Search

The article is devoted to the analysis of the provisions of international human rights law and international humanitarian law regarding the protection of the right to property, in particular the permitted limitations of this right, the relevant practice of international human rights courts and international criminal tribunals, the connection between the institution of derogation and the law of armed conflicts, as well as problematic issues of the protection of the right to property damaged during the russian-Ukrainian armed conflict. The author considers the provisions of some international treaties, which provide for the protection of the right to own property in peacetime, as well as the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights related to the violation of the right of applicants to own their property in accordance with Protocol No. 1 to the Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in connection with an international armed conflict or a situation of occupation. The author also analyzes the provisions of some sources of international humanitarian law regarding property as an object that must be protected during armed conflicts, in particular in occupied territories, and also provides examples of cases of international criminal tribunals, in whose decisions the destruction of property was recognized as a component of crimes against humanity. The author examines the question of the relationship between the sources of international human rights law and international humanitarian law in the context of the protection of the right to peaceful possession of property. The peculiarities of the institution of derogation in the context of the right to property in the conditions of an international armed conflict are analyzed. Ukraine's derogation from its obligations under international human rights treaties, including the right to peaceful possession of property, in the conditions of russian armed aggression, is studied. In addition, in the context of the armed conflict between Ukraine and russia, the objects of property rights and the interested subjects of the right to property, which is violated or limited as a result of military operation, are singled out, and the collective dimension of the right to property, which was damaged during the russian-Ukrainian armed conflict, was investigated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article explores the critical issue of detainee protection in the complex landscape of contemporary non-international armed conflicts and counterterrorism operations. It examines the interplay between international humanitarian law and international human rights law, highlighting the challenges in their application and interpretation. The article delves into the contemporary challenges faced in protecting detainees, including the involvement of non-state armed groups, extraterritorial detention practices, administrative detention, and the impact of counterterrorism measures. It proposes a multifaceted approach to enhancing detainee protection, encompassing strategies for strengthening compliance with the legal framework, addressing the specific needs of vulnerable groups, and promoting best practices and capacity-building. The article argues that a comprehensive and contextualised approach, grounded in the principles of humanity and human dignity, is essential to effectively safeguard the rights and well-being of detainees in these challenging contexts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article addresses the study of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) as a hypothetical court of human rights. Two questions guide the theoretical reflection and aim of this study: first, can the activities of the Court be viewed through the paradigm of human rights, and second, can the ICJ be considered a functional court of human rights? To answer these questions, the broad concept of a "court of human rights" is used, which refers to an institutionalized judicial mechanism intended to take necessary legal measures to record relevant human rights violations and to protect and restore such rights, regardless of who may be the claimant in such a case (a state or a person). The study demonstrates that it is appropriate to consider the activities of the ICJ through the paradigm of human rights, as evidenced by the Court's jurisprudence and numerous academic studies in the West. However, after analyzing the relevant arguments and counterarguments, the assumption that the Court can be regarded as a court of human rights is refuted. While many human rights conventions assign a special role to the ICJ in resolving disputes, human rights have never been the sole object of dispute in these proceedings; instead, they have always been part of an interstate dispute. Furthermore, the Court has repeatedly shown an ambiguous attitude towards methods of recording violations of human rights conventions, fact-finding methodology in such cases, and criteria for compensating victims of such violations, which has not contributed to the protection of human rights in relevant cases. The article also emphasizes the importance of the human factor in shaping the Court's jurisprudence and expresses hope for an evolution of quality in the ICJ's treatment of human rights, should a majority of judges adopt a human-centred approach to international law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of International Journal of Legal & Comparative Jurisprudence Studies (LCJS) / Mağallaẗ al-Duwaliyyaẗ Li-&-Dirāsāt al-Qānūniyyaẗ Wa-al-Fiqhiyyaẗ al-Muqāranaẗ is the property of Refaad for Studies, Research & Development and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Recently in June 2022, the United Nations Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Children and Armed Conflict expressed that the ongoing use and recruitment of children in armed conflict globally warrants "international concern". Notwithstanding the existence of proscriptive norms in terms of international humanitarian law (IHL) and international human rights law (IHRL), international legal violations are nevertheless committed by states and non-state actors. A systematic analysis of the respective normative systems identifies a lacuna between specific provisions thereof. Consequently, violations are committed in armed conflicts for the purposes of IHRL but not IHL, it is contended that this inconsistency in the law perpetuates ongoing child soldiering. It is further contended that this inconsistency establishes a genus of children who are legally unprotected as they fall between the cracks of international law. Based on recent progressive jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice, an approach which will bridge the lacuna between these norms is proposed. Contrary to the view of the International Committee of the Red Cross and with due consideration for the lex specialis principle, it is proposed that the IHL and IHRL instruments should apply in a complementary fashion, as opposed to the separate legal regimes under which they have developed.

Dr Marja Lehto is Ambassador for International Legal Affairs at the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland, and Adjunct Professor of International Law at the University of Helsinki. She was a member of the United Nations (UN) International Law Commission (ILC) and served as the Special Rapporteur for the topic "Protection of the Environment in Relation to Armed Conflicts" from 2017 to 2022. Dr Lehto is also a member of the Council of the International Institute of Humanitarian Law since 2019. She has formerly served, inter alia , as Legal Adviser to the Finnish UN Mission in New York (1995–2000), as Head of the Unit for Public International Law (2000–09), and as Finland's Ambassador to Luxembourg (2009–14). For most of her career, she has worked on issues related to international peace and security, including international criminal justice and international humanitarian law (IHL), and she has published on a broad range of international legal questions related to the law of the sea, international environmental law (IEL), State succession, use of force, armed conflicts, terrorism and cyber security. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Providing timely and adequate humanitarian access to those affected by natural disasters and conflicts remains a key subject of the United Nations (UN) Summits. This article examines the role of UN General Assembly (UNGA) resolutions in the formation and advancement of the international legal framework for humanitarian assistance. To examine this role, this article first examines the main international legal provisions developed within the framework of International Humanitarian Law and International Human Rights Law, and how they apply to situations requiring humanitarian assistance. The article then provides a comprehensive analysis of UNGA resolutions titled “Strengthening the coordination of emergency humanitarian assistance of the UN.” This analysis coverage began with the first adopted resolution in 1991 and continued through the most recent resolution adopted in 2022. This article notes how the UNGA identifies the key principles of humanitarian assistance, which are impartiality, neutrality, independence, and humanity that are considered to have a key role in addressing the issues related to humanitarian assistance from the UNGA’s perspective. The analysis reveals the relevant international legal rules applicable to the delivery of humanitarian assistance and demonstrates the critical role of the UNGA in defining the legal grounds for humanitarian assistance. UNGA resolutions cover multiple responsibilities and obligations of states and the international community relevant to humanitarian assistance. The article concludes that UNGA resolutions have played a crucial and significant role in defining, clarifying, and expanding the international legal context for humanitarian assistance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article concerns the convergence of international humanitarian law and international human rights law in armed conflicts. International humanitarian law and human rights law converge and permeate each other because both these disciplines of public international law are founded on natural law. Although international humanitarian law constitutes a lex specialis, the general rules on the interpretation of treaties clearly indicate that international human rights law must be interpreted in the context of other rules of international law, and its derogations, if any, must be compatible with other international obligations of the state, including with humanitarian law. Where a conflict arises between international humanitarian law and international human rights law, the mechanism for resolving conflicts between norms has been supplemented by the International Court of Justice by applying an interpretation based on the principle of systemic integration, resulting in the “humanization” of international humanitarian law. As regards the application of universal and regional instruments of international human rights law, we face a “humanization” of them. That is why more and more attention is paid in practice to the complementarity of international humanitarian law and international human rights law, and this is confirmed in United Nations discussions and resolutions on the situation in armed conflicts.

The presented paper discusses the convergence of international humanitarian law and international human rights law in armed conflicts. International human rights law and the human rights law converge and interact with each other because natural law is at the core of both these disciplines of public international law. Although international humanitarian law is a lex specialis , the general rules regarding the interpretation of treaties clearly indicate that international human rights law must be interpreted in the context of other rules of international law, and its possible derogations must be compatible with other international obligations of the state, including humanitarian law. In the event of a conflict between international humanitarian law and international human rights law, the mechanism for resolving conflicts between the standards was supplemented by an interpretation based on the principle of 'system integration' of the International Court of Justice which results in the 'humanization' of international humanitarian law. The evolution of the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, which takes into account the international humanitarian law as the reference norm that should be referred to, demonstrates the close relationship between these areas of law. In the case of the application of universal and regional instruments of international human rights law, we are dealing with the 'humanitarianization' of these rights. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

International lawyers ascribe to the lex specialis principle three distinctly different meanings. Thus, lex specialis is referred to, first, as a norm designed to resolve conflicts between entire categories of norms; secondly, as a norm designed to resolve conflicts on a case-by-case basis; and, thirdly, as a rule of interpretation designed to avoid the occurrence of normative conflicts, rather than to resolve them. Scholars have attempted to explain this divergent use of legal language. In so doing, they have consistently had their focus on the different mind-sets or inclinations of lawyers active in different branches of international law. Symptomatic is Marko Milanović, who pictured the divergent use of lex specialis as a reflection of a debate waged between "human rights enthusiasts" and "human rights sceptics". This article approaches the issue at a different level of abstraction. As it argues, the divergent use of lex specialis is the result of users' different conceptions of an international legal system. Thus, lawyers conceive differently of the lex specialis principle, depending on whether they take the position of a legal positivist, a legal idealist or a legal realist. In no case are lawyers equipped to conceive of this principle in all of its three senses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Studia Iuridica Lublinensia is the property of Maria Curie-Sklodowska University in Lublin and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Water is the lifeblood of human beings and society, but threats to water, such as the pollution of rivers, cyber crimes, and attacks against water infrastructure, are increasing. In green criminology, scholars have relied on domestic criminal law to develop the concept of crimes against water. This paper argues that international law could provide several frameworks for addressing these crimes. A number of international treaties and customary rules deal directly or indirectly with crimes against water, and the United Nations Security Council has also dealt with crimes against water committed by terrorist groups and parties to armed conflict. Crimes against water may represent violations not only of domestic criminal laws but also of international humanitarian law and human rights law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The OSCE Moscow Mechanism is one of the generally little-known mechanisms, established in 1991 to facilitate resolution of a particular question or problem relating to the human dimension of the OSCE. This article aims to highlight its role and significant potential to identify relevant patterns of behaviour supported by collected information and evidence on violations of international humanitarian and human rights law in situations that need urgent attention by the international community. Its flexibility and short reactionary time serves to promptly document developments and make them publicly available to inform further actions. At the same time, the mechanism in practice encounters a number of challenges, such as lack of cooperation from the States "under investigation", very short missions' deadlines for submission of their findings and rather limited (technical) support by the designated OSCE Institution, the ODIHR. This article discusses the mechanism as such and then looks into the two of its reports from 2022 concerning the situation following the Russian invasion of Ukraine and their impact within the OSCE and beyond. It provides some general conclusions and suggestions on possible improvements of the mechanism going forward. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal Of the College of Law /Al-Nahrain University is the property of Republic of Iraq Ministry of Higher Education & Scientific Research (MOHESR) and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Revista Electrónica de Estudios Penales y de la Seguridad is the property of Revista Electronica de Estudios Penales y de la Seguridad and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Academic discussion on the adequacy of international law, in particular international humanitarian law (IHL), to protect women from and to respond to gender-based violence against women (GBVAW) has so far omitted a detailed discussion on the law applicable in non-international armed conflict (NIAC). This article reviews the scope of international law, in particular IHL applicable to NIAC and international human rights law (IHRL), on the protection of women from GBVAW, firstly aiming to fill this lacuna in the literature on GBVAW and secondly in an examination as to whether the law on GBVAW in NIAC adequately protects women from GBVAW in NIAC. This analysis is performed distinctly for sexual violence, non-sexual violence, and women in detention. In applying the substance of the law regarding GBVAW under IHL and IHRL to the legal framework on the mutual application of IHL and IHRL in armed conflict, this article finds that IHL applicable to NIAC and IHRL generally may be interpreted harmoniously in substance regarding sexual violence and partially on non-sexual violence and detention. The consolidation of these regimes thus in theory results in a stronger and wider scope of protection from GBVAW. However, this protection may be limited in practice due to challenges in meeting due diligence in conflict and limited human rights responsibility for non-State parties to the conflict. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In armed conflicts and crises, children with disabilities face serious threats to their lives and safety, including those related to their inability to flee attacks, risk of abandonment, lack of access to assistive devices, lack of access to basic services and denial of education as well as experiences of stigma, abuse, psychological harm and poverty. Children with disabilities experience multiple and intersecting forms of human rights violations based on their disability and age. Since 2015, Human Rights Watch has documented the impact of armed conflict on children with disabilities in Afghanistan, Cameroon, the Central African Republic, the Gaza Strip in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, South Sudan, Syria and Yemen. While international human rights specifically call for the protection of children with disabilities in situations of armed conflict, the United Nations, governments, parties to the conflict and humanitarian actors have long neglected their specific rights and needs. There is an urgent need for the United Nations and governments to increase efforts to protect children with disabilities as part of their international commitments to protect all children impacted by hostilities. Their attention and investment in those most at risk of violence during armed conflicts will in turn enhance protection measures for everyone. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This contribution analyses Article 12 of the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in Africa (the Protocol). It examines the purpose, scope and contribution of this Article to the legal protection of persons with disabilities in armed conflict and its implementation. The analysis is divided into four parts. The first part will start by identifying and analysing the background to this provision, which provides specific protection to persons with disabilities in armed conflict. The second part will examine Article 12 in the light of other similar regional instruments and of the protection challenges that persons with disabilities face during conflict. This will highlight the specific nature of the Article's provisions, together with its shortcomings and its progressive aspects. Part three will look at the interaction between Article 12 and equivalent rules of international humanitarian law, and how Article 12 contributes to the development of legal protection for persons with disabilities in armed conflict. Finally, the fourth part will examine the challenges to the implementation of Article 12. It will also propose ways of overcoming those challenges and hence of enabling Article 12 to have its intended effect. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In years past, much of the discussion around International Humanitarian Law and International Human Rights Law has been dedicated to considering the convergence of the two regimes; to discover a way to increase respect for the protection of the individual in armed conflict. Meanwhile, egregious violations of individual's human rights continue to occur in armed conflicts – those in Ukraine, Yemen, Ethiopia, Afghanistan, and many others. This paper surveys the relationship between the two international disciplines, and considers that though IHL and IHRL are two regimes that have different aims, both contain norms that strive for the protection of the individual in armed conflict. Ultimately, this paper argues that protection of individuals in armed conflict can be strengthened by importing IHL norms into the IHRL framework. This cross-pollination allows treaty bodies to interpret, and make comments about, State Parties' adherence to IHL that can increase respect for those norms, given IHRL's associated enforcement mechanisms and communications machinery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The contribution discusses the implications of the current armed conflict in Eastern Europe, triggered by the act of aggression by the Russian Federation against Ukraine, for jus in bello (international humanitarian law) and international human rights law. It argues that whereas the conflict has brought about serious challenges to these two branches of law, it has also triggered certain promising developments in IHL and IHRL. Those developments have so far manifested themselves in three main areas: the regulation relating to the application of IHL and IHRL; the substantive rules of the two branches; and the enforcement of such rules. Providing examples of such developments, the article argues that the overall impact of the conflict in Ukraine on IHL and IHRL could be, in the long run, predominantly positive. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista de Direito Internacional is the property of Revista de Direito Internacional and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

In the brutal armed conflicts which take place even in the 21st century, without a basic observance of the rules of war, serious violations of the basic human rights are almost always present. Some of the recent armed conflicts have been so cruel that they have violated everything that has been adopted so far as standards of human behavior in war conditions. In most contemporary armed conflicts, civilians are often deliberately targeted through the use of illegal means and methods of warfare. Almost all contemporary armed conflicts cause serious violations of children's rights, forced displacement, damage to civilian infrastructure, sexual assaults, even using the humanitarian aid as a weapon of war. On many occasions, violations constitute war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes against international law. Unfortunately, the international community sometimes only witnesses these developments without significant results in their prevention. Human rights violations are often accompanied by impunity for the perpetrators, which in some ways undermines the basic idea of international human rights law and international humanitarian law. For these reasons, one of the conclusions in this paper is that the United Nations as a global international organization is most called upon to act effectively to prevent such crimes, as well as to locate responsibility if war crimes have taken place. Hence, the aim of this paper is to contribute to the debate on impermissible violation of international standards established with the International Human Rights Law and the International Humanitarian Law. The paper provides an overview of the treatment of basic human rights in contemporary armed conflicts, with a special focus on conflicts that have taken place in the past two decades and those that are currently ongoing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Modern armed conflicts demonstrate constant military transformation, and the weapon of the future will be precisely what we now name by the word “autonomous weapon systems” (AWS). Despite many advantages of using it, the possibility of lawful use of AWS and especially unmanned maritime systems as a kind of AWS remains a debatable issue in international law. It is primarily due to the loss of human control over the use of lethal force and the autonomy of such systems. AWS are already widely used by many countries, including Israel, the US, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, and others, to protect their borders, increasing the response times and effectiveness of border forces both on land and at sea. Authors highlight a list of issues, namely the absence of the conventional definition of the term “autonomous weapon systems”, the possibility of individual prosecution due to the misuse of AWS, the protection of human life, privacy and appropriate remedies, the compliance of the use of AWS with the principles of distinction between civilians and combatants, military necessity and proportionality, precautions, etc. The problems of using autonomous weapon systems lie in both legal and ethical areas. Such uncertainty automatically narrows the protection of human rights in armed conflicts, which is unacceptable and illegal. Therefore, it is proposed at the regulatory level to prohibit states from using fully autonomous weapon systems and unmanned maritime systems as a kind of AWS that could use lethal force against humans, as well as to provide for the definition of AWS, their types, and principles of use, clearly define and limit their scope within which states could guarantee respect for human rights, as they are responsible for compliance with IHL and international human rights law.

This article illustrates how the concept of legal mapping opens up new ways of thinking about how the different frameworks of rules and laws that apply in territories under the control of armed groups. It demonstrates how the notion of ‘interlegality’ is a useful tool when seeking to understand how different layers and types of law (international, domestic and customary) contribute to the commonplace legal materiality in these spaces, penetrating and producing local, everyday experiences of armed conflict. Reflecting on international law's constitutive power on the ground, the article concludes by considering how legal scholarship, teaching and practice may also play a role in reproducing maps of international law that disempower or render important experiences invisible in certain spaces.

This article aims to revisit the interrelationship between International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and International Human Rights Law (IHRL), in honour of their respective normative scopes and in order to carry out an analysis of their complementary or supplementary application, towards the construction of a more appropriate tool for the protection of human beings in extreme situations, as it occurs during armed conflicts. This is because, amid the multifaceted vulnerabilities that accumulate in today's conflicts, it is essential to provide the most effective source of protection - proportional to the demands for protection that are manifested today, particularly in military occupations around the world, whose occurrence will be the focus of this research. As for the method of approach concerning the logical basis of the investigation, the hypothetical-deductive method was selected, insofar as the corroboration or falsification of the main hypothesis about the effective complementary and harmonious application of IHRL will be tested to cases of human rights violations in International Armed Conflicts in the military occupation modality. Given this framework, the core of this work lies in the understanding of the praxis for the complementary application of both aspects in armed conflicts, considering not only International Human Rights Law as lex generalis, but their effective overlap to the detriment of International Humanitarian Law, when it is most beneficial to human protection in the cases of Military Occupations.

Families often have particular vulnerabilities following armed conflict. As international humanitarian law focuses primarily on regulating the conduct of hostilities, its scope for addressing the vulnerability of families and other victims of armed conflict is, at present, conceptually and practically limited. A human security approach invites consideration of the shortcomings of existing legal frameworks in addressing vulnerability, and the development of such frameworks, in a manner that helps to build resilience and address threats. For families harmed during armed conflict, this means identifying features of the existing legal regime that operate in a manner that entrenches or fails to address their vulnerabilities, as well as structural challenges that hinder access to legal opportunities such as reparations. The article identifies several structural issues and features of the legal framework that overlook or entrench the vulnerability of families. Drawing on a human security approach, it suggests that supplementing the existing legal regime with a victim assistance framework could help to address the vulnerability of families and others harmed by armed conflict. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

René Provost's latest book, Rebel Courts: The Administration of Justice by Armed Insurgents , collects an impressive amount of practice of organized armed groups concerning the administration of justice in armed conflicts, and offers a detailed analysis of the legal issues surrounding the creation and functioning of insurgent courts. Drawing from field work and adopting a legal pluralistic methodology, Provost offers a comprehensive overview of how the rebel administration of justice functions in practice and of how international law regulates its different aspects, including the legality of rebel courts, due process guarantees, as well as international, transnational, and national recognition of the judicial practices of armed groups. In this review essay, I highlight the importance and novelty of Provost's approach, exploring the book's connections with other legal and non-legal literature on armed groups, and contextualize some of Provost's arguments concerning rebel law and rebel courts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Istanbul Law Review / İstanbul Hukuk Mecmuası is the property of Istanbul Law Review / Istanbul Hukuk Mecmuasi and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

INTRODUCTION. The research analyzes the UN Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law (Basic Principles and Guidelines) of December 16, 2005. The Article examines the stages of the adoption of this document, the concept, structure, basic provisions, as well as the importance for the development of modern international law, particularly in the field of human rights protection and international humanitarian law. Consequently, the Article provides a detailed analysis of the approach to the central subject of this document, that is, the right to a remedy and reparation, which is expressed in practical application by universal and regional bodies on human rights and in the field of humanitarian law. In this regard, the position of the right to a remedy and reparation in the complex of human rights is determined, as well as their interconnection and relation to each other.MATERIALS AND METHODS. The theoretical researches of the Russian and foreign experts in the field of international law have been analyzed in this very Article as well as the normative documents, recommendations, and decisions of the treaty bodies on human rights within the UN system, the law enforcement practice of universal and regional judicial and quasi-judicial bodies for the protection of human rights and in the field of international humanitarian law have also been studied. Such methods of scientific cognition as analysis and synthesis, the generalization method, the system-structural method, as well as the historical-legal and legal-technical methods have also been applied in this research.RESEARCH RESULTS. The Article reveals the significance and impact of the mechanism developed in the Basic Principles and Guidelines, in general, on the international human rights system. The Basic Principles and Guidelines are an international document, developed with the best practice of existing legal systems. It was adopted unanimously through the consensus reached by all parties concerned. The Basic Principles and Guidelines are aimed at codifying the provisions on the right to a remedy and reparation enshrined in various international treaties and as well as at developing a unified approach to these rights. Thus, the said international instrument does not create any new rules but classifies and uniforms the set of provisions on the right to a remedy and reparation. This nature of the Basic Principles and Guidelines makes them an attractive tool for international bodies in their law enforcement practice related to ensuring the right to a remedy and reparation. DISCUSSION ANDCONCLUSSIONS. The Basic Principles and Guidelines enshrine the responsibility of States in the field of human rights protection, when the second party to the conflict is individual, or individuals whose rights have been or may be violated. Therefore, the Basic Principles are focused on the interests of the victim of a violation of human rights, that is, they are deliberately humanistic and human rights oriented. The document provides a classification of victims to more adequately cover human rights mechanisms that ensure the protection of persons, individually or collectively. Further, it pays special attention to the protection of victims of gross violations of human rights. In addition, the Basic Principles and Guidelines list and describe forms of reparation for the victims of human rights violations.

Copyright of Journal of The Iraqi University is the property of Republic of Iraq Ministry of Higher Education & Scientific Research (MOHESR) and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Nowadays, human rights law significantly impacts the regulation of armed conflict through two main processes: the "interpretation process", whereby international humanitarian law is interpreted in light of human rights law's norms or concepts, and the "application process", whereby human rights law applies in armed conflict alongside international humanitarian law. These processes raise complex problems with respect to the interplay between the two branches of international law. The aim of this paper is to propose an elaborated theoretical framework, based on legal theories of normative coherence, in order to address that interplay and to overcome the shortcomings of the formal mechanisms usually referred to in practice and legal scholarship. It is demonstrated that such a coherency-based approach recommends adapting the outcomes of the interpretation and application processes, either by modulating or displacing the inappropriate norm or regime, in light of substantial considerations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although the humanitarian effects of armed conflict are vast and transcend national boundaries, international law does not yet provide an adequate or comprehensive response to the suffering of victims of war. This article argues considerations of State sovereignty have shaped the development of international law on post-war redress, hindering the emergence of individual rights to reparations under international humanitarian law. Meanwhile, alternative models such as victim assistance, which largely preserve sovereignty, are emerging in pockets of international humanitarian law, such as weapons treaties. This article suggests that victim assistance offers a potential model for addressing the harm to victims of armed conflict more broadly. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article analyzes the use of states of emergency in Peru during the COVID-19 pandemic and their compliance with international human rights law. It highlights that the Peruvian government has declared numerous states of emergency, but questions whether they meet international standards and national regulations. It is mentioned that the declaration of states of emergency lacks checks and balances or review mechanisms, which can lead to arbitrary and unconstitutional decisions. Additionally, it is noted that some states of emergency have been used to suppress protests and control civic space. It is concluded that it is necessary to ensure the proportionality and necessity of the measures taken during states of emergency. [Extracted from the article]

The urgency of the research is conditioned by the actual status of the governmental and legal reality of Ukraine which is in conditions of the armed conflict seventh year in a row resulting in the need to ensure both state sovereignty and guarantee and protection of human rights. In this regard, the article is aimed at studying the interaction of international human rights law and international humanitarian law, as well as their implementation in the legislation of Ukraine in conditions of an armed conflict. Scientific methods of research of the declared problems are the system method by means of which the international human rights law and the international humanitarian law are considered as two systems of more difficult complex - the international law. Using the structural-functional method, the structure and mechanisms of functional interaction of these systems on the legal regulation in the field of human rights in specific conditions are studied. The article analyzes the legal basis of international human rights law and international humanitarian law, as well as their possible simultaneous application in the context of the armed conflict in eastern Ukraine. Emphasis is placed on the need to ensure compliance with the principles of international humanitarian law and to bring to justice those guilty of violating the rules of the IHRL and IHL. The research results can be used in the educational process and further research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of IUG Journal of Sharia & Law Studies is the property of Islamic University of Gaza and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

While the rules of international humanitarian law (IHL) on humanitarian access are clear, implementing them at the national level can become challenging. To ensure full respect for those rules, States must strike a balance between preserving the security of the civilian population and humanitarian organizations and ensuring that people have access to goods and services that enable the full enjoyment of their rights. This article seeks to show how the IHL rules governing humanitarian access apply in the context of the Sahel region of Africa. First, it describes the multiplicity of armed actors that are present in the Sahel and the humanitarian situation in this region. Next, it addresses the legal framework applicable to humanitarian access under IHL applicable in non-international armed conflicts. The article then examines the measures that have been taken by the States of the Sahel to protect the civilian population and humanitarian organizations, such as the resort to declaration of states of emergency and to armed escorts. It is shown that these measures can hinder the delivery of impartial humanitarian assistance. Finally, the article describes some creative solutions that have been put forward by Sahelian States to facilitate humanitarian access. Examples of these include the creation of coordination mechanisms to foster dialogue on humanitarian access where all concerned actors are invited to participate; the adoption of domestic legal frameworks related to humanitarian access through which this access is proclaimed and its violation sanctioned; and the recognition of humanitarian exemptions in counterterrorism laws. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Fact-finding is a fundamental step in providing documentation that can be used in domestic and international proceedings. The United Nations establishes commissions of inquiry to investigate international law violations, often in contexts of armed conflict, under the mandate of the Human Rights Council or other more political organs of the UN. They vary in mandate, as well as in investigative and geographic scope. However, to this day, fact-finding mechanisms or inquiry commissions have only rarely conducted investigations into corporate crimes, even in cases where the UN has explicitly recognized the part played by economic actors in armed conflicts. Because corporations are not subjects of international law, they are presumed not to have any direct obligations under international law. Moreover, the mandates of fact-finding missions de facto exclude corporations from investigations because such mandates are always designed to investigate international law violations. By voluntarily dismissing any investigation of corporate crimes, the UN is significantly limiting prospects for corporate responsibility and impeding the process of transitional justice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Armed conflicts are characterised by violence and human rights violations with various implications on the citizens, economy and development of nations. The impact is however more pronounced with life-long consequences on children, the most vulnerable members of the society. This article examines the impact of non-international armed conflicts on children in Nigeria and identifies the laws for the protection of children against armed conflicts, both in international law and Nigeria's domestic law. It also addresses the challenges involved in the protection of children in armed conflict situations in Nigeria. The study found that legal efforts to protect children have not been given sufficient attention in Nigeria. This is mostly due to various challenges, including the fragmentation of legal framework and the refusal to domesticate relevant treaties. It is thus recommended that these challenges be addressed through the implementation of effective legal frameworks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista Opinião Jurídica is the property of Revista Opiniao Juridica and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)