1.

Introduction
Both international humanitarian law (IHL) and international human rights law (IHRL)
are based on similar principles, that is, they both strive to protect the lives, health and
dignity of individuals, granted, from a different angle.
It is therefore not surprising that, while very different in formulation, the essence of
some of the rules is similar, if not identical. For example, the two bodies of law aim to
protect human life prohibit torture or cruel treatment, prescribe basic rights for
persons subject to a criminal justice process etc.
On the other hand, rules of IHL deal with many issues that are outside the purview of
IHRL, such as:
The conduct of hostilities
combatant status
prisoner of war status
protection of the red cross and red crescent emblems. etc
Similarly, IHRL deals with aspects of life in peacetime that are not regulated by IHL,
such as:
freedom of the press
the right to assembly
to vote
to strike etc
2. Relationship between IHL and IHRL
The debate on the relationship between IHL and IHRL started in the 1970s, but at that
time it was principally those from an IHL background who addressed this issue and
thus reaching the conclusion that; IHRL only applied in peacetime
Not getting into the debate timeline, I will move onto definitions.
Following seminar 7s reading and of course the principle of this module we know the
general definition of IHL and IHRL. That is:

IHRL: A system of international norms designed to protect and promote the

human rights of all persons, and in case of any violations the State is
responsible.
IHL: Set of international rules, established by treaty or custom, which are
specifically applicable to problems directly arising from international or noninternational armed conflicts.

For years, it was held that the difference between international human rights law and
international humanitarian law was that the former applied in times of peace, holding
the state responsible and the latter in situations of armed conflict.
Modern international law, however, recognizes that this distinction is inaccurate.
Indeed, it is widely recognized nowadays by the international community that since
human rights obligations derive from the recognition of inherent rights of all human
beings and that these rights could be affected both in times of peace and in times of
war, international human rights law continues to apply in situations of armed conflict.
Moreover, nothing in human rights treaties indicates that they would not be applicable
in times of armed conflict. As a result, the two bodies of lawinternational human
rights law and international humanitarian laware considered to be complementary
sources of obligations in situations of armed conflict.
For example, in the 1990: The Turku/bo Declaration (state of norms derived from
both IHL and IHRL applicable to both) subsequently closed in 2001 by General
Comment No. 29 and 31(2004) recalled that the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights (ICCPR) applied also in situations of armed conflict to which the
rules of international humanitarian law were applicable.
IHRL Frame Work
In the post-World War II period, international consensus formed around the need to
identify the individual rights and liberties which all governments should respect, and
to establish mechanisms for both promoting States adherence to their human rights
obligations and for addressing serious breaches.
Thus, in the decade following the war, national governments cooperated in the
establishment of the
United Nations (UN),[1]
the Organization of American States (OAS),[2] and
the Council of Europe (COE),[3] each including among its purposes
the advancement of human rights.

These intergovernmental organizations then prepared non-binding declarations or

binding treaties , which spelled out the specific liberties understood to be human
rights, including:

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, and the

European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental

Freedoms.

Next Slide:

By the end of the 1950s, these three systems had each established mechanisms for the
promotion and protection of human rights. which included;

the (former) UN Commission on Human Rights,

the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights,

the (former) European Commission of Human Rights, and

the European Court of Human Rights.

In subsequent decades, each oversaw the drafting of human rights agreements on

specific topics[7] and created additional oversight mechanisms, which now include
the

United Nations treaty bodies and Universal Periodic Review,

the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, and the

European Committee of Social Rights.

More recently, other intergovernmental organizations have also established, or begun

to establish, regional human rights treaties and monitoring mechanisms.
In Africa, the African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights and the African
Court on Human and Peoples Rights monitor State compliance with the African
Charter on Human and Peoples Rights.[8]

The decline of the Soviet Union spurred the formation of the Organization for
Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) which recognized dialogue on human
rights, political and military relations, and economic development as being equally
important to sustained peace and stability across Europe and the (former) Soviet
States. In Southeast Asia, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) has
recently created the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights, and
the League of Arab States in 2009 created the Arab Human Rights Committee.

HUMAN RIGHTS BODIES FUNCTIONS

One can think of the different mechanisms for the protection of human rights
as overlapping umbrellas of distinct sizes, positioned around the globe. The
different umbrellas are made up of the courts and monitoring bodies of the following
universal and regional human rights systems:

United Nations

UN Human Rights Council

human rights treaty bodies

independent experts known as special procedures

Universal Periodic Review

Africa

African Court on Human and Peoples Rights

African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights

the Americas

Inter-American Court of Human Rights

Inter-American Commission on Human Rights

Europe

European Court of Human Rights

European Committee of Social Rights

Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights

the Middle East & North Africa

Arab Human Rights Committee

Southeast Asia

ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights

IHL Bodies

There are various methods and mechanisms that have been adopted to promote
compliance with and enforcement of international humanitarian law. For example,

The provisions under the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols include:
Protecting Powers: The Geneva Conventions introduced the system of appointing
Protecting Powers in order to ensure that protected persons are treated in accordance
with the Conventions (common Art 8). This system has not been effective, however,
and has rarely been implemented. The Geneva Conventions also provide for the ICRC
to take the place of the Protecting Powers, if none are appointed, and make provision
for the ICRC to visit prisoners of war and detained civilians (common Art 10)
(Pfanner, 2009). The ICRC today declines to act as protecting power instead of acting
on its own behalf.
Fact-Finding Commission: Additional Protocol I introduced the International
Humanitarian Fact-Finding Commission, with the role of inquiring into any
allegations of serious violations of the Geneva Conventions or API (Art 90). The
Commission has rarely been relied upon, however, probably in large part due to the
requirement that inquiries can only be initiated by state parties into other state parties,
rather than allowing for initiation by individuals claiming breaches of IHL (Pfanner,
2009).
Penal Measures: Another method of enforcement envisaged by the Geneva
Conventions and AP I is the obligation by state parties to investigate persons accused
of carrying out or ordering the most serious war crimes, known as grave breaches
(willful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, biological experiments, willfully
causing great suffering, causing serious injury to body or heath, unlawful and wanton
extensive destruction and appropriation of property not justified by military
necessity). Grave breaches are liable to punishment and prosecution (GCI, Art 49,
GCII, Art 50, GC III, Art 129, GCIV, Art 146). While many states have
incorporated clauses in their national penal systems, providing for sanctions for grave
violations of IHL, it is up to them to decide how and by whom such measures should
be taken (Philippe, 2008).
Reparations: Should parties to a conflict be held responsible for breaches in IHL in
international armed conflict, there is an obligation to pay compensation (AP1, Art 91).
It remains disputed, however, whether an individual right to reparations is recognized
under IHL (Pfanner, 2009).
Military counsel and sanctions
Uniformed military lawyers comprise the compliance unit within the military. They
work to ensure that commanders and troops obey the rules of engagement, which
operationalize IHL.
Soldiers who use excessive force are also subject to disciplinary action, often
resulting in criminal or administrative penalties. Disciplinary sanctions can be used to

repress not only grave breaches but also other violations of IHL. Depending on the
scope of military disciplinary law provided for in a state, the impact on compliance
with IHL can be significant. Sanctions have a dual aim: education, which involves
encouraging soldiers to discharge their responsibilities better and to respect the rules;
and dissuasion, which serves as a warning to all personnel under the authority
imposing the sanction. In order for national military disciplinary sanctions to promote
compliance with IHL, they must be based on rules that are themselves inspired by
IHL (Renault, 2008).
IHRL Bodies, the Right bodies?
Human rights bodies
International humanitarian law focuses on the parties to the conflict. In contrast,
international human rights law is formulated as individual entitlements and provides
for a right to remedy, through lodging individual complaints against alleged
violations. Such a right does not exist in IHL. As such, human rights bodies
human rights treaty monitoring bodies and the Human Rights Council have
increasingly been called upon to scrutinize the application of human rights law in
situations of armed conflict. While their competence is generally confined to
determination of violations under human rights law, this does not preclude them from
taking into consideration provisions of IHL in order to interpret such norms. The
involvement of human rights bodies in situations of armed conflict can be beneficial
in terms of using human rights law to supplement and assist in interpreting state
obligations under IHL (Byron, 2006-7).
Problems?
Some scholars have argued, however, that the consideration of IHL by human rights
bodies can be problematic. Human rights bodies often;
Lack expertise in IHL and may reach conclusions contrary to humanitarian
law experts (Meron, cited in Byron, 2006-7). This was seen in the The Tablada
Case:
This case concerned the attack by 42 armed persons on the La Tablada barracks of the
Argentine armed forces, where 29 of the attackers and many soldiers were killed.
Surviving attackers applied to the Commission, complaining that Argentina had
violated the Inter-American Convention on Human Rights and international
humanitarian law.
Due to the Commissions little expertise on humanitarian law, they examined whether
it could directly apply international humanitarian law and finally decided that it was

entitled to do so. Great importance was attributed by academics to the decision.

Another criticism is that human rights law is not enforceable against non-state
groups. As such, the findings of a human rights body addressing a case involving
a non-international armed conflict may appear one-sided since it cannot hear
applications against or demand reports from non-state entities (Byron, 2006-7).

Excise of direct application of IHL by IHRL bodies was seen in:

Los Palmer Case: The Inter-American Court did not follow the position of the
Commission in its decision in the Los Palmeras case,52 for it decided that it was not
competent to apply international humanitarian law directly, in particular Common
Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.
And
Bamca case: The Court clearly concluded that the undeniable exis- tence of an
internal armed conflict meant that instead of exonerating the State from its
obligations to respect and guarantee human rights, this fact obliged it to act in
accordance with such obligations.

Further:
Under European court of Human rights
All the following cases brought out a very important problem by IHRL bodies, that
they are hesitant in referring to IHL law and forming a clear position because of
the reasons mentioned earlier. This hesitation was seen in all the cases mentioned.

The Northern Island Case:

Cyprus v Turkey & later Loizidou v Turkey

Bankovic v Belgium

Benefits
1. Systemic Integration: International bodies have constantly employed this principle
to connect IHL and human rights law rules. They have done so implicitly or by
expressly invoking Article 31(3)(c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
as seen in Molina and Hassan cae.

2. Strengthening and consolidation of the reporting procedure: new reporting

procedure for international humanitarian law seems impracticable. As things stand
today, it seems vital to make multiple uses of the procedures that already exist.
3. Ensure Compliance: Implementation mechanisms of human rights law protection
legal literature aptly points out that human rights protection not only shares a common
philosophy with international humanitarian law, but can also be used to compensate
for the deficits of international humanitarian law.
4. Individual complaints procedures
There are no individual complaints procedures available to victims of violations of
IHL at an international level. This is because IHL is primarily aimed at regulating
relations between States.
Conclusion
Research shows that there is a union between the protection offered by human rights
law and that of international humanitarian law.This has be summarized by Kalshoven
& Zegled;
In sum, although the practice of human rights is still limited, it provides a
welcome addition to the admittedly limited array of international means to enforce
compliance with international humanitarian law by parties to armed conflicts.