Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T16:57:44.222Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Interplay between International Humanitarian Law and International Human Rights Law in Situations of Armed Conflict

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2014

Cordula Droege
Get access

Abstract

International human rights law and international humanitarian law are traditionally two distinct branches of law, one dealing with the protection of persons from abusive power, the other with the conduct of parties to an armed conflict. Yet, developments in international and national jurisprudence and practice have led to the recognition that these two bodies of law not only share a common humanist ideal of dignity and integrity but overlap substantially in practice. The most frequent examples are situations of occupation or non-international armed conflicts where human rights law complements the protection provided by humanitarian law.

This article provides an overview of the historical developments that led to the increasing overlap between human rights law and humanitarian law. It then seeks to analyse the ways in which the interplay between human rights law and humanitarian law can work in practice. It argues that two main concepts inform their interaction: The first is complementarity between their norms in the sense that in most cases, especially for the protection of persons in the power of a party to the conflict, they mutually reinforce each other. The second is the principle of lex specialis in the cases of conflict between the norms.

Type
Research Article
Information
Israel Law Review , Volume 40 , Issue 2 , Summer 2007 , pp. 310 - 355
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and The Faculty of Law, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 2007

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.)

Footnotes

*

Legal Adviser, Legal Division of the International Committee of the Red Cross. I am grateful to Catherine Van Cutsem, Iris Müller and Hélène Maillet for their invaluable support with some of the research. I also thank Jelena Pejic for her comments on an earlier version of the paper. The views in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the International Committee of the Red Cross.

References

1 See, e.g., Report of the European Commission of Human Rights, Cyprus v. Turkey, Appl. No. 6780/74 & 6950/75, Eur. Comm'n H.R.Dec. & Rep. 125; European Court of Human Rights: Cyprus v. Turkey, 2001-IV Eur. Ct. H.R.

2 See, e.g., Final Act of the International Conference on Human Rights, 22 April-13 May 1968, UN Doc. A/Conf.32/41 (1968); HCJ 3239/02 Marab v. the IDF Commander in the West Bank [2002] IsrSC 52(2) 349.

3 Al-Skeini v. Sec. of State for Defence [2005] EWCA (Civ) 1609, para. 48 [hereinafter Al-Skeini (CA)].

4 Isayeva, Yusupova and Basayea v. Russia, Eur. Ct. H.R. Judgement of Feb. 24, 2005, available at http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkpl97/view.asp?item=l&portal=hbkm&action=html&highlight=Isayeva%2C%20%7C%20Yusupova&sessionid=1751995&skin=hudoc-en (last visited August 12, 2007); Isayeva v. Russia, Eur. Ct. H.R. Judgement of Oct. 14, 2005, at paras. 172-178, available at http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?item=2&portal=hbkm&action=html&highlight=Isayeva%2C%20%7C%20Yusupova&sessionid=1751995&skin=hudoc-en (last visited August 12, 2007).

5 Bothe, Michael, The Historical Evolution of International Humanitarian Law, International Human Rights Law, Refugee Law and International Criminal Law, in Crisis Management and Humanitarian Protection 37 (Fischer, H., Froissart, Ulrike, von Heinegg, Wolff Heintschel, & Raap, Christian eds., 2004)Google Scholar.

6 See for a brief account Doswald-Beck, Louise & Vité, Sylvain, International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights Law, 293 Int'l Rev. Red Cross 94–119 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

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

8 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 suggestions 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, at para. 2; Schindler, Dietrich, Human Rights and Humanitarian Law: Interrelationship of the Laws, 31 Am. Univ. L. Rev. 935, 941 (1982)Google Scholar.

9 See Geneva Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, Aug. 12, 1949, 75 U.N.T.S. 31 [hereinafter First Geneva Convention]. Meron, Theodor, On the Inadequate Reach of Humanitarian and Human Rights Law and the Need for a New Instrument, 77 Am. J. Int'l L. 554, 592 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

10 Meron, Theodor, The Humanization of Humanitarian Law, 94 Am. J. Int'l L. 239, 243 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11 Kolb, Robert, The Relationship between International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights Law: A Brief History of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the 1949 Geneva Convention, 324 Int'l Rev. Red Cross 409–419 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12 Morsink, Johannes, World War Two and the Universal Declaration, 15 Hum. Rts. Q 357, 358 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13 Droit des conflits armés, reprinted in Droit des Conflicts Armés 251 (Schindler, Dietrich & Toman, Jiri eds., 1996)Google Scholar.

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

15 GA Res. 1312 (XIII), UN Doc. A38/49 (Dec. 12, 1958).

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

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

18 Report on Respect for Human Rights in Armed Conflict, UN Doc. A/7729 (Nov. 20, 1969) see especially ch. 3; Report on Respect for Human Rights in Armed Conflict, ¶ 20-29, annex 1, UN Doc. A/8052 (Sept. 18, 1970).

19 Id. at ¶ 29.

20 GA Res. 2675 (XXV), Principles for the Protection of Civilian Populations in Armed Conflict UN Doc. A/8028Basic (Dec. 9, 1970).

21 Draper, G.I.A.D., The Relationship between the Human Rights Regime and the Laws of Armed Conflict, 1 Isr. Y.B. Hum. Rts. 191 (1971)Google Scholar.

22 ICRC, Draft Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions of August 12, 1949— Commentary 131 (1973)Google Scholar see also Pictet, Jean S., Humanitarian Law and the Protection of War Victims 15 (1975)Google Scholar.

23 Commentary on the Additional Protocols (Sandoz, Y., Swinarski, C., & Zimmermann, B. eds., 1987)Google Scholar see especially para. 4429.

24 S.C. Res. 1019, UN Doc. S/RES/1019 (Nov. 9, 1995) and S.C. Res. 1034, UN Doc. S/RES/1034 (Dec. 21, 1995)(in regard to Former Yugoslavia); S.C. Res. UN Doc. S/RES/1635 (Oct. 28, 2005) and S.C. Res. 1653, UN Doc. S/RES/1653 (Jan. 27, 2006)(Great Lakes region); G.A. Res. 50/193, UN Doc. A/RES/50/193 (Dec. 22, 1995)(Former Yugoslavia); G.A. Res. 3525 (XXX), UN Doc. A/3525 (Dec. 15, 1975)(territories occupied by Israel); G.A. Res. 46/135, UN Doc. A/RES/46/135 (Dec. 19, 1991)(Kuwait under Iraqi occupation); G.A. Res. 52/145, UN Doc. A/RES/52/145 (Dec. 12, 1997)(Afghanistan); Commission on Human Rights Resolutions and decisions see, e.g., Resolutions and: UN Docs. E/CN.4/1992/84 (Mar. 3, 1992)(Iraq); E/CN.4/2003/77 (April 25,2003)(Afghanistan), A/E/CN.4/RES/2003/16 (Apr. 17,2003)(Burundi); E/CN.4/RES/2001/24 (Apr. 20, 2001)(Russian Federation); E/CN.4/RES/2003/15 (Apr. 17, 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 (Jan. 16, 1992).

25 The Secretary-General, Progress Report on UNOMIL, UN Doc. S/1996/47 (Jan. 23, 1996).

26 The Secretary-General, Progress Report on UNOMSIL, UN Doc. S/1998/750 (Aug. 12, 1998).

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

28 Commission on Human Right Resolution, UN Doc. E/CN.4/1991/67 (Mar. 6, 1991).

29 SC Res. 1635, UN Doc. S/RES/1635 (Oct. 28, 2005)(The situation concerning the Democratic Republic of Congo) and 1653, UN Doc. S/RES/1653 (Jan. 27, 2006)(Great Lakes Region).

30 GA Res. 804 (VIII), supra note 14.

31 GA Res. 2546 (XXIV), UN Doc. A/RES/2546/XXIV (Dec. 11, 1969); GA Res. 3525 (XXX), UN Doc. A/RES/3525/XXX (Dec. 15,1975)(territories occupied by Israel); GA Res. 46/135, UN Doc. A/RES/46/135 (Dec. 19, 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 (Jan. 16, 1992).

32 Convention on the Rights of the Child of 1989, art. 38, Nov. 20, 1989, 1577 U.N.T.S. 3 [hereinafter CROC].

33 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, July 1, 2002, 2187 U.N.T.S. 3.

34 Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict 2000, Nov. 20, 1989, 1577 U.N.T.S. 3.

35 G.A. Res. 60/147, UN Doc. A/RES/60/147 (Dec. 16, 2005).

36 Adopted by G.A. Res 61/106, UN Doc. A/RES/61/106 (Dec. 13,2006), see especially Article 11.

37 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, art. 4, March 23, 1976, 99 U.N.T.S. 171 [hereinafter ICCPR] (emphasis added C.D.); European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, art. 15, Sept. 3, 1953, 213 U.N.T.S. 222 [hereinafter ECHR]; and American Convention on Human Rights, art 27 Nov. 22, 1969, 1144 U.N.T.S. 123 [hereinafter ACHR]. Article 27 of the ACHR has a virtually identical wording to Article 4 ICCPR.

38 Official Records of the Economic and Social Council, Eleventh Session, Supplement No. 5, UN Doc. E/1681, Annex I, Article 2.

39 ¶ 23, UN Doc. E/CN.4/SR. 195 (1950); ¶ 3, UN Doc. E/CN.4/SR. 196 (1950); ¶ 5, UN Doc. E/CN.4/SR. 196 (1950). The drafters included a non-discrimination clause without the factor of nationality in order to permit discrimination against enemy aliens, UN SCOR, 14th Sess., Supp. No. 4, at ¶¶ 279-80; UN Doc. E/2256-E/CN.4/669 (1952). See also UN Doc. A/C.3/SR.1262, (1963), the point was stressed that Article 4 could only apply within the territory of a state (Romania) ¶ 46, UN Doc. A/C.3/SR.1261(1963).

40 This appears to be the position adopted by the European Court of Human Rights: Isayeva v. Russia, supra note 4, at para. 191; and of the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, ¶ 71 (Dec. 12, 2005). See also Human Rights First Submission to the Human Rights Committee, (Jan. 18, 2006) at 5, available at http://www.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrc/docs/ngos/hrfirst.doc (last visited June 20, 2007).

41 Thus, Turkey has derogated from the European Convention on Human Rights with respect to the conflict in the south-eastern part of the country, whereas Russia has not derogated.

42 CROC, supra note 32, at Article 13.

43 On the application of the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights to situations of armed conflict see Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in Occupied Kuwait, ¶ 50-54, UN Doc. E/CN.4/1992/26 (Jan. 16, 1992).

44 Concluding Observations on: Democratic Republic of Congo, UN Doc. CCPR/C/COD/CO/3 (Apr. 26, 2006); Belgium, 6, UN Doc. CCPR/CO/81/BEL, (Aug. 12, 2004); Colombia, UN Doc. CCPR/CO/80/COL, (May 26, 2004); Sri Lanka, UN Doc. CCPR/CO/79/LKA (Dec. 1, 2003); Israel, 11, UN Doc. CCPR/CO/78/ISR (Aug. 21, 2003); Guatemala, UN Doc. CCPR/CO/72/GTM (Aug. 27, 2001); Netherlands, 8, UN Doc. CCPR/CO/72/NET (Aug. 27, 2001); Belgium, 14, UN Doc. CCPR/C/79/Add.99 (Nov. 19, 1998); Israel, 10, UN Doc. CCPR/C/79/Add.93 (Aug. 18, 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 PUBLIÉ; Sarma v. Sri Lanka, UN Doc. CCPR/C/78/D/950/2000 (July 31,2003); Bautista v. Colombia, UN Doc. CCPR/C/55/D/563/1993 (Nov. 13, 1995); Guerrero v. Colombia, UN Doc. CCPR/C/157D/45/1979 (Mar. 31, 1982).

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

46 Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Concluding Observations on Colombia, UN Doc. E/C.12/1/Add.74 (Nov. 30, 2001); Concluding Observations on Guatemala, UN Doc. E/C.12/1/Add.93 (Dec. 12, 2003); Concluding Observations on Israel, ¶¶ 14-15, UN Doc. E/C.12/1/Add.90 (May 23, 2003); Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination: Concluding Observations on Israel, UN Doc. CERD/C/304/Add.45 (March 30, 1998); Committee on the Rights of the Child: Concluding Observations on the Democratic Republic of Congo, UN Doc. CRC/C/15/Add.153 (July 9, 2001); Concluding Observations on Sri Lanka, UN Doc. CRC/C/15/Add.207 (July 2, 2003); Concluding Observations on Colombia, UN Doc. CRC/C/COL/CO/3 (June 8, 2006).

47 See, e.g., Isayeva, Yusupova and Basayea v. Russia, supra note 4; Isayeva v. Russia, supra note 4, at paras. 172-178; Ergi v. Turkey, 1998-IV, Eur. Ct. H.R., at paras. 79-81; Özkan v. Turkey, Eur. Ct. H.R Judgment of April 6, 2004, at para. 297, available at http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkpl97/view.asp?item=1&portal=hbkm&action=html&highlight=%D6zkan&sessionid=1751995&skin=hudoc-en (last visited August 12, 2007).

48 Cyprus v. Turkey, supra note 1; for an overview see Reidy, Aisling, The Approach of the European Commission and Court of Human Rights to International Humanitarian Law, 324 Int'l Rev. Red Cross 513–529 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

49 Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala, Case No. 11/129, Inter-Am. C.H.R., para. 209; Coard v. the United States of America, Case 10.951, Inter-Am. Commission.H.R., OEA/ser.L/V/II.106. doc.3rev (1999), at para. 37; Alejandre v. Cuba, Case 11.589, Inter-Am. Commission.H.R, Report No. 86/99, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.106 Doc. 3 rev (1999); Victor Saldaño v. Argentina, Petition Inter.Am. Commission H.R., Report No. 38/99, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.95, doc. 7 rev. at 289 (1998), at para. 18; Rafael Ferrer-Matorra and others v. the United States, Case No. 9903, Inter-Am. Commission. H.R., Report No. 51/01, OEA/Ser.L/V/II 111, doc. 20 rev. 289 (19980), at para. 179; Request for Precautionary Measures Concerning the Detainees at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, Inter-Am. Commission.H.R. decision of March 12, 2002, 41 ILM 532 (2002).

