In order to understand the relationship between international humanitarian law and international human rights law, the foundation, development and overall intention of these separate sets of laws must be explored. International Humanitarian Law or IHL, is a set of international rules that has been established by treaties or customs for the intention of solving the humanitarian problems that arise directly from international or non-international armed conflicts. This universal body of law began in the nineteenth century and due to the long history of warfare is rooted in the principles and customs of ancient civilisations. These rules strike a careful balance between humanitarian concerns and the military requirements of States, who consider them legally binding and accept them as customary law. International Human Rights Law or IHRL on the other hand has a very different historical foundation and intention to IHL. IHRL is also a set of international rules that have been established by treaties or customs.
…show more content…
However, the intention of IHRL is to represent the “universal recognition that basic rights and fundamental freedoms are inherent to all human beings and that every one of use is born free and equal in dignity and rights.” It origins lay in certain human rights declarations such as the French Declaration of the Right of Man and of the Citizen (1789) that was influenced by the ideas of the Enlightenment and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) that was developed by the United Nations after World War II. The obligation to protect that is inherent in IHRL requires States to protect individuals and groups against human rights abuses at a domestic level. While both IHL and IHRL strive to protect the lives of others, the foundation and historical development of these two laws has led to a distinctive difference in dealing with the problems that affect individuals.
International Humanitarian Law and International Human Rights Law aim to protect human life. Similar jurisdiction that they both cover is the prohibition of torture, prescription of basic rights for persons subject to criminal justice, prohibition of discrimination, the protection of women and children and the regulation of right to food and health. However, the main purpose of IHL is to solve humanitarian problems that are limited to the effects of armed conflicts. It does not regulate whether a State may actually use force in the conflict, whether international or non-international, but rather aims to protect those who do not take part in the fighting such as civilians and medical personnel and who have ceased to take part in the fighting such as the wounded or prisoners of war. It also protects the red cross and red crescent emblems. The main treaty sources that are applicable to IHL for international conflict are the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the Additional Protocol I of 1977. For non-international conflict, the main treaty sources are Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol II of 1977 which relates to the protection of victims of armed conflict. Whereas IHL is limited to armed conflicts, IHRL sets forth everyday rights to apply to all individuals. These rights include the right to life, the rights to work, freedom of expression, the rights to vote and the freedom of the press. It is based on the belief that human rights are “inherent entitlements” and that individuals and groups must be respected and protect by
However, the intention of IHRL is to represent the “universal recognition that basic rights and fundamental freedoms are inherent to all human beings and that every one of use is born free and equal in dignity and rights.” It origins lay in certain human rights declarations such as the French Declaration of the Right of Man and of the Citizen (1789) that was influenced by the ideas of the Enlightenment and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) that was developed by the United Nations after World War II. The obligation to protect that is inherent in IHRL requires States to protect individuals and groups against human rights abuses at a domestic level. While both IHL and IHRL strive to protect the lives of others, the foundation and historical development of these two laws has led to a distinctive difference in dealing with the problems that affect individuals.
International Humanitarian Law and International Human Rights Law aim to protect human life. Similar jurisdiction that they both cover is the prohibition of torture, prescription of basic rights for persons subject to criminal justice, prohibition of discrimination, the protection of women and children and the regulation of right to food and health. However, the main purpose of IHL is to solve humanitarian problems that are limited to the effects of armed conflicts. It does not regulate whether a State may actually use force in the conflict, whether international or non-international, but rather aims to protect those who do not take part in the fighting such as civilians and medical personnel and who have ceased to take part in the fighting such as the wounded or prisoners of war. It also protects the red cross and red crescent emblems. The main treaty sources that are applicable to IHL for international conflict are the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the Additional Protocol I of 1977. For non-international conflict, the main treaty sources are Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol II of 1977 which relates to the protection of victims of armed conflict. Whereas IHL is limited to armed conflicts, IHRL sets forth everyday rights to apply to all individuals. These rights include the right to life, the rights to work, freedom of expression, the rights to vote and the freedom of the press. It is based on the belief that human rights are “inherent entitlements” and that individuals and groups must be respected and protect by