![]() The first issue is whether IHRL applies extraterritorially such that states bring all, some, or none of their IHRL obligations with them when they engage in armed conflicts (as defined in IHL) outside of their territories. The debate over this relationship largely centers on three issues. The precise links between these two branches of public international law have also merited extensive academic commentary. In recent decades, the connection between IHRL and IHL has been the subject of a growing interest by states, adjudicatory bodies, and international institutions. Unlike the relatively narrow field of international humanitarian law (IHL), which is concerned with armed conflict, IHRL spans an ever-growing range of dealings an individual, community, or nation may have with the state. ![]() In its contemporary form, IHRL arose out of an attempt to regulate, as a matter of international law and policy, the relationship between the state-through its governmental authority-and its population. Yet important questions surrounding potential human-rights obligations or related responsibilities of ANSAs may (also) arise in relation to situations not connected with armed conflict. This occurs, for instance, in relation to many contemporary armed conflicts waged between states and ANSAs or between ANSAs. And the second trajectory is that, seemingly increasingly, ANSAs control access to territory and exercise control over civilian populations. The first trajectory is that, in a number of key respects, certain entities and scholars are increasingly recognizing the possibility of non-state entities bearing de-jure or de-facto human-rights obligations or related responsibilities. Several significant legal, policy, and practical concerns are at issue in whether this foundational premise will remain intact or will be modified such that armed non-state actors (ANSAs) will ultimately be recognized-by all relevant institutions and actors-as bearing human-rights obligations in general under international law in a manner previously reserved primarily for states. That premise-that the state is the primary entity that bears international-legal responsibility for respecting, protecting, and fulfilling human rights-stems in part from the (largely exclusive) competence of states to make, adjudicate, and enforce rules within their respective jurisdictions. Two interrelated trajectories are exerting pressure on a fundamental premise that has long undergirded international human rights law (IHRL). LicenseĬreative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International license (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0). The research undertaken by the authors of this research briefing was completely independent the views and opinions reflected in this research briefing are those solely of the authors and the authors alone are responsible for any errors in this research briefing. HLS PILAC is grateful for the support the Swiss FDFA provides for independent research and analysis. The views expressed in this Study and Comment should not be taken, in any way, to reflect the official opinion of the Swiss FDFA. This research briefing has been produced, in part, with financial assistance from the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs (FDFA). The authors extend their thanks to Molly Doggett, Jillian Ventura, and Loren Voss for research assistance and to the staff of the Harvard Law School Library for research support. Lewis, a Senior Researcher at HLS PILAC. Burniske oversaw the research underlying the databases (Annexes II.A–C), including the contributions of Research Assistants Molly Doggett, Jillian Ventura, and Loren Voss. Modirzadeh, the Founding Director of HLS PILAC and a Professor of Practice at Harvard Law School and Dustin A. Burniske, a Law and Policy Associate at HLS PILAC Naz K. While its contributors may express a range of views on contentious legal and policy debates, HLS PILAC does not take institutional positions on these matters. HLS PILAC’s methodology fuses traditional public international law research with targeted analysis of changing security environments. ![]() Its mode is critical, independent, and rigorous. The Harvard Law School Program on International Law and Armed Conflict (HLS PILAC) provides a space for research on critical challenges facing the various fields of public international law related to armed conflict, including jus ad bellum, jus in bello (international humanitarian law/the law of armed conflict), international human rights law, international criminal law, and the law of state responsibility.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |