Universal Declaration”, Human Rights Quarterly, Vol. 15 (1993), p. 358CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12 Reprinted in Dietrich Schindler and Jiri Toman (eds.), Droit des Conflits Armés (1996), p. 251.

13 Questions of atrocities committed by the North Korean and Chinese Communist forces against United Nations prisoners of war in Korea. GA Res. 804 (VIII), UN Doc. A/804/VIII, 3 December 1953 (on the treatment of captured soldiers and civilians in Korea by North Korean and Chinese forces).

14 GA Res. 1312 (XIII), UN Doc. A/38/49, 12 December 1958.

15 SC Res. 237, preambular para. 1(b), UN Doc. A/237/1967, 14 June 1967; see also GA Res. 2252 (ES-V), UN Doc. A/2252/ESV, 4 July 1967, which refers to this resolution.

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

17 Report on Respect for Human Rights in Armed Conflict, UN Doc. A/7720, 20 November 1969, esp. ch. 3; Report on Respect for Human Rights in Armed Conflict, paras. 20–29, annex 1, UN Doc. A/8052, 18 September 1970.

18 Ibid., para. 29.

19 GA Res. 2675 (XXV), Basic Principles for the Protection of Civilian Populations in Armed Conflict (9 December 1970).

20 Draper, G. I. A. D., “The relationship between the human rights regime and the laws of armed conflict”, Israel Yearbook on Human Rights, Vol. 1 (1971), p. 191Google Scholar.

21 Article 72 of Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, 12 December 1977, 1125 UNTS 3 (hereinafter Additional Protocol I); Preamble of Protocol II Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, Relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts, 12 December 1977, 1125 UNTS 609 (hereinafter Protocol II).

22 ICRC, Draft Additional Protocols to The Geneva Conventions of August 12, 1949 – Commentary 131, 1973; see also Jean Pictet, Humanitarian Law and the Protection of War Victims, Sijthoff D. Henry Dunant Institute, Leyden/Geneva 1975, p. 15. One can assume that there was also an institutional motivation for the ICRC to keep its distance from human rights, which were associated with the “politicised” organs of the United Nations.

23 Yves Sandoz, Christophe Swinarski and Bruno Zimmermann (eds.), Commentary on the Additional Protocols, ICRC, Geneva 1987, see esp. para. 4429.

24 SC Res. 1019, UN Doc. S/RES/1019 (9 November 1995) and SC Res. 1034, UN Doc. S/RES/1034 (21 December 1995) (in regard to Former Yugoslavia); SC Res. 1635, UN Doc. S/RES/1635 (28 October 2005) and SC Res. 1653, UN Doc. S/RES/1653 (27 January 2006) (Great Lakes region).

25 GA Res. 2546 (XXIV), UN Doc. A/RES/2546/XXIV (December 11, 1969)(territories occupied by Israel); GA Res. 3525 (XXX), UN Doc. A/RES/3525/XXX (December 15, 1975)(territories occupied by Israel); GA Res. 50/193, UN Doc. A/RES/50/193 (22 December 1995)(Former Yugoslavia); GA Res. 3525 (XXX), UN Doc. A/3525 (15 December 1975)(territories occupied by Israel); GA Res. 46/135, UN Doc. A/RES/46/135 (19 December 1991)(Kuwait under Iraqi occupation); GA Res. 52/145, UN Doc. A/RES/52/145 (12 December 1997)(Afghanistan).

26 Commission on Human Rights, Resolutions and Decisions see, e.g., 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); and reports to the Commission on Human Rights: OHCHR/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).

27 The Secretary-General, Progress Report on UNOMIL, UN Doc. S/1996/47, 23 January 1996.

28 The Secretary-General, Progress Report on UNOMSIL, UN Doc. S/1998/750, 12 August 1998.

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

30 Commission on Human Rights Resolution, UN Doc. E/CN.4/1991/74, 6 March 1991.

31 SC Res. 1649, UN Doc. S/RES/1649, 21 December 2005 (The situation concerning the Democratic Republic of Congo), preambular paras. 4 and 5.

32 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 4, 16 December 1966, 99 UNTS 171 (hereinafter ICCPR); European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Article 15, 213 UNTS 222, 3 September 1953 (hereinafter ECHR); and American Convention on Human Rights, Article 27, 1144 UNTS 123, 22 November 1969 (hereinafter ACHR). Article 27 of the ACHR has a virtually identical wording to Article 4 ICCPR; see also UN Doc. E/CN.4/SR.195, 1950, para. 23; UN Doc. E/CN.4/SR.196, 1950, para. 3; UN Doc. E/CN.4/SR.196, 1950, para. 5.The omission of the term “war” in the ICCPR does not mean that derogations were not meant for situations of armed conflict, as the drafting history shows. Indeed, the drafters included a non-discrimination clause in Article 4, but deliberately left out discrimination on the ground of nationality in order to permit discrimination against enemy aliens, UN SCOR, 14th Sess, Supp No. 4, paras. 279–280; UN Doc. E/2256-E/CN.4/669, 1952. See also UN Doc. A/C.3/SR.1262, 1963, where the point was stressed that Article 4 could only apply within the territory of a state (Romania) para. 46, UN Doc. A/C.3/SR.1261, 1963.

33 Convention on the Rights of the Child of 1989, Article 38, 20 November 1989, 1577 UNTS 3 (hereinafter CROC).

34 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 2187 UNTS 3, 1 July 2002.

35 Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict 2000, 1577 UNTS 3, 20 November 1989.

36 Adopted by GA Res. 60/147 of 16 December 2006, UN Doc. A/RES/60/147, 21 March 2006.

37 Adopted by GA Res. 61/106, UN Doc. A/RES/61/106, 13 December 2006, see esp. Article 11.

38 Concluding Observations: Democratic Republic of Congo, UN Doc. CCPR/C/COD/CO/3, 26 April 2006; Belgium, 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, UN Doc. CCPR/CO/78/ISR, 21 August 2003; Guatemala, UN Doc. CCPR/CO/72/GTM, 27 August 2001; Netherlands, UN Doc. CCPR/CO/72/NET, 27 August 2001; Belgium, 14, UN Doc. CCPR/C/79/Add.99, 19 November 1998; Israel, UN Doc. CCPR/C/79/Add.93, 18 August 1998; United States of America, UN Doc. CCPR/C/USA/CO/3/Rev1, 18 December 2006; United Kingdom, UN Doc. CCPR/C/GBR/CO/6, 30 July 2008; 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, Communication No. R.11/45, UN Doc. Supp. No. 40(A/37/40), 31 March 1982.

39 Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Concluding Observations: Colombia, UN Doc. E/C.12/1/Add.74, 30 November 2001; Guatemala, UN Doc. E/C.12/1/Add.93, 12 December 2003; Israel, UN Doc. E/C.12/1/Add.90, 23 May 2003.

40 Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination: Concluding Observations: Israel, UN Doc. CERD/C/304/Add.45, 30 March 1998.

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

42 Committee on the Rights of the Child, Concluding Observations: Democratic Republic of Congo, UN Doc. CRC/C/15/Add.153, 9 July 2001; Sri Lanka, UN Doc. CRC/C/15/Add.207, 2 July 2003; Colombia, UN Doc. CRC/C/COL/CO/3, 8 June 2006.

43 See, e.g., ECtHR, Isayeva, Yusupova and Bazayeva v. Russia, Judgment of 24 February 2005; Isayeva v. Russia, Judgment of 24 February 2005; Ergi v. Turkey, Judgment of 28 July 1998, Reports 1998-IV; Ahmet Özkan and others v. Turkey, Judgment of April 6, 2004.

44 Cyprus v. Turkey, above note 3; for an overview see Reidy, Aisling, “The approach of the European Commission and Court of Human Rights to international humanitarian law”, International Review of the Red Cross, No. 324 (1998), pp. 513–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

45 Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter I/A Ct HR), Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala, Judgment of 25 November 2000, Series C No. 70, para. 209; Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter I/A Cm HR) Coard v. the United States of America, Case 10.951, OEA Doc. OEA/ser.L/V/II.106.doc.3rev, 1999, para. 37; Alejandre v. Cuba, Case 11.589, Report No. 86/99, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.106 Doc. 3 rev, 1999; Victor Saldaño v. Argentina, Report No. 38/99, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.95, Doc. 7 rev at 289, 1998, para. 18; Rafael Ferrer-Matorra and others v. the United States, Case No. 9903, Report No. 51/01, OEA/Ser.L/V/II111, Doc. 20 rev 289, 1980, para. 179; Request for Precautionary Measures Concerning the Detainees at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, Decision of 12 March 2002, 41 ILM 532.

46 International Court of Justice (hereinafter ICJ) Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion of 8 July 1996, [1996] ICJ Reports, p. 226, para. 25 (hereinafter Nuclear Weapons case).

47 ICJ, Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion of 9 July 2004, [2004] ICJ Reports, p. 136, para. 106 (hereinafter Wall case).

48 ICJ, Case Concerning Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (DRC v. Uganda), Judgment of 19 December 2005, para. 216 (hereinafter DRC v. Uganda).

49 As argued by Dennis, Michael J., “Application of human rights treaties extraterritorially in times of armed conflict and military occupation”, American Journal of International Law, Vol. 99 (2005), p. 122CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

50 General Comment 31, Nature of the General Legal Obligation Imposed on States Parties to the Covenant, UN Doc. CCPR/C/21/Rev1/Add.13, 26 May 2004, para. 10.

51 López Burgos v. Uruguay, UN Doc. CCPR/C/13/D/52/1979, 29 July 1981; see also Celiberti v. Uruguay, UN Doc. CCPR/C/13/D/56/1979, 29 July 1981.

52 López Burgos v. Uruguay, above note 51, para. 12.3; Celiberti v. Uruguay, above note 51, para. 10.3.

53 Human Rights Committee, Concluding Observations on Cyprus, UN Doc. CCPR/C/79/Add.39, 21 September 1994, para. 3; Concluding Observations on Israel, UN Doc. CCPR/C/79/Add.93, 18 August 1998, para. 10; Concluding Observations on Israel, UN Doc. CCPR/CO/78/ISR, 21 August 2003, para. 11.

54 Concluding Observations on Belgium, UN Doc. CCPR/C/79/Add.99, 19 November 1998, para. 14; Netherlands, UN Doc. CCPR/CO/72/NET, 27 August 2001, para. 8; Belgium, CCPR/CO/81/BEL, 12 August 2004, para. 6.

55 General Comment No. 31, above note 50, para. 10 (emphasis added).

56 Wall case, above note 47, paras. 108–111.

57 Annex I: 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, p. 7, available at http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrc/docs/ngos/hrfirst.doc.

58 Compilation of the Comments of Governments on the Draft International Covenant on Human Rights and on the Proposed Additional Articles, UN ESCOR Hum Rts Comm, 6th Sess, UN Doc. E/CN.4/365, 1950, p. 14 (United States proposal).

59 Summary Record of the Hundred and Thirty-Eighth Meeting, UN ESCOR Hum Rts Comm, 6th Sess, 138th mtg, UN Doc. E/CN.4/SR.138, 1950, p. 10.

60 Summary Record of the Hundred and Thirty-Eighth Meeting, UN ECOSOC, Commission on Human Rights, UN Doc. E/CN.4/SR.138, 6 April 1950, p.10; see also Summary Record of the Hundred and Ninety-Third Meeting, E/CN.4/SR.193, 26 May 1950, para. 53, and Summary Record of the Hundred and Ninety-Fourth Meeting, E/CN.4/SR.194, 25 May 1950, paras. 14, 16, 25.

61 UN Doc. E/CN.4/SR.329, p. 10; see also Summary Record of the Hundred and Ninety-Fourth Meeting, UN Doc. E/CN.4/SR.194, 25 May 1950, para. 16.

62 UN Doc. E/CN.4/SR.329, p. 12.

63 Summary Record of the Hundred and Ninety-Fourth Meeting, E/CN.4/SR.194, 25 May 1950, para. 32.

64 “The State party should review its approach and interpret the Covenant in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to its terms in their context including subsequent practice, and in the light of its object and purpose”. Concluding Observations on the United States of America, United States of America, UN Doc. CCPR/C/USA/CO/3/Rev1, 18 December 2006, para. 10.

65 Lopez Burgos v. Uruguay, above note 51. Individual opinion of Mr Tomuschat (emphasis added). Note that Tomuschat also excluded the situation of occupation from the scope of Article 2 – a conclusion that was not followed subsequently by the Human Rights Committee.

66 Article 1 ECHR.

67 Collected Edition of the Travaux Préparatoires of the European Convention on Human Rights (Vol. III, p. 260), cited in ECtHR, Banković and others v. Belgium and others, application No. 52207/99, Admissibility Decision [GC], 12 December 2001, para. 19.

68 ECtHR, Loizidou v. Turkey (Preliminary Objections), Judgment of 23 March 1995, Series A No. 310, para. 62; Loizidou v. Turkey, Judgment of 18 December 1996, Reports 1996-VI, para. 56; Cyprus v. Turkey, application No. 25781/99 above note 3, para. 77.

69 Cyprus v. Turkey, above note 3, para. 78.

70 ECtHR, Banković and others v. Belgium and others, above note 67, para. 75.

71 Ibid., para. 80.

72 See the severe criticism of the Banković judgment by Condorelli, Luigi, “La protection des droits de l'Homme lors d'actions militaires menées à l'étranger”, Collegium 32 (2005), p. 100Google Scholar.

73 ECtHR, Öcalan v. Turkey, Judgment of 12 March 2003, para. 93.

74 ECtHR, Issa and others v. Turkey, Judgment of 16 November 2004, para. 71; see also Isaak and others v. Turkey, Appl. No. 44587/98, Admissibility decision of 28 September 2008, p. 19.

75 Issa and others v. Turkey, above note 74, para. 71.

76 Including cases such as Eur Comm HR, Sánchez Ramirez v. France, 86-A DR 155, 1996; Freda v. Italy, 21 DR 250, 1980; Hess v. the United Kingdom, 2 DR 72, 1975.

77 As described in Banković and others v. Belgium and others, above note 67, para. 73.

78 House of Lords, Al-Skeini and others v. Secretary of State for Defence, Judgment of 13 June 2007, [2007] UKHL 26, paras. 61–83, 91, 105–132; the Court of Appeals had interpreted the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights to be broader and cover both overall control over a territory and control over a person: R v. the Secretary of State for Defence, ex parte Al-Skeini and others, Judgment of 21 December 2005, [2005] EWCA Civ 1609, paras. 62–112.

79 Press Release issued by the Registrar, “European Court of Human Rights grants requests for interim measures”, No. 581, 12 August 2008.

80 Sir Elihu Lauterpacht and Daniel Bethlehem, “The scope and content of the principle of non-refoulement: opinion”, in Erika Feller, Volker Türk and Frances Nicholson (eds.), Refugee Protection in International Law: UNHCR's Global Consultations On International Protection 87, 2003, para. 67.

81 For an overview of its jurisprudence see Cristina Cerna, “Extraterritorial application of the human rights instruments of the Inter-American system”, in Fons Coomans and Menno Kamminga (eds.), Extraterritorial Application of Human Rights Treaties, 2004, pp. 141–74, and Douglas Cassel, ibid., pp. 175–81.

82 Coard v. the United States, above note 45, para. 37.

83 Salas v. the United States, Report No. 31/93, Case No. 10.573, 14 October 1993, Annual Report 1993, OEA/Ser.L/V85, Doc. 9 rev., 11 February 1994, para. 6.

84 Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Chile, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.66, Doc.17, 9 September 1985, Chapter III, paras. 81–91, 181.

85 Second Report on the Human Rights Situation in Suriname, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.66, doc.21 rev 1, 2 October 1985, Chapter V, E.

86 Report of the Working Group on A Draft Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, UN Doc. E/CN.4/L.1470, 12 March 1979, para. 32; France proposed that “within its jurisdiction” should be replaced by “in its territory” throughout the draft, E/CN.4/1314, para. 54.

87 Committee against Torture, Conclusions and Recommendations on the United Kingdom, UN Doc. CAT/C/CR/33/3, 10 December 2004, para. 4(b).

88 Committee against Torture, Summary Record of the 703rd meeting, UN Doc. CAT/C/SR.703, 12 May 2006, para. 14.

89 The same is true for the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and the Convention on all Forms of Discrimination against Women.

90 Wall case, above note 47, para. 112.

91 Committee on the Rights of the Child, Concluding observations on Israel, UN Doc. CRC/C/15/Add.195, 9 October 2002; Wall case, above note 47, para. 113.

92 ICJ, Case Concerning Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Georgia v. Russian Federation), Request for the Indication of Provisional Measures, Order of 15 October 2008, para No. 109.

93 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).

94 Interim Resolution ResDH(2006)26 concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 8 July 2004 (Grand Chamber) in the case of Ilaşcu and others against Moldova and the Russian Federation (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 10 May 2006 at the 964th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies).

95 GA Resolution 1312 (XIII), 12 December 1958. See above note 14.

96 SC Resolution 237 (1967) of 14 June 1967, preambular paragraph 2. See above note 5.

97 UN Doc. S/RES/1649 of 21 December 2005.

98 See above notes 30 and 31.

99 See Replies of the Government of the Netherlands to the Concerns Expressed by the Human Rights Committee, UN Doc. CCPR/CO/72/NET/Add.1, 29 April 2003, para. 19; Second periodic report of Israel to the Human Rights Committee, UN Doc. CCPR/C/ISR/2001/2, 4 December 2001, para. 8; Second periodic report of Israel to the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, UN Doc. E/1990/6/Add.32, 16 October 2001, para. 5; Committee against Torture, Conclusions and Recommendations on the United Kingdom, UN Doc. CAT/C/CR/33/3, 10 December 2004, para. 4 (b); Summary Record of the 703rd meeting, UN Doc. CAT/C/SR.703, 12 May 2006, para. 14; Annex I: 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.

100 See, e.g., Marab v. IDF Commander in the West Bank, HCJ 3239/02, Judgment of 18 April 2002.

101 Al-Skeini and others v. Secretary of State for Defence, [2004] EWHC 2911 (Admin), No. CO/2242/2004, 14 December 2004; see also Al-Skeini and others v. Secretary of State for Defence, [2005] EWCA Civ 1609, 21 December 2005, paras. 3–11, 48–53, 189–190; Al-Jedda, R v. Secretary of State for Defence, [2005] EWHC 1809 (Admin), 12 August 2005.

102 The importance of court decisions in forming customary law when conflicting with positions of the executive is subject to debate: see International Law Association, Final Report of the Committee on Formation of Customary International Law, Statement of principles applicable to the formation of general customary international law, pp. 17, 18.

103 See, e.g., the United States Army Operational Handbook of 2006, ch. 3, p. 47. For the extraterritorial scope of the customary right to life, see Nils Melzer, Targeted Killing, 2007, pp. 287 f.; Kretzmer, David, “Targeted killing of suspected terrorists: extra-judicial executions or legitimate means of defence?”, European Journal of International Law, Vol. 16 (2005), pp. 171, 185CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Naftali, Orna Ben and Shany, Yuval, “Living in denial: the application of human rights in the occupied territories”, Israel Law Review, Vol. 37 (2004), pp. 17, 87CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

104 Bothe, above note 4, pp. 37.

105 See Common Article 3 to the Fourth Geneva Convention.

106 Article 2 ICCPR; Article 1 ECHR; Article 1 ACHR; see Andrew Clapham, Human Rights Obligations of Non-State Actors, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2006.

107 See Article 4 ICCPR; Article 15 ECHR; Article 27 ACHR.

108 See below. Investigation, remedies, reparation, pp. 540 et seq.

109 McLachlan, Campbell, “The principle of systemic integration and Article 31(3)(c) of the Vienna Convention”, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 54 (2005), pp. 279–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar; International Law Commission, Report of the Study Group on Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties arising from Diversification and Expansion of International Law, UN Doc. A/CN.4/L.676, 29 July 2005, para. 27; see also Sands, Philippe, “Treaty, Custom and the Cross-fertilization of International Law”, Yale Human Rights and Development Law Journal, Vol. 1 (1999), p. 95Google Scholar.

110 Nuclear Weapons case, above note 46, para. 25.

111 Wall case, above note 47, para. 106.

112 DRC v. Uganda, above note 48, para. 216.

113 Coard v. the United States, above note 45, para. 42.

114 Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 31, above note 50, para. 11.

115 Emerich de Vattel, Le Droit Des Gens ou Principes de la Loi Naturelle, Book II, ch xvii, para. 316 (reproduction of Books I and II edn 1758, in: The Classics of International Law, Geneva, Slatkine Reprints, Henry Dunant Institute, 1983).

116 Hugo Grotius, De Jure Belli Ac Pacis, Book II, section XXIX. Library Ires.

117 Lindroos, Anja, “Addressing the norm conflicts in a fragmented system: the doctrine of lex specialis”, Nordic Journal of International Law, Vol. 74 (2005), p. 28CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

118 See, e.g., International Law Commission, Report of the Study Group, above note 108; Lindroos, above note 117, pp. 27–8.

119 Nancie Prud'homme, “Lex specialis: oversimplifying a more complex and multifaceted relationship?”, Israel Law Review, Vol. 40 (2) (2007), pp. 356; Gaggioli, Gloria and Kolb, Robert, “A right to life in armed conflicts? The contribution of the European Court of Human Rights”, Israel Yearbook on Human Rights, Vol. 37 (2007), pp. 115–69Google Scholar.

120 Louise Doswald-Beck, “International humanitarian law and the International Court of Justice on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons”, International Review of the Red Cross, No. 316 (January–February 1997), p. 35.

121 Prud'homme, above note 119, p. 14.

122 Ibid., p. 6.

123 Rene Provost, International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2005, p. 350.

124 Sands, above note 109, pp. 85–105.

125 Kretzmer, above note 103, p. 171.

126 Martti Koskenniemi, Study on the Function and Scope of the Lex Specialis Rule and the Question of “Self Contained Regimes”, UN Doc. ILC(LVI)/SG/FIL/CRD.1 and Add.1 (2004), p. 4.

127 See International Law Commission, Report of the Study Group, above note 109, para. 42.

128 Lindroos, above note 117, p. 44.

129 Watkin, Kenneth, “Controlling the use of force: a role for human rights norms in contemporary armed conflict”, American Journal of International Law, Vol. 98 (2004), p. 32CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

130 See Principles 9 and 10 of the UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials; see also Nigel Rodley, The Treatment of Prisoners Under International Law, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1999, pp. 182–8; Kretzmer, above note 103, p. 179.

131 Principles 9 and 10 of the UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials.

132 ECtHR, McCann and Others v. United Kingdom, 18984/91, 1995, paras. 202–213; Andronicou and Constantinou v. Cyprus, Judgment of 9 October 1997, Reports 1997-VI, paras. 181–186, 191–193; Hugh Jordan v. the United Kingdom, Judgment of 4 May 2001, paras. 103–104; Ergi v. Turkey, above note 43, para. 79; Isayeva, Yusupova and Bazayeva v. Russia, above note 43, paras. 169–171; Isayeva v. Russia, above note 43, para. 189.

133 Jean-Marie Henckaerts and Louise Doswald-Beck (eds.), Customary International Humanitarian Law, ICRC and Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2005, Rules 11–21.

134 See the discussion on the principle of proportionality in Noam Lubell, “Challenges in applying human rights law to armed conflict”, International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 87 No. 860 (December 2005), pp. 737, 745–46.

135 See the codification in Additional Protocol I, Article 51(5).

136 Gaggioli and Kolb, above note 119, p. 138.

137 For an in-depth analysis of the concept of military necessity and its use in modern military manuals see Melzer, above note 103, pp. 336–56; Gaggioli and Kolb, above note 119, p. 136.

138 Preamble of the Saint Petersburg Declaration Renouncing the Use, in Time of War, of Explosive Projectiles under 400 Grammes Weights, 1868. Article 14 of the Lieber Code contains a similar clause: “Military necessity, as understood by modern civilized nations, consists in the necessity of those measures which are indispensable for securing the ends of the war, and which are lawful according to the modern law and usages of war.” See also Articles 15 and 16 of the Lieber Code, which define military necessity.

139 1907 Hague Regulations, Article 23(c); Geneva Convention II, Article 12; Additional Protocol I, Article 40.

140 Additional Protocol I, Article 35 (2).

141 Nils Melzer, above note 103, p. 347; in the words of Jean Pictet: “If we can put a soldier out of action by capturing him, we should not wound him; if we can obtain the same result by wounding him, we must not kill him. If there are two means to achieve the same military advantage, we must choose the one which causes the lesser evil”. Development and Principles of International Humanitarian Law, p. 75 f. (1985).

142 See Henckaerts and Doswald-Beck, above note 133, Rules 1, 2, 5–24.

143 Sandoz, Swinarski and Zimmerman, above note 23, para. 4789.

144 The Supreme Court of Israel has taken the approach that members of “terrorist” groups continue to be civilians that can be targeted if and for such time as they directly participate in hostilities. The Public Committee against Torture in Israel and the Palestinian Society for the Protection of Human Rights and the Environment v. the Government of Israel, the Prime Minister of Israel, the Minister of Defence, the Israel Defense Forces, the Chief of General Staff of the Israel Defense Forces, and Surat HaDin – Israel Law Center and 24 Others, the Supreme Court of Israel sitting as the High Court of Justice, Judgment of 14 December 2006, (hereinafter Targeted Killings case), para. 28. It has, however, avoided the question of what “for such time” means (para. 40).

145 See Third Expert Meeting on Direct Participation in Hostilities, Summary Report 2005, pp. 48–9, available at http://www.icrc.org/Web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/participation-hostilities-ihl-311205/$File/Direct_participation_in_hostilities_2005_eng.pdf (hereinafter DPH Report 2005). This seems to be the approach of the Supreme Court of Israel in the Targeted Killings case, above note 144, para. 39: “a civilian who has joined a terrorist organization which has become his ‘home’, and in the framework of his role in that organization he commits a chain of hostilities, with short periods of rest between them, loses his immunity from attack ‘for such time’ as he is committing the chain of acts.” But the Supreme Court also recognizes that between this situation and a civilian who only once or sporadically participates in hostilities and can only be attacked at those times, there is a grey area “about which customary international law has not yet crystallized”, para. 40.

146 Yoram Dinstein, The Conduct of Hostilities under the Law of International Armed Conflicts, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2004, p. 29; Kretzmer, above note 103, pp. 197–8; Sandoz, Swinarski and Zimmermann, above note 23, para. 4789; I/A Commission HR, Report on Terrorism and Human Rights, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.116, Doc. 5 rev 1 corr., 22 October 2002, para. 69.

147 Doswald-Beck, Louise, “The right to life in armed conflict: does international humanitarian law provide all the answers?”, International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 88 (864) (December 2006), p. 885CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

148 See DPH Report 2005, above note 145, pp. 45–6.

149 Human Rights Committee, Communication No. R.11/45, UN Doc. Supp. No. 40(A/37/40), 31 March 1992.

150 Ibid., paras. 13.2, 13.3.

151 Concluding Observations: Israel, UN Doc. CCPR/CO/78/ISR, 21 August 2003, para. 15.

152 McCann and others v. the United Kingdom, above note 132, para. 194; Gül v. Turkey, Appl. No. 22676/93, Judgment of 14 December 2000, para. 84.

153 See the latest case of Akhmadov and others v. Russia, Judgement of 14 November 2008, para. 100.

154 Güleç v. Turkey, Judgment of 27 July 1998, Reports 1998-IV, para. 67.

155 Ibid., paras. 71–73.

156 Gül v. Turkey, above note 152, para. 82.

157 Oğur v. Turkey, Judgment of 20 May 1999, Reports 1999-III, paras. 82–84.

158 Hamiyet Kaplan v. Turkey, Judgment of 13 September 2005, para. 50.

159 Ibid., paras. 51–55. See also Akhmadov and others v. Russia, Judgement of 14 November 2008, para. 99.

160 Ergi v. Turkey, above note 43, para. 79; Ahmed Özkan and others v. Turkey, above note 43, para. 297. In Ergi the Court went very far in its requirement of precautionary measures, which included protection against firepower against civilians by PKK member caught in the ambush: Ergi, paras. 79, 80.

161 Ahmed Özkan and others v. Turkey, above note 43, para. 305; however, the Court found that the security forces should have verified after the combat operations whether any civilians were injured, para. 307.

162 Isayeva, Yusupova and Bazayeva v. Russia, above note 43, para. 171; in Isayeva v. Russia, above note 43, paras. 175–176, the Court cites both standards.

163 Isayeva, Yusupova and Bazayeva v. Russia, above note 43, para. 175.

164 Isayeva v. Russia, above note 43, para. 180.

165 Ibid., para. 191.

166 Ibid., para. 191.

167 Ibid., paras. 193–200.

168 It appears, however, to require that illegal fighters posed a danger to the military in Akhmadov and others v. Russia, Judgement of 14 November 2008, para. 101.

169 Ibid., para. 187.

170 Ergi v. Turkey, above note 43, para. 79.

171 Targeted Killings case, above note 144, para. 28.

172 Ibid., para. 39.

173 Ibid., para. 40, citations omitted.

174 Such as in Guerrero v. Colombia, above note 38; Gül v. Turkey, above note 152, Oğur v. Turkey, above note 157.

175 Such as in Gülec v. Turkey, above note 154.

176 Such as Gaggioli and Kolb, above note 119, pp. 148–9; Francisco Forrest Martin, “The united use of force rule: amplifications in light of the comments of Professors Green and Paust”, Saskatchewan Law Review, Vo. 65 (2002), p. 405; Forrest Martin, Francisco, “The united use of force rule revisited: the penetration of the law of armed conflict by international human rights law”, Saskatchewan Law Review, Vol. 65 (2002), p. 451Google Scholar.

177 See Akhmadov and others v. Russia, above note 153, para. 100.

178 Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadić, Case IT-94-1 (Appeals Chamber), Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, 2 October 1995, para. 68.

179 Prosecutor v. Kunarac et al, IT-96-23&23/1, Appeals Chamber, 12 June 2002, paras. 55–60.

180 Prosecutor v. Kunarac et al., IT-96-23&23/1, Appeals Chamber, 12 June 2002, para. 60.

181 In this sense see also Marco Sassòli, “La Cour Européenne des Droits de L'homme et les Conflits Armés”, in Stephan Breitenmoser, Bernhard Ehrenzeller, Marco Sassòli, Walter Stoffel and Beatrice Wagner Pfeifer (eds.), Droits de L'homme, Democratie et Etat De Droit, Liber Amicorum Luzius Wilhaber, Dike, Zürich, 2007, pp. 709, 721; Marco Sassòli, “Le Droit International Humanitaire, une Lex Specialis par Rapport aux Droits Humains?”, in Andreas Auer, Alexandre Flückiger and Michel Hottelier (eds.), Etudes en l'honneur du Professeur Giorgio Malinverni: Les Droits Humains et la Constitution, 2007, p. 394.

182 Nuclear Weapons case, above note 46, para. 25; however, the dictum of the International Court of Justice does not make any differentiation between situations or types of armed conflict and was probably meant, without further thought, to imply that humanitarian law is always the lex specialis in armed conflict; see, e.g., Green, Leslie, “The ‘unified use of force rule’ and the law of armed conflict: a reply to Professor Martin”, Saskatchewan Law Review, Vol. 65 (2002), p. 427Google Scholar.

183 Gaggioli and Kolb, above note 119, pp. 141, 148f. These authors consider, for instance, that the jurisprudence of the ECtHR provides interpretation for the principle of precaution.

184 Françoise Hampson, “Human rights and humanitarian law in internal conflicts”, in Michael Meyer (ed.) Armed Conflict and the New Law: Aspects of the 1977 Geneva Protocols and the 1981 Weapons Convention, British Institute of International and Comparative Law, London, 1989, p. 60.

185 Doswald-Beck, above note 147, p. 890.

186 As was the case in ECtHR, Banković and others v. Belgium and others, above note 67.

187 Sassòli, Marco, “Legislation and maintenance of public order and civil life by occupying powers”, European Journal of International Law, Vol. 16 (2005), p. 665CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

188 1907 Hague Regulations, Article 42.

189 Fourth Geneva Convention, Articles 64 and 65.

190 In this sense, see Lubell, above note 134, pp. 52–3; see also Melzer, above note 103, pp. 224–30 on the basis that humanitarian law itself leads to this result.

191 University Centre for International Humanitarian Law, Expert Meeting on the Right to Life in Armed Conflict and Situations of Occupation, 1–2 September 2005 (hereinafter UCIHL Meeting Report), available at www.adh-geneva.ch/events/expert meetings.php (last visited 23 July 2008).

192 Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadić, Case IT-94-1 (Appeals Chamber), Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, 2 October 1995, para. 70: “protracted violence between governmental authorities and organized armed groups or between such groups within a State”.

193 See also Additional Protocol II, Article 1(2), according to which “situations of internal disturbances and tensions, such as riots, isolated and sporadic acts of violence” do not amount to an armed conflict.

194 UCIHL Meeting Report, Section D4.

195 Al-Skeini case (CA), above note 78, para. 119.

196 Ibid., para. 124. The House of Lords arrived at the same result as the majority in the Court of Appeals, but on the basis that the Human Rights Act had no extraterritorial application. Al-Skeini case [UKHL], above note 78, esp. paras. 26 and 109–132.

197 See also Watkin, above note 129, p. 24; Sassòli, above note 187, p. 668.

198 “Transitioning from combat to SASO requires a substantial and fundamental shift in attitude. The soldiers have been asked to go from killing the enemy to protecting and interacting, and back to killing again. The constant shift in mental posture greatly complicates things for the average soldier. The soldiers are blurred and confused about the rules of engagement, which continues to raise questions, and issues about force protection while at checkpoints and conducting patrols.” After Action Report, “SUBJECT: Operatio n Iraqi Freedom After Action Review Comments,” 24 April 2003, conducted by TCM C/3-15 Infantry, Task Force 1-64 (declassified), cited in Human Rights Watch, Hearts and Minds, Annex II, available at www.hrw.org/reports/2003/iraq1003/10.htm (last visited 23 August 2007).

199 This is implicit in the obligation to search for persons alleged to have committed grave breaches and to bring them to justice. Articles 49/50/129/146 respectively of the four Geneva Conventions; Additional Protocol I, Article 85.

200 Third Geneva Convention, Article 121.

201 Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 131.

202 See the 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 vast body of jurisprudence, see Human Rights Committee: Concluding Observations: Serbia and Montenegro, para. 9, UN Doc. CCPR/CO/81/SEMO, 12 August 2004; Concluding Observations: Brazil, para. 20, UN Doc. CCPR/C/79/Add.66, 24 July 1996; Concluding Observations: Colombia, para. 32 and 34, UN Doc. CCPR/C/79/Add. 76, 5 May 1997; Committee against Torture: Conclusions and Recommendations: Colombia, para. 10(f), UN Doc. CAT/C/CR/31/1, 4 February 1997; I/A Court H R, Myrna Mack-Chang v. Guatemala, Judgment of 25 November 2003, Series C No. 101; Caracazo v. Venezuela (Reparation), Judgment of 29 August 2002, Series C No. 95; Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras, Judgment of 26 November 2003, Series C No. 99, para. 186; African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights, Amnesty International et al. v. Sudan, 26th and 27th Ordinary Sessions, May 2000, para. 51; Eur Court HR, Isayeva, Yusupova and Bazayeva v. Russia, above note 43, paras. 208–213 (summary of constant jurisprudence of the Court).

203 Akkum v. Turkey, Judgment of 24 March 2005, paras. 208–211.

204 Ibid., para. 211.

205 ECtHR, Isayeva, Yusupova and Bazayeva v. Russia, above note 43, paras. 208–213; I/A Court H R, Myrna Mack-Chang v. Guatemala, above note 202; Human Rights Committee: Concluding Observations: Colombia, UN Doc. CCPR/C/79/Add. 76, 5 May 1997, para. 32.

206 Report of the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions, UN Doc. E/CN.4/2006/53m, 8 March 2006, paras. 33–38.

207 Melzer, above note 103, pp. 526 f.

208 As happened in Gül v. Turkey, above note 152, paras. 81, 89, or in Oğur v. Turkey, above note 157, para. 80.

209 As happened in I/A Court H R, Escué-Zapata v. Colombia, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of July 4, 2007, Series C No. 165, para. 39.

210 Watkin, above note 129, p. 34.

211 Gaggioli and Kolb, above note 119, p. 126.

212 Kretzmer, above note 103, pp. 201, 204.

213 Report of the Special Rapporteur, above note 206, para. 37; see more generally, Federico Andreu, Fuero military y derecho internacional, International Commission of Jurists, 2003, pp. 112–26; I/A Commission H R, Third Report on the Human Rights Situation in Colombia, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.102, Doc. 9 rev 1, 26 February 1999, Ch. V, paras. 17–60; Report submitted by the Special Rapporteur of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, Emmanuel Decaux, on the Issue of the administration of justice through military tribunals, UN Doc. E/CN.4/2006/58, 13 January 2006, paras. 32–35.

214 Ben Naftali and Shany, above note 103, pp. 17, 31.

215 Jean Pictet (ed.), Commentary to the First Geneva Convention,1960, pp. 82, 83; see in particular the discussion on Common Article 6/6/6/7 to the four Geneva Conventions; Yoram Dinstein, “The international law of inter-state wars and human rights”, Israel Yearbook of Human Rights, Vol. 1 (1971), pp. 139, 147.

216 And see now the newly adopted Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, UN Doc. A/HRC/8/L.2, 9 June 2008.

217 See ICCPR, Article 2(3); ECHR, Article 13; ACHR, Article 25; African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, Article 7(1)(a); 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, adopted by GA Res. 60/147 of 16 December 2005, UN Doc. A/RES/60/147, 21 March 2006.

218 Zegveld, Liesbeth, “Remedies for victims of violations of international humanitarian law”, International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 84 (851) (September 2003), pp. 497–528CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

219 This was, for instance, the argument by the State Attorney's Office in the Targeted Killings case, above note 144, para. 47.