50 Bámaca Velázquez v. Guatemala, supra note 49, 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), ¶ 10, UN Doc. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.11 (July 24, 2001).

51 Abella v. Argentina, Case 11.137, Inter-Am. Commission H.R. Report No. 55/97, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.98, doc 6 rev, (1997), at paras. 157-171.

52 Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, 1996 I.C.J. 226-593 (July 8), at para. 25 [hereinafter Nuclear Weapons case].

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

54 Case Concerning Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (DRC v. Uganda), 2005 I.C.J. 116, (Dec. 19), at para. 119 [hereinafter DRC v. Uganda].

55 As argued by Dennis, Michael J., Application of Human Rights Treaties Extraterritorially in Times of Armed Conflict and Military Occupation, 99 Am. J. Int'l L. 119, 122 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

56 Summary Legal Position of the Government of Israel, Annex I to the Report of the Secretary-General Prepared Pursuant to GA Res., ES-10713, ¶ 4, UN Doc. A/ES-10/248 (Nov. 24, 2003)(relating to the construction of a wall in the occupied Palestinian territory); 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 (Nov. 28, 2005); Summary Record of the 2380th Meeting: United States of America, at 2, UN Doc. CCPR/C/SR.2380 (July 27, 2006).

57 See Article 19 (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties; on the non-applicability of the reservation to human rights treaties see Sub-Commission, Reservations to Human Rights Treaties, UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/RES/2000/26 (Aug. 18, 2000).

58 Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, arts. 77(2) and 4(3)(d), Dec. 12, 1977, 1125 U.N.T.S. 3 [hereinafter Additional Protocol I]; Protocol II Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, Relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts, art. 4(3)(d), Dec. 12, 1977, 1125 U.N.T.S. 609.

59 See Article 2(1) ICCPR, supra note 37; Article 1 ECHR, supra note 37; Article 1 ACHR, supra note 37; Convention Against Torture, art. 2(1), Dec. 10, 1984, 1465 U.N.T.S. 85 [hereinafter (CAT].

60 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 C.D.).

61 Concluding Observations on: Cyprus, ¶ 3, UN Doc. CCPR/C/79/Add.39 (Sept. 21, 1994); Israel, ¶ 10, CCPR/C/79/Add.93 (Aug. 18 1998); Concluding Observations on Israel, supra note 44.

62 Concluding Observations on: Belgium, ¶ 17, CCPR/C/79/Add.99, (Nov. 19, 1998); Netherlands, ¶ 8, CCPR/CO/72/NET, (Aug. 27, 2001); Belgium, ¶ 6, CCPR/CO/81/BEL, (Aug. 12, 2004).

63 Wall case, supra note 53, at paras. 108-111.

64 Replies of the Government of the Netherlands to the Concerns Expressed by the Human Rights Committee, ¶ 19, UN Doc. CCPR/CO/72/NET/Add. 1 (Apr. 29, 2003); Second Periodic Report of Israel to the Human Rights Committee, ¶ 8, UN Doc. CCPR/C/ISR/2001/2 (Dec. 4,2001); Second periodic report of Israel to the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, ¶ 5, UN Doc. E/1990/6/Add.32, (Oct. 16, 2001); Conclusions and Recommendations on the United Kingdom, ¶ 4(b), UN Doc. CAT/C/CR/33/3 (Dec. 10, 2004); CAT, Summary Record of the 7031 meeting, ¶ 14, UN Doc. CAT/C/SR.703 (May 12, 2006); 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 (Nov. 28, 2005).

65 See, e.g., Marab v. IDF Commander in the West Bank, supra note 2.

66 Al-Skeini v. Sec. of State for Defence [2004] EWHC 2911 (Admin) [hereinafter Al-Skeini (HC)]; Al-Skeini (CA), supra note 3, at paras. 3-11, 48-53, 189-190; Al Jedda v. Sec. of State for Defense [2006] EWCA (Civ) 327.

67 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, at 17, 18.

68 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 (Nov. 28, 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 (July 27, 2006); Human Rights First, Submission to the Human Rights Committee, Jan. 18, 2006, at 7, available at http://www.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrc/87ngo_info.htm (last visited Sept. 10, 2006).

69 The disputed passages of the travaux préparatoires are the following: Compilation of the Comments of Governments on the Draft International Covenant on Human Rights and on the Proposed Additional Articles, U.N. ESCOR Hum. Rts. Comm., 6th Sess. at 14, UN Doc. E/CN.4/365 (1950)(U.S. proposal); Summary Record of the Hundred and Thirty-Eighth Meeting U.N. ESCOR Hum. Rts. Comm., 6th Sess., 138th mtg at 10, UN Doc. E/CN.4/SR.138 (1950).

70 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, Advance Unedited Version, ¶ 10, UN Doc. CCPR/C/USA/Q/3/CRP.4 (2006).

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

72 Loizidou v. Turkey, 1996–VI Eur. Ct. H.R. 2216, 2234-2235, para. 52 (GC)(Merits) [hereinafter Loizidou (Merits)].

73 Cyprus v. Turkey, supra note 1, para. 77.

74 Ilaşcu v. Moldova and Russia, 2004-VII Eur. Ct. of H.R., paras. 434, 442, 453, 464, 481 (GC).

75 Cyprus v. Turkey, supra note 1, at para. 78.

76 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) Ilaşcu v. Moldova and Russia, (adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 10 May 2006 at the 964th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies).

77 Banković v. Belgium, 2001–XII Eur. Ct. H.R. 333 (GC).

78 Id. at para. 75.

79 Id. at para. 80.

80 See Leach, P., The British Military in Iraq—the Applicability of the Espace Juridique Doctrine under the European Convention on Human Rights, Pub. L. 448 (2005)Google Scholar with further references; Condorelli, L., La protection des droils de l'Homme lors d'actions militaires menées à l'étranger, 32 Collegium 89, 100 (2005)Google Scholar.

81 Öcalan v. Turkey, Eur. Ct. H.R (GC) Judgment of May 12, 2005, available at http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkpl97/view.asp?item=1&portal=hbkm&action=html&highlight=%D6calan&sessionid=1751995&skin=hudoc-en (last visited August 12, 2007); confirmed in Issa v. Turkey, 41 Eur. Ct. H.R. 27 (2004), at para. 71.

82 Issa v. Turkey, id. at para. 71.

83 For an overview of its jurisprudence see Cerna, C., Extraterritorial Application of the Human Rights Instruments of the Inter-American System, in Extraterritorial Application of Human Rights Treaties 141–174 (Coomans, F. & Kamminga, M.T. eds., 2004)Google Scholar and Douglas Cassel, id. at 175-181.

84 Coard v. the United States, supra note 49, at para. 37.

85 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.

86 See also Articles 64 & 65 of the Fourth Geneva Convention; Sassòli, M., Legislation and Maintenance of Public Order and Civil Life by Occupying Powers, 16 Eur, J. Int'l L. 661, 663–667 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

87 Ben-Naftali, Orna & Shany, Yuval, Living in Denial: The Application of Human Rights in the Occupied Territories, 37 Isr. L. Rev. 17, 64 (2003)Google Scholar.

88 See, e.g., Convention (IV) respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land and its Annex: Regulations Concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land. Art. 43, Oct. 18, 1907, U.S.T.S. 539 [hereinafter the Hague Regulations]; Geneva Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, arts. 40, 55, & 56, Aug. 12, 1949, 75 U.N.T.S. 287 [hereinafter Geneva Convention IV].

89 Ilaşcu v. Moldova and Russia, supra note 74, at para. 392.

90 Id. Note that the Court also found that Moldova had violated its positive obligations to protect the rights of persons within that territory, a majority decision from which a number of judges dissented (see the dissenting opinion of Judge Sir Nicolas Bratza and others, at 127 of the judgment)

91 Al-Skeini (CA) supra note 3, at para. 119.

92 Id. at para. 124.

93 Id. at paras. 195-197.

94 López Burgos v. Uruguay, Comm. No. 52/1979, UN Doc. CCPR/C/13/D/52/1979 (1981); see also de Casariego v. Uruguay, Comm. No. 56/1979, UN Doc. CCPR/C/13/D/56/1979 (1981).

95 López Burgos v. Uruguay, supra note 94, para. 12.3; de Casariego v. Uruguay, supra note 94, at para. 10.3.

96 Issa v. Turkey, supra note 81, at para. 71 (emphasis added C.D.).

97 Coard v. the United States, supra note 49, at para. 37.

98 Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Chile, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.66, Doc. 17 (Sept. 9, 1985), ch. III, at paras. 81-91, 181.

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

100 Al-Skeini (CA), supra note 3, at paras. 197.

101 Kretzmer, David, Targeted Killing of Suspected Terrorists: Extra-Judicial Executions or Legitimate Means of Defence?, 16 Eur. J. Int'l L. 171, 185 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

102 Bothe, supra note 5, at 37.

103 Wall case, supra note 53, at para. 106.

104 See Common Article 3 to the Geneva Convention IV, supra note 88.

105 Article 2 ICCPR, supra note 37; Article 1 ECHR, supra note 37; Article 1 ACHR, supra note 37; see Clapham, A., Human Rights Obligations of Non-State Actors (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

106 See Article 4 ICCPR, supra note 37; Article 15 ECHR, supra note 37; Article 27 ACHR, supra note 37.

107 See Part IV.

108 McLachlan, Campbell, The Principle of Systemic Integration and Article 31(3)(c) of the Vienna Convention, 54 ICLQ 279–320 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; International Law Commission, Report of the Study Group on Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties arising from Diversification and Expansion of International Law, ¶ 27, UN Doc. A/CN.4/L.676, (July 29, 2005)Google Scholar; see also Sands, Philippe, Treaty, Custom and the Cross-fertilization of International Law, 1 Yale Hum. Rts. Dev. L.J. 85, 95 (1999)Google Scholar.

109 De Vattel, Emerich, 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)Google Scholar.

110 Hugo Grotius, De Jure belli ac pacis, bk II, sect. XXIX.

111 Wall case, supra note 53, at para. 106; reiterated in the DRC v. Uganda case, supra note 54, at para. 216.

112 Coard v. the United States, supra note 49, at para. 42.

113 General Comment No. 31, supra note 60, at para. 11.

114 DRC v. Uganda, supra note 54, at para. 216.

115 Lindroos, A., Adressing the Norm Conflicts in a Fragmented System: The Doctrine of Lex Specialis, 74 Nordic J. Int'l L. 24, 28 (2005)Google Scholar.

116 See, e.g., International Law Commission's Study Group, supra note 108; Lindroos, supra note 115, at 27-28.

117 Prud'homme, Nancie, Lex Specialis: Oversimplifying a More Complex and Multifaceted Relationship?, 40(2) Isr. L. Rev. 356 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

118 Doswald-Beck, Louise, International Humanitarian Law and the International Court of Justice on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, 316 Int'l Rev Red Cross 35 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

119 Prud'homme, supra note 117, at 14.

120 Id. at 6.

121 Provost, Rene, International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law 350 (2005)Google Scholar.

122 Sands, supra note 108, at 85-105.

123 Kretzmer, supra note 101, at 171.

124 Koskenniemi, Martti, 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), at 4 Google Scholar.

125 See International Law Commission's Study Group, supra note 108, at para. 42.

126 Sandoz, Swinarski, & Zimmermann supra note 23, at para. 3092.

127 Article 4 ICCPR, supra note 37; Article 15 ECHR, supra note 37; Article 27 ACHR, supra note 37.

128 General Comment 29, supra note 50, at para. 16.

129 Article 7 ICCPR, supra note 37; Article 2 CAT, supra note 59; Article 3 ECHR, supra note 37; Article 5 ACHR, supra note 37; Article 5 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, adopted June 27, 1981, OAU Doc. CAB/LEG/67/3 rev. 5,21 I.L.M. 58 (1982), entered into force Oct. 21, 1986 [hereinafter ACHPR].

130 Common Article 3, supra note 104. Article 147 of the Geneva Convention (IV), supra note 88.

131 Article 2, CAT, supra note 59.

132 See ICTY Prosecutor v. Kunarac and Others, Case Nos. IT-96-23 & IT-96-23/1, Trial Chamber, (Feb. 22, 2001) at para. 491; confirmed by the Appeals Chamber judgment, (June 12, 2000), at para. 148; Prosecutor v. Kvocka and Others, Case No. IT-98-30/1-A, Appeals Chamber, (Feb. 28, 2005), at para. 284; ICTR: The Prosecutor v. Laurent Setnanza, ICTR-97-20, (May 15, 2003), at para. 32-343; Rome Statute, supra note 32, at arts. 7(1)(f) (Crimes against Humanity) and 8(2)(c)(i) and (ii)(War Crime).

133 But see the discussion in Lubell, Noam, Challenges in Applying Human Rights Law to Armed Conflict, 860 Int'l Rev. Red Cross 737, 751 (2005)Google Scholar.

134 See, e.g., CESCR, Concluding Observations on Israel, ¶ 11 & 19, UN Doc. E/C.12/1/Add.90, (May 23, 2003); CRC, Concluding Observations on Israel, ¶ 44 & 55, UN Doc. CRC/C/15/Addd.195, (Oct. 9, 2002).

135 Article 50 of the Geneva Convention (IV), supra note 88.

136 Id. Articles 56 & 57.

137 Id. Articles 59 et seq.

138 Voluntary Guidelines to support the progressive realization of the right to adequate food in the context of national food security, adopted by the Council of the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) on 23 November 2004.

139 Article 6 of the Geneva Convention (IV), supra note 88.

140 Bothe, M., Ipsen, K., & Partsch, K.J., Die Genfer Konferenz über humanitäres Völkerrecht, 38 ZaöRV 1, 72 (1978)Google Scholar.

141 Adopted by General Assembly Resolution 61/177 (Dec. 20, 2006).

142 See Meron, supra note 10, at 241.

143 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), Chap. I, sect. B.2, annex [hereinafter UN Basic Principles]; see also Rodley, Nigel, The Treatment of Prisoners Under International Law, 182–188 (2000)Google Scholar; Kretzmer, supra note 101, at 179.

144 Principle 10 of the UN Basic Principles, supra note 143.

145 McCann v. United Kingdom, 324 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) para. 202-213 (1995); Andronicou and Constantinou v. Cyprus, 1997-VI Eur. H.R. Rep. (1997); Eur. Ct. H.R. Jordan v. United Kingdom, App. No. 24726/94, (given May 4, 2001), at paras. 103-104, available at http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkpl97/view.asp?item=2&portal=hbkm&action=html&highlight=Jordan%20%7C%20v.%20%7C%20United%20%7C%20Kingdom&sessionid=1751995&skin=hudoc-en (last visited August 12, 2007); McKerr v. the United Kingdom, app. no. 28883/95, (given May 4, 2001) at paras. 109-110; Kelly v. the United Kingdom, app. no. 30054/96, (given May 4, 2001) at paras. 91-92, available at http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?item=6&portal=hbkm&action=html&highlight=Jordan%20%7C%20v.%20%7C%20United%20%7C%20Kingdom&sessionid=1751995&skin=hudoc-en (last visited August 12, 2007); Shanaghan v. the United Kingdom, appl. no. 37715/97, (given May 4, 2001), at paras. 85-86, available at http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?item=7&portal=hbkm&action=html&highlight=Jordan%20%7C%20v.%20%7C%20United%20%7C%20Kingdom&sessionid=1751995&skin=hudoc-en (last visited August 12, 2007); Ergi v. Turkey, supra note 47, at para. 79; Isayeva, Yusupova and Basayea v. Russia, supra note 4, at paras. 169-171; Isayeva Russia, supra note 4, at para. 189.

146 Id.

147 See the codification in Article 51 5(b) of Additional Protocol I, supra note 58.

148 See also the discussion in Bothe, Michael, Humanitäres Völkerrecht und Schutz der Menschenrechte: Auf der Suche nach Synergien und Schutzlücken, in Essays in Honour of C. Tomuschat, 63, 82 (Dupuy, P.M. et al. eds., 2006)Google Scholar.

149 See supra note 91 and corresponding text.

150 Özkan v. Turkey, supra note 47, at para. 297; Ergi v. Turkey, supra note 47, at para. 79; Isayeva v. Russia, supra note 4, at para. 176. The Court uses a similar, but not identical formulation, in Isayeva, Yusupova and Bazayeva v. Russia, supra note 4, at paras. 177.

151 Applicable in international armed conflict but considered customary law for non-international armed conflict too.

152 Isayeva v. Russia, supra note 4, at paras. 190, 191. The Court uses a similar, but not identical formulation, in Isayeva, Yusupova and Bazayeva v. Russia, supra note 4, at para. 192.

153 Ben-Naftali & Shany, supra note 87, at 17, 31.

154 Commentary to the First Geneva Convention 82, 83 (Pictet, Jean ed., 1960)Google Scholar; see in particular the discussion on Common Article 6/6/6/7.

155 MacBride, Sean, 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 373, 388 (1970)Google Scholar.

156 See Robertson, A.H., Humanitarian Law and Human Rights, in Studies and Essays on International Humanitarian Law and Red Cross Principles, in Honour of Jean Pictet 793, 799 (Swinarski, Christophe ed., 1984)Google Scholar; Sandoz, Swinarski, & Zimmermann, supra note 23, at paras. 3600-3602. Report of the Secretary General on Respect for Human Rights in Armed Conflict, ¶ 230, UN Doc. A/7720 (Nov. 20, 1969); Hampson, F., Human Rights and Humanitarian Law in Internal Armed Conflict, in Armed Conflict and the New Law 55, 71 (Meyer, M. ed., 1993)Google Scholar; Schindler, D., Human Rights and Humanitarian Law: Interrelationship of the Laws, 31 Am. University L. Rev. 935, 941 (1982)Google 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) see vol. 3 annex No. 21 and vol. 2, sec. B, at 61.

