Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

International Human Rights Law

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
International Conflict and Security Law

  • 1545 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter provides an introduction to international human rights law. After introducing human rights generally, the chapter goes on to provide an overview of civil and political rights and of economic, social and cultural rights. A subsequent outline of the limitations and derogations that can be put on human rights provides understanding of the limits of human rights law. Following this, an overview of the United Nations human rights system is given, examining the three main agents of human rights within the United Nations: the treaty bodies (who oversee the implementation of the human rights treaties); the Human Rights Council (which undertakes the Universal Periodic Review); and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (which oversees incorporating human rights into all United Nations entities and actions). The chapter looks at the extraterritorial application of human rights, before concluding with two conflict- and security-related human rights case studies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 349.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 449.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 449.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See e.g. Friedländer 2007.

  2. 2.

    Mill 1991.

  3. 3.

    UNDP, Human Development Report 1994: New Dimensions of Human Security (1994), http://www.hdr.undp.org/en/content/human-development-report-1994, p. 22. Accessed 13 August 2020.

  4. 4.

    Conte and Burchill 2016, pp. 2–3.

  5. 5.

    Ibid., p. 2.

  6. 6.

    UN GA Res 32/120 (1977), paras 1(a)–(c). ‘[H]uman rights in international law share a common purpose: to mitigate injustices produced by the ways in which international law brings legal order to global politics’; Macklem 2015, p. 62.

  7. 7.

    1945 Charter of the United Nations 1 UNTS XVI, articles 55–56; Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970), ICJ, Advisory Opinion of 21 June 1971, p. 45 para 131; see also Schwelb 1972.

  8. 8.

    Samnøy 1999, p. 10.

  9. 9.

    Or ‘as an authoritative interpretation of the Charter’s human rights provisions’. Alston and Goodman 2013, p. 82.

  10. 10.

    Case concerning United States diplomatic and consular staff in Tehran (United States v. Iran), ICJ, Judgment of 24 May 1980, p. 42.

  11. 11.

    The 1976 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 999 UNTS 171; the 1976 Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 993 UNTS 3; the 1981 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women 2131 UNTS 83; the 1990 Convention on the Rights of the Child 1577 UNTS 3; the 2008 Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 2515 UNTS 3; the 1966 International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination 660 UNTS 195; the 1987 Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment 1465 UNTS 85. For a summary discussion of a number of human rights treaties, see Egan 2011, Chapter 3.

  12. 12.

    Moyn 2010, p. 176.

  13. 13.

    Haas 2008, p. 113.

  14. 14.

    Saul et al. 2014, p. 1.

  15. 15.

    King 2012; Lazarus 2014.

  16. 16.

    United Nations, News on Millennium Development Goals, http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/. Accessed 5 March 2020. United Nations, Sustainable Development Goals, https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/. Accessed 5 March 2020.

  17. 17.

    For a list of international and regional instruments dealing with ecosoc rights, see King 2012, p. 326; for a comprehensive collection of resources, see Leckie and Gallagher 2006.

  18. 18.

    Articles 22–28.

  19. 19.

    Articles 10 and 12.

  20. 20.

    See e.g. 1999 Convention concerning the Prohibition and Immediate Action for the Elimination of the Worst Forms of Child Labour (ILO No. 182) 2133 UNTS 161; 1957 Convention Concerning the Abolition of Forced Labor (ILO No. 105) 320 UNTS 291.

  21. 21.

    ICCPR, article 4(1); ICESCR article 4.

  22. 22.

    Human Rights Committee, CCPR General Comment 29: States of Emergency, Seventy-second Session, 31 August 2001, UN Doc. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.11, para 2 (hereinafter HRC General Comment No. 29). See generally, United Nations Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, Siracusa Principles on the Limitation and Derogation of Provisions in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Annex, E/CN.4/1984/4 (1984) (hereinafter Siracusa Principles). For a discussion of derogations specifically in the context of the ICCPR, see Conte and Burchill 2016, Chapter 3.

  23. 23.

    Lawless v. Ireland (No 3) (1961) 1 EHRR 15, p. 31.

  24. 24.

    Hartman 1981, p. 16.

  25. 25.

    Siracusa Principles, Principles 39 and 40.

  26. 26.

    Hartman 1981.

  27. 27.

    Force majeure may also be an applicable justification for derogation from human rights treaty obligations, as under treaty law. See Alston and Goodman 2013, p. 402.

  28. 28.

    International Committee of the Red Cross, Customary IHL Database, Rule 88, https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_rul_rule88. Accessed 5 March 2020. See also Pejic 2001.

  29. 29.

    Note the European Court of Human Rights cases Ireland v. the United Kingdom (5310/71) [1978] ECHR 1; Aksoy v. Turkey (21987/93) [1996] ECHR 68; and A. and Others v. the United Kingdom (3455/05) [2009] ECHR, in which the Court observed that a state of emergency did exist due to terrorist attacks. See also Şahin Alpay v. Turkey (16538/17) [2018] ECHR and Mehmet Hasan Altan v. Turkey (13237/17) [2018] ECHR, in which the Court concluded that a military coup amounted to a public emergency constituting a threat to the life of the nation. For discussion, see Nugraha 2018; Müller 2018.

  30. 30.

    ICCPR, article 4(1). Similar provisions are found in other human rights treaties. For more detail on the limitations placed on derogations, see de Schutter 2014, pp. 339–426.

  31. 31.

    HRC General Comment No. 29, paras 4–5.

  32. 32.

    ICCPR, article 4(1); HRC General Comment No. 29, para 8.

  33. 33.

    ICCPR, article 4(3); HRC General Comment No. 29, para 17.

  34. 34.

    Hartman 1981, p. 11; Hafner-Burton et al. 2011.

  35. 35.

    HRC General Comment No. 29, para 11.

  36. 36.

    For detailed discussion of the different treaty bodies and their procedures, see e.g. Egan 2011; Alston and Crawford 2000.

  37. 37.

    Egan 2011, p. 179.

  38. 38.

    Ibid., p. 253.

  39. 39.

    Bayefsky 2001, p. 71.

  40. 40.

    Egan 2011, p. 253.

  41. 41.

    O'Flaherty 2010.

  42. 42.

    There is much debate around the successes and limitations of human rights treaties. See e.g. Kanter 2019; Simmons 2012; Goodman and Jinks 2003; Hathaway 2002.

  43. 43.

    Human Rights Council, Institution-building of the United Nations Human Rights Council, HRC Res. 5/1, Fifth Session, 18 June 2007, Annex, UN Doc. A/HRC/RES/5/1, para 3(b). Establishment document, Human Rights Council, 15 March 2006, GA Res 60/251.

  44. 44.

    Egan 2011, pp. 27–35.

  45. 45.

    Collister 2015, p. 111.

  46. 46.

    See Human Rights Council, List of Situations Referred to the Human Rights Council under the Complaint Procedure since 2006 (October 2014), https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/ComplaintProcedure/SituationsConsideredUnderComplaintProcedures.pdf. Accessed 5 March 2020.

  47. 47.

    See OHCHR, Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council, https://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/SP/Pages/Welcomepage.aspx. Accessed 5 March 2020.

  48. 48.

    Human Rights Council, Report of the Human Rights Council on its Seventh Organizational Meeting, 4 April 2013, Seventh Organizational Meeting, 14 and 29 January 2013, A/HRC/OM/7/1; Human Rights Council, Decision adopted by the Human Rights Council at its seventh organizational meeting, 4 April 2013, Seventh Organizational Meeting, 29 January 2013, OM/7/101.

  49. 49.

    Collister 2015, p. 77.

  50. 50.

    Ibid., p. 115.

  51. 51.