220 Sean MacBride, “Human rights in armed conflict, the inter-relationship between the humanitarian law and the law of human rights”, IX Revue de Droit Pénal Militaire et de Droit de la Guerre, 1970, p. 388.

221 See A. H. Robertson, “Humanitarian Law and Human Rights”, in Christophe Swinarski (ed.), Studies and Essays on International Humanitarian Law and Red Cross Principles, in Honour of Jean Pictet, 1984, pp. 793, 799; Sandoz, Swinarski and Zimmermann, above note 23, paras. 3600–3602; Report of the Secretary General on Respect for Human Rights in Armed Conflict, UN Doc. A/7720, 20 November 1969, para. 230; Hampson, above note 184, p. 71; Schindler, Dietrich, “Human rights and humanitarian law: interrelationship of the laws”, American University Law Review, Vol. 31 (1982), p. 941Google Scholar. At the 1949 Geneva Conference, not quite with the same idea but in the same direction, France proposed the establishment of a “High International Committee” to “supervise the application of and ensure respect for the Convention[s]”. Final Record of the Diplomatic Conference of Geneva of 1949, 1963, vol. 3 annex No. 21 and vol. 2, sec. B, p. 61.

222 Mara'abe v. The Prime Minister of Israel, HCJ 7957/04, The Supreme Court Sitting as the High Court of Justice, 15 September 2005, para. 31; See also Beit Sourik Village Council v. The Government of Israel and the Commander of the IDF Forces in the West Bank, HCJ 2056/04, The Supreme Court Sitting as the High Court of Justice, 30 June 2004, para. 46f.

223 Wilhelm List case (Hostages Trial), United Nations War Crimes Commission. Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, Volume VIII, 1949, p. 69, available at www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/WCC/List4.htm (last visited 4 August 2008).

224 UN Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, Working paper by Ms. Hampson and Mr. Salama on the Relationship between Human Rights Law and International Humanitarian Law, UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/2005/14, 21 June 2005, paras. 9–37.

225 Bothe, above note 4, p. 45; see also Meron, above note 9, p. 247, who writes that “their very idealism and naïveté are their greatest strength”; Reidy, above note 44, p. 529.

226 Abresch, William, “A human rights law of internal armed conflict: The European Court of Human Rights in Chechnya”, European Journal of International Law, Vol. 16 (2005), p. 741CrossRefGoogle Scholar; see also Bothe, above note 4, p. 90.

227 Schindler, above note 221, p. 941.

228 An interesting assessment of different mechanisms can be found in Lindsay Moir, The Law of Internal Armed Conflict, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2002, pp. 232–77.

229 Gross, Aeyal M., “Human proportions: are human rights the emperor's new clothes of the international law of occupation?”, European Journal of International Law, Vol. 18 (2007), p. 35CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On the more protective aspect of some humanitarian law provisions see Cordula Droege, “The interplay between international humanitarian law and international human rights law in situations of armed conflict”, Israel Law Review, Vol. 40 (2007), p. 350.

230 Even if one takes the view that human rights bind non-state armed groups, cases can only be brought to international bodies and courts against states.

231 Gaggioli and Kolb, above note 119, p. 126 (2007).

232 In two recent cases, the European Court of Human Rights has had to grapple with quite complex questions of international criminal law and IHL but seems to have sought to avoid venturing too much on IHL territory: Korbely v. Hungary, Judgment of 19 September 2008, Koronov v. Latvia, Judgment of 24 July 2008, para. 122.

233 Bámaca Velázquez v. Guatemala, above note 45, 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), UN Doc. CCPR/C/21/Rev1/Add.11, 24 July 2001, para. 10.

234 Abella v. Argentina, Case 11.137, I/A Cm HR Report No. 55/97, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.98, doc 6 rev, 1997, paras. 157–171.

235 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 Humanitarian Law. In different treaties, this right is derived from norms with varying wordings but essentially the same content; see, e.g., ICCPR, Article 2(3); ECHR, Article 41; CAT, Article 14; ACHR, Article 63.

236 1907 Hague Regulations, Article 3; Additional Protocol I, Article 91; see Gillard, Emanuela- Chiara, “Reparation for violations of international humanitarian law”, International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 85 (851) (September 2003), pp. 529–54Google Scholar.

237 Hampson/Salama, above note 224, paras. 20, 49.

238 GA Res. 60/147 of 16 December 2005.

239 Wall case, above note 47, para. 106. One can speculate whether it held so in the absence of another state to which Israel could have paid compensation. See Pierre d'Argent, “Compliance, cessation, reparation and restitution in the Wall Advisory Opinion”, in Pierre-Marie Dupuy et al. (eds.), Völkerrecht Als Wertordnung – Common Values In International Law, Festschrift For Christian Tomuschat, 2006, pp. 463, 475.

240 See Gillard, above note 236, p. 540.

241 On Germany, see Bank, Roland, “The new programs for payments to victims of National Socialist injustice”, German Yearbook of International Law, Vol. 44 (2001), pp. 307–52Google Scholar; the most comprehensive description of national reparations programmes can be found in Pablo de Greiff (ed.), The Handbook on Reparations, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2006.

242 On this discussion see Elke Schwager and Roland Bank, “An individual right to compensation for victims of armed conflicts?”, paper submitted to the ILA Committee on Compensation for Victims of War, pp. 45–8; d'Argent, Pierre, “Wrongs of the past, history of the future”, European Journal of International Law, Vol. 17 (2006), pp. 279, 286CrossRefGoogle Scholar.