Journal of international humanitarian legal studies 

About: Journal of international humanitarian legal studies is an academic journal published by Brill. The journal publishes majorly in the area(s): International law & International humanitarian law. It has an ISSN identifier of 1878-1373. Over the lifetime, 128 publications have been published receiving 606 citations.

Taking Armed Groups Seriously: Ways to Improve Their Compliance with International Humanitarian Law

Abstract: Most contemporary armed conflicts are not of an international character. International Humanitarian Law (IHL) applicable to these conflicts is equally binding on non-State armed groups as it is on States. The legal mechanisms for its implementation are, however, still mainly geared toward States. The author considers that the perspective of such groups and the difficulties for them in applying IHL should be taken into account in order to make the law more realistic and more often respected. It is submitted that the law is currently often developed and interpreted without taking into account the realities of armed groups. This contribution explores how armed groups could be involved in the development, interpretation and operationalization of the law. It argues that armed groups should be allowed to accept IHL formally, to create – amongst other things – a certain sense of ownership. Their respect of the law should also be rewarded. Possible methods to encourage, monitor and control respect of IHL by armed groups are described. The author suggests in particular that armed groups should be allowed and encouraged to report on their implementation of IHL to an existing or newly created institution. Finally, in case of violations, this contribution proposes ways to apply criminal, civil and international responsibility, including sanctions, to non-State armed groups.

Disasters and Displacement: Gaps in Protection

Abstract: Natural disasters, particularly those related to climate change, are fast becoming a leading cause of forced displacement although conceptual, normative and institutional frameworks to provide human rights protection to the environmentally displaced 1 are not yet in place. This article discusses the human rights and protection dimensions of disaster-induced displacement, identifies the major challenges to protecting disaster victims, and proposes ways forward. The authors argue that while most environmentally displaced persons are expected to remain within their own countries, there is a lack of clarity about the status and protection needs of those uprooted by environmental degradation and other ‘slow-onset’ disasters as opposed to those displaced by ‘sudden-onset’ disasters. By far the biggest protection gap exists for those who cross borders. These individuals do not generally qualify as refugees under the 1951 Refugee Convention, there is no normative framework to address their specific needs and vulnerabilities and States have not been willing to commit to more than temporary protection on an ad hoc basis. The need is now critical for new approaches to be developed for the environmentally displaced, including expanded normative and institutional frameworks, comprehensive national policies, national and international monitoring, rights training, and more effective ways of dealing with governments that fail to protect their populations.

Mixing Apples and Hand Grenades The Logical Limit of Applying Human Rights Norms to Armed Conflict

Abstract: One of the most complex contemporary debates related to the regulation of armed conflict is the relationship between international humanitarian law (or the law of armed conflict) and international human rights law. Since human rights experts first began advocating for the complementary application of these two bodies of law, there has been a steady march of human rights application into an area formerly subject to the exclusive regulation of the law of armed conflict (LOAC). While the legal aspects of this debate are both complex and fascinating, like all areas of conflict regulation the outcome must ultimately produce guidelines that can be translated into an effective operational framework for war-fighters. In an era of an already complex and often confused battle space, there can be little tolerance for adding complexity and confusion to the rules that war-fighters must apply in the execution of their missions. Instead, clarity is essential to aid them in navigating this complexity. This article will explore this debate from a military operational perspective. It asserts the invalidity of extreme views in this complementarity debate, and that the inevitable invocation of human rights obligations in the context of armed conflict necessitates a careful assessment of where symmetry between these two sources of law is operationally logical and where that logic dissipates.

The Relationship between Human Rights and Disaster Risk Reduction Revisited: Bringing the Legal Perspective into the Discussion

Abstract: This paper explores the link between human rights and disaster risk reduction We revisit the notion of a human rights-based approach in the context of natural disasters, analyzing how this concept may contribute to greater accountability and empowerment of those involved in disaster risk reduction To better understand the processes of empowering rights holders and holding duty bearers into account we adopt legal analytical lenses By doing so we review four country case studies and their main regulations on disaster risk reduction, taking into account the extent to which they adopt a human rights-based approach We argue that countries whose legal frameworks allow for community engagement point towards greater community empowerment Similarly, countries whose legal provisions make possible for holding States accountable for their underperformance in disaster situations suggest greater levels of accountability We also consider key international human rights instruments binding the four case studies in order to analyze whether and to what extent international human rights obligations may support advocacy and accountability in disaster risk reduction Based on the analysis of these case studies we consider that empowerment and accountability processes in drr can reinforce each other, and that human rights may contribute to progress in these areas