157 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, ¶ 9-37, UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/2005/14 (June 21, 2005).

158 Bothe, supra note 5, at 45; see also Meron, supra note 10, at 247 who writes that “their very idealism and naïveté are their greatest strength”; Reidy, supra note 48, at 529.

159 Abresch, William, A Human Rights Law of Internal Armed Conflict: The European Court of Human Rights in Chechnya, 16 Eur. J. Int'l L. 741 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; see also Bothe supra note 148, at 90.

160 Gross, Aeyal M., Human Proportions: Are Human Rights the Emperor's New Clothes of the International Law of Occupation?, 18 Eur. J. Int'l L. 35 Google Scholar.

161 Article 106 of the Geneva Convention (IV), supra note 88.

162 See Article 24 (2) of the Convention forthe Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, art. 24(2), UN Doc. A/RES/61/177 (Dec. 20, 2006) [not yet in force].

163 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 vast body of jurisprudence see Human Rights Committee: Concluding Observations on Serbia and Montenegro, ¶ 9, UN Doc. CCPR/CO/81/SEMO, (Aug. 12, 2004); Concluding Observations on Brazil, ¶ 20, UN Doc. CCPR/C/79/Add.66 (July 24, 1996); Concluding Observations on Colombia, ¶ 32 & 34, UVN Doc. CCPR/C/79/Add. 76, (May 5, 1997); Committee against Torture: Conclusions and Recommendations on Colombia, ¶ 10 (f), UN Doc. CAT/C/CR/31/1, (Feb. 4, 1997); Finucane v. the United Kingdom, 2003-VIII Eur. Ct. H.R. (2003) at para. 69 (summary of its constant jurisprudence); Myrna Mack-Chang v. Guatemala Case, 2003 Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. C) No. 101; Caracazo Case v. Venezuela Case 2002 (Reparation), Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. C) No. 95; Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras Case 2003 Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. C) No. 99, at para. 186; ACHPR: Amnesty International et al v. Sudan, (26th and 27th Ordinary Sessions, May 2000), at para. 51.

164 Isayeva, Yusupova and Bazayeva v. Russia, supra note 4, at paras. 208-213; Myrna Mack-Chang v. Guatemala, supra note 163; Human Rights Committee: Concluding Observations on Colombia, ¶ 32, UN Doc. CCPR/C/79/Add. 76 (May 5, 1997).

165 Report of the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions, ¶ 33-38, UN Doc. E/CN.4/2006/53m (March 8, 2006).

166 Kretzmer, supra note 101, at 201, 204.

167 Report of the Special Rapporteur, supra note 165, at para. 37.

168 Watkin, Kenneth, Controlling the Use of Force: A Role for Human Rights Norms in Contemporary Armed Conflict, 98 Am. J. Int'l L. 1, 34 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

169 Zegveld, Liesbeth, Remedies for Victims of Violations of International Humanitarian Law, 851 Int'l Rev. Red Cross. 497–528 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

170 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.

171 Hague Regulations of 1907, supra note 88, art. 3; Additional Protocol I, supra note 58, art. 91; see Gillard, Emanuela-Chiara, Reparation for Violations of International Humanitarian Law, 851 Int'l Rev. Red Cross 529–554 (2003)Google Scholar.

172 UN Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, supra note 157, at paras. 20, 49.

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

174 Wall case, supra note 53, at para. 106. One can speculate whether it held so in the absence of another state to whom Israel could have paid compensation, see d'Argent, P., Compliance, Cessation, Reparation and Restitution in the Wall Advisory Opinion, in Völkerrecht als Wertordnung—Common Values in International Law, Festschrift for Christian Tomuschat 463, 475 (Dupuy, P.-M. et al. eds., 2006)Google Scholar.

175 See Gillard, supra note 171, at 540.

176 On Germany see Bank, Roland, The New Programs for Payments to Victims of National Socialist Injustice, 44 German Y.B. Int'l L. 307–352 (2001)Google Scholar; the most comprehensive description of national reparations programmes can be found in, The Handbook on Reparations (de Greiff, Pablo ed., 2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

177 On this discussion see Schwager, Elke & Bank, Roland, An Individual Right to Compensation for Victims of Armed Conflicts?, Paper submitted to the ILA Committee on Compensation for Victims of War, see 45–48 Google Scholar; d'Argent, P., Wrongs of the Past, History of the Future, 17 Eur. J. Int'l L. 279, 286 (2006)Google Scholar.