    Field offices are listed at OHCHR, OHCHR in the World: making human rights a reality on the ground, https://www.ohchr.org/EN/Countries/Pages/WorkInField.aspx. Accessed 5 March 2020.

  52. 52.

    OHCHR, What we do, https://www.ohchr.org/EN/AboutUs/Pages/WhatWeDo.aspx. Accessed 5 March 2020.

  53. 53.

    OHCHR, Mandate, https://www.ohchr.org/EN/AboutUs/Pages/Mandate.aspx. Accessed 5 March 2020.

  54. 54.

    Lotus Case, Permanent Court of International Justice, Judgment of 7 September 1927, PCIJ ser. A no. 10 (1927), p. 20.

  55. 55.

    Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, ICJ, Advisory Opinion of 9 July 2004, p. 178 para 106, p. 179 para 109.

  56. 56.

    Armed activities on the territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda), ICJ, Judgment of 19 December 2005, paras 213–214.

  57. 57.

    Human Rights Committee, CCPR General Comment No. 31 [80] The Nature of the General Legal Obligation Imposed on State Parties to the Covenant, Eightieth Session, 26 May 2004, UN Doc CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.13. The Human Rights Committee also made this conclusion in individual complaints cases: Human Rights Committee, Delia Saldias de Lopez v. Uruguay, Views: Communication No. 52/1979, UN Doc. CCPR/C/OP/1 at 88 (1984), para 12.

  58. 58.

    For more details on extraterritorial application of human rights, see, e.g, Milanović 2011; O'Brien 2010–2011; Miller 2010; Coomans and Kamminga 2004.

  59. 59.

    Human Rights Committee, ‘General comment No. 36, Article 6: right to life’, CCPR/C/GC/36, 3 September 2019, para 2.

  60. 60.

    General Comment No. 36, para 3.

  61. 61.

    Ibid., paras 7, 18–31.

  62. 62.

    Ibid., para 6.

  63. 63.

    The right also allows for the death penalty, although protocols to human rights treaties take an abolitionist stance in a slow progression to the rejection of the death penalty. See, e.g., 1989 Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Aiming at the Abolition of the Death Penalty, GA Res. 44/128, annex, 44 UN GAOR Supp. (No. 49) at 207, UN Doc. A/44/49 (1989).

  64. 64.

    1950 European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, ETS 5, 213 UNTS 222, Article 2(2).

  65. 65.

    Principle 9 of the 1990 Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials, UN Doc. A/CONF.144/28/Rev.1 at 112. See also 1989 Principles on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-Legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions, UN Doc. E/1989/89.

  66. 66.

    For discussion on the relationship between IHL and human rights law, see e.g. Gill 2013; Heintze 2013; Milanović 2010; Doswald-Beck 2006.

  67. 67.

    Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion of 8 July 1996, para 25.

  68. 68.

    Killings must also comply with general IHL principles, such as the principles of distinction and military necessity; see ICRC Casebook, Principle of Distinction, https://casebook.icrc.org/law/principle-distinction, and Military necessity, https://casebook.icrc.org/glossary/military-necessity. Accessed 13 August 2020.

  69. 69.

    The Israeli Targeted Killings case is a prominent case on the issue: The Public Committee against Torture in Israel and Palestinian Society for the Protection of Human Rights and the Environment v. The Government of Israel [et al.], HCJ 769/02, 13 December 2006.

  70. 70.

    See e.g. NGO Statement on Reported Changes to US Policy on Use of Armed Drones and Other Lethal Force, 7 March 2018, https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/03/07/ngo-statement-reported-changes-us-policy-use-armed-drones-and-other-lethal-force. Accessed 13 August 2020.

  71. 71.

    Amnesty International 2012.

  72. 72.

    For comprehensive reporting of the killing, see Al Jazeera’s Soleimani Assassination News page, https://www.aljazeera.com/topics/events/200103131449509.html. Accessed 13 August 2020.

  73. 73.

    ‘Extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions’, Report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, 29 June 2020, UN Doc A/HRC/44/38, Advanced Unedited Version.

  74. 74.

    Concluding Observations of the Human Rights Committee: Israel, 21 August 2003, UN Doc. CCPR/CO/78/ISR, para 15. The requirement to take measures to arrest before more serious action does not apply in armed conflict.

  75. 75.

    Report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, 13 September 2013, UN Doc. A/68/382, para 24.

  76. 76.

    Ibid., discussing the relevant rules of both fields of international law as applicable to targeted killings.

  77. 77.

    1960 Convention Against Discrimination in Education and the 1972 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage 429 UNTS 93; 1972 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage 1037 UNTS 151; 1954 Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict 249 UNTS 215.

  78. 78.

    CESCR, General Comment No. 21: Right of everyone to take part in cultural life (article 15, para 1(a), of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights), 21 December 2009, Forty-third Session, 2-20 November 2009, UN Doc. E/C.12/GC/21, para 1 (hereinafter General Comment No. 21).

  79. 79.

    A part of the protection of cultural rights is the right of everyone to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and its applications. This is obviously deeply connected to the right to education, and includes freedom of scientific research and communication, enjoyment of the benefits of scientific progress, and protection from adverse effects of science. For more, see Saul et al. 2014, pp. 1212–1224.

  80. 80.

    General Comment No. 21, para 11.

  81. 81.

    Ibid., para 13.

  82. 82.

    Ibid., para 15.

  83. 83.

    Ibid., para 32.

  84. 84.

    Ibid., para 50.

  85. 85.

    Report of the Special Rapporteur in the field of cultural rights on the intentional destruction of cultural heritage as a violation of human rights, Human Rights Council, Thirty-first Session, 3 February 2016, UN Doc. A/HRC/31/59, para 47.

  86. 86.

    Cultural property ‘refers to buildings and other monuments of historic, artistic or architectural significance, to archaeological sites, to artworks, antiquities, manuscripts, books, and collections of the same, to archives, and the like’; O’Keefe 2014, p. 492. Cultural destruction is a significant element of genocide, although a discussion of this is outside the scope of this chapter; see e.g. O’Brien 2022, Chapter 3 Education and Culture Rights.

  87. 87.

    Destruction of cultural heritage can occur outside of the parameters of conflict, as evidenced by the destruction of the Bamiyan Buddhas in Afghanistan, by the Taliban, the connection of which to armed conflict is debated. See e.g. Francioni and Lenzerini 2003, whose analysis appears to assume war crimes were committed; compared with O’Keefe 2010, p 4, who expressly states that the destruction ‘did not constitute a war crime’ because ‘the Buddhas were not destroyed in the course of fighting’ because there were no hostilities in the Bamiyan Valley.

  88. 88.

    Brammertz et al. 2016, p. 1145.

  89. 89.

    Pratt 2018, p. 1050.

  90. 90.

    Regulations, 14 May 1954; 1954 Protocol to the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict 249 UNTS 215; 1999 Second Protocol to the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict 2253 UNTS 172.

  91. 91.

    Cultural Property Convention, Preamble.

  92. 92.

    1977 Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts 1125 UNTS 3; and 1977 Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts 1125 UNTS 609.

  93. 93.

    Customary International Humanitarian Law Rule 38 (Attacks Against Cultural Property) https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_rul_rule38 and Rule 40 (Respect for Cultural Property) https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_rul_rule40. Accessed 13 August 2020.

  94. 94.

    1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court 2187 UNTS 90, Article 8(2)(b)(ix) and (e)(iv).

  95. 95.

    See above n 62.

  96. 96.

    Prosecutor v Strugar, IT-01-42; Prosecutor v Jokić, IT-01-42/1. See Brammertz et al. 2016 for an overview of the ICTY cultural heritage cases.

  97. 97.

    Prosecutor v Kordić and Čerkez, Trial Judgement, 26 February 2001, IT-95-14/2, para 207.

  98. 98.

    Prosecutor v Ahmad Al Faqi Al Madi, ICC-01/12/01/15.

  99. 99.

    For further detail on the sentencing and judgment, see Pratt 2018 and Vrdoljak 2018.

  100. 100.

    Prosecutor v Ahmad Al Faqi Al Madi, Judgment and Sentence, 27 September 2016, ICC-01/12/01/15-171, paras 78–79.

  101. 101.

    Al Madhi, Reparations Order, 17 August 2017, ICC-01/12-01/15-236.

  102. 102.

    de Schutter 2014, pp. 63–66.

  103. 103.

    At least these rights, and possibly all human rights, are obligations erga omnes. See e.g. Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company Ltd (Belgium v. Spain), ICJ, Judgment of 5 February 1970, p. 32 paras 33–34; de Schutter 2014, pp. 113–118.

References

  • Alston P, Crawford J (eds) (2000) The Future of UN Human Rights Treaty Monitoring. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Alston P, Goodman R (2013) International Human Rights. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Amnesty International (2012) United States of America: 'Targeted Killing' Policies Violate Right to Life, AMR 51/047/2012. https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/AMR51/047/2012/en/. Accessed 13 August 2020

  • Bayefsky A F (2001) Direct Petition in the UN Human Rights Treaty System. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting (American Society of International Law) 95:71-75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brammertz S, Hughes K, Kipp A, Tomljanovich W (2016) Attacks against Cultural Heritage as a Weapon of War. Journal of International Criminal Justice 14: 1143–1174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collister H (2015) Rituals and Implementation in the Universal Periodic Review and the Human Rights Treaty Bodies. In: Charlesworth H, Larking E (eds) Human Rights and the Universal Periodic Review: Rituals and Ritualism. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 109–125

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Conte A, Burchill R (2016) Defining Civil and Political Rights : The Jurisprudence of the United Nations Human Rights Committee. Routledge, Farnham

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Coomans F, Kamminga M T (eds) (2004) Extraterritorial Application of Human Rights Treaties. Intersentia, Antwerp/Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • de Schutter O (2014) International Human Rights Law: Cases, Materials, Commentary, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Doswald-Beck L (2006) The right to life in armed conflict: does international humanitarian law provide all the answers? International Review of the Red Cross 88:881–904

    Google Scholar 

  • Egan S (2011) The United Nations Human Rights Treaty System: Law and Procedure. Bloomsbury Professional, Haywards Heath

    Google Scholar 

  • Francioni F, Lenzerini F (2003) The Destruction of the Buddhas of Bamiyan and International Law. European Journal of International Law 14: 619–651

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedländer S (2007) The Years of Extermination: Nazi Germany and the Jews, 1939–1945. Harper Perennial, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Gill T D (2013) Some Thoughts on the Relationship Between International Humanitarian Law and International Human Rights Law: A Plea for Mutual Respect and a Common-Sense Approach. Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law 251

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodman R, Jinks D (2003) Measuring the Effects of Human Rights Treaties. European Journal of International Law 14:171–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haas M (2008) International Human Rights: A Comprehensive Introduction. Routledge, Abingdon

    Google Scholar 

  • Hafner-Burton E M, Helfer L R, Fariss C J (2011) Emergency and Escape: Explaining Derogations from Human Rights Treaties. International Organization 65:673–707

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartman J F (1981) Derogation from Human Rights Treaties in Public Emergencies: A Critique of Implementation by the European Commission and Court of Human Rights and the Human Rights Committee of the United Nations. Harvard International Law Journal 22:1–52

    Google Scholar 

  • Hathaway O (2002) Do Human Rights Treaties Make a Difference? Yale Law Journal 111:1935–2042

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heintze H-J (2013) Theories on the relationship between international humanitarian law and human rights law. In: Kolb R, Gaggioli G (eds) Research Handbook on Human Rights and Humanitarian Law. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, Cheltenham, pp 53–64

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kanter A (2019) Do Human Rights Treaties Matter: The Case for the United Nations Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 52:577–609

    Google Scholar 

  • King J (2012) Judging Social Rights. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lazarus L (2014) Reasoning Rights: Comparative Judicial Engagement. Hart Publishing, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Leckie S, Gallagher A (2006) Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights: A Legal Resource Guide. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Macklem P (2015) Human Rights in International Law: Three Generations or One? London Review of International Law 3:61–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milanović M (2010) A Norm Conflict Perspective on the Relationship between International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights Law. J Conflict Secur Law 14:459-483

    Google Scholar 

  • Milanović M (2011) Extraterritorial Application of Human Rights Treaties. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mill J S (1991) On Liberty and Other Essays. Oxford University Press, Oxford (orig. 1806–1873)

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller S (2010) Revisiting Extraterritorial Jurisdiction: A Territorial Justification for Extraterritorial Jurisdiction under the European Convention. European Journal of International Law 20:1223–1246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moyn S (2010) The Last Utopia: Human Rights in History. Harvard University Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Müller J (2018) European Human Rights Protection in Times of Terrorism – the State of Emergency and the Emergency Clause of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Zeitschrift für Politikwissenschaft 28:581–91

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nugraha I Y (2018) Human Rights Derogation During Coup Situations. The International Journal of Human Rights 22:194–206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O'Brien M (2010-2011) From Sexual Exploitation to Srebrenica: State Responsibility for Criminal Misconduct by Peacekeepers. New Zealand & Australian Armed Forces Law Review 10 & 11:125–47

    Google Scholar 

  • O'Brien M (2022) From Discrimination to Death: Genocide Process through a Human Rights Lens. Routledge, London (forthcoming)

    Google Scholar 

  • O'Flaherty M (2010) Reform of the UN Human Rights Treaty Body System: Locating the Dublin Statement. Human Rights Law Review 10:319–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O'Keefe R (2010) Protection of Cultural Property under International Criminal Law. Melbourne Journal of International Law 11: 339

    Google Scholar 

  • O'Keefe R (2014) Protection of Cultural Property. In: Clapham A, Gaeta P (eds) The Oxford Handbook of International Law in Armed Conflict. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 492–520

    Google Scholar 

  • Pejic J (2001) Non-Discrimination and Armed Conflict. International Review of the Red Cross, No. 841. https://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/article/other/57jqzq.htm. Accessed 5 March 2020

  • Pratt L (2018) Prosecution for the Destruction of Cultural Property - Significance of the al Madhi Trial. International Criminal Law Review 18: 1048–1079

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Samnøy Å (1999) The Origins of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In: Alfredsson G, Eide (eds) The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, The Hague, pp 3–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Saul B, Kinley D, Mowbray J (2014) The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: Commentary, Cases, and Materials. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwelb E (1972) The International Court of Justice and the Human Rights Clauses of the Charter. American Journal of International Law 66:337–351

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simmons B (2012) Mobilizing for Human Rights: International Law in Domestic Politics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Vrdoljak A F (2018) Introductory Note to Prosecutor v Ahmad Al Faqi Al Madhi: Judgment and Sentence & Reparations Order (Int’l Crim. Ct.). International Legal Materials 57: 17–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia

    Melanie O’Brien

Authors
  1. Melanie O’Brien
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Melanie O’Brien .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Law, KIMEP University, Almaty, Kazakhstan

    Sergey Sayapin

  2. School of Law, KIMEP University, Almaty, Kazakhstan

    Rustam Atadjanov

  3. National Law School of India, Pune, India

    Umesh Kadam

  4. Law and Social Sciences, University of Derby, Derby, UK

    Gerhard Kemp

  5. School of Law, KIMEP University, Almaty, Kazