Suchergebnisse

Preliminary Material -- Introduction -- The Development of the Relationship between IHL and IHRL and the Role of the lex specialis Maxim -- International Humanitarian Law Applicable to Non-International Armed Conflicts -- Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the Notion of Progressive Realisation -- Limitations to and Derogations from Economic, Social and Cultural Rights -- Situations of Active Combat: Integrating the Right to Health in IHL Military-Target Decisions -- IHL and the Right to Health: Mitigating the Adverse Public Health Impact of Armed Conflicts -- Humanitarian Assistance -- Concluding Remarks -- Bibliography -- Index.

In The Relationship between Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and International Humanitarian Law, Amrei Müller offers a detailed analysis of the legal consequences of the parallel application of economic, social and cultural rights and international humanitarian law to non-international armed conflicts.

Abstract
Recent literature and United Nations documents advocate that most armed non-state actors (ANSAs) should be bound by human rights law. This article takes a more critical stance on this issue. It argues that only a limited number of ANSAs should potentially become human rights duty-bearers: those that exercise de facto (human rights) jurisdiction and thus have considerable institutional and military capacities, as well as particular normative characteristics. It specifies these capacities and characteristics with an analysis of ANSAs' practice that tentatively indicates that some of these entities may indeed exercise de facto jurisdiction. The argument is justified by highlighting the broader consequences that recognising ANSAs as human rights duty-bearers will entail. It will also endow them with privileges that will legitimise their authority over time. This is grounded in the normative logic of human rights law that emphasises the interrelationship between human rights, equality and democracy that also permeates the notion of jurisdiction and is further supported by a political understanding of the right to self-determination. The article closes with a brief sketch of two complementary ways to develop international law binding ANSAs to be further explored in future research: the so-called 'responsibilities for human rights' and an adapted law of occupation.

AbstractArmed conflicts have numerous adverse health consequences for the affected populations, many of which occur in the long-term. This article analyses in detail how international humanitarian law (IHL) and the right to health complement each other in obliging states to mitigate the direct and indirect health consequences of non-international armed conflicts. With its historical origin and purpose of protecting wounded and sick combatants of standing governmental armies, IHL focuses on the protection of the wounded and sick suffering from the direct health consequences of armed conflicts, such as injuries resulting from ongoing hostilities. The right to health is more expansive: it obliges states to prioritise the provision of primary health care through creating and maintaining an accessible basic health system. This focus enables it to highlight and address the indirect health consequences of armed conflicts, such as the spreading of epidemic and endemic diseases and rising child and maternal mortality and morbidity.