Search results

The aim of the present piece is not to undertake an examination of which of international human rights law (IHRL) and international humanitarian law (IHL) is 'better' or more appropriate to regulate the conduct of States in situations of armed conflict. Advocates of IHRL argue that it provides heightened protection for individuals, and that, by its own terms, it applies to, and is perfectly equipped to deal with situations of exception, including armed conflicts.[1] On the other hand, supporters of IHL focus on the need not to place unnecessary fetters upon the freedom of States to pursue their military objectives in situations of armed conflict, and argue that IHL provides an adequate level of protection, whilst being more pragmatic, better suited to the specificities of armed conflict and more likely to be observed by the parties to the conflict.[2] Insofar as they prioritise different values, proponents of the two opposing camps to a large extent talk past each other and the debate is therefore necessarily somewhat sterile.

Chapter 21 in 'Research Handbook on International Law and Terrorism' ; The years immediately following the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 saw the emergence of a novel variation in the way in which governments and state officials may infringe human rights in the name of – real or purported – security considerations, namely the extraordinary rendition programme carried out by the United States with the assistance of a number of its allies in the 'War on Terror'. Although instances of irregular transfer, detention and interrogation of terrorist suspects are not new, extraordinary rendition, on the scale and through the modes by which it occurred after 9/11, has posed unprecedented challenges to human rights lawyers, international monitoring bodies, domestic courts and other oversight bodies in their attempts to ensure accountability. The present chapter provides an overview of the extent and the modalities of the US extraordinary rendition programme, and discusses its legal implications from the perspective of international human rights law. It then examines the numerous – and so far generally unsuccessful – attempts of victims of extraordinary rendition to obtain redress before national criminal and civil courts and the – comparatively more successful – litigation before international human rights monitoring bodies.

AbstractThousands of individuals have been detained abroad in the context of the "war on terror", both during the armed conflicts in Afghanistan and in Iraq and as a result of transnational law-enforcement operations. This paper argues that, notwithstanding contrary positions expounded by some States, the protections of international humanitarian law and/or international human rights law remain applicable to these individuals, wherever detained, and examines recent decisions of domestic courts and international bodies which appear to reveal a reassertion of international standards.