This jurisprudence also recognizes the extraterritorial obligation to implement these guarantees in any and all cases where a State has effective control over individuals or a foreign territory, specifically in cases of detention or occupation. This bridges the interpretation of the different guarantees granted to victims in all types of situations and of armed conflict. This unification is due to the evolution of the nature and characteristics of armed conflicts, which imply non-state armed groups acting in a transnational manner, and to an increasing number of international security interventions, which involve a dual dimension of security and fighting.Īs a matter of law, international courts’ jurisprudence recognizes the joint and complementary application of both humanitarian law and human rights. There is currently a tendency toward harmonization in the application of these fundamental guarantees to victims in all type of situations of tensions and armed conflict, which aims at avoiding legal black holes created by certain literal legal interpretations. In numerous situations, this difference in drafting is abusively used by States in order to deprive certain individuals from international legal protection provided by both human rights and international humanitarian law. The fundamental guarantees straddle these two branches of international law and are drafted differently, depending on the international convention concerned. ![]() These guarantees are reflected and defined in international conventions related to international human rights law as inalienable rights in situations of internal disturbance or tensions, and under humanitarian law in situations of armed conflict. ![]() The term fundamental guarantees describes the rules governing the minimum standards of protection for individuals that remain applicable in all circumstances.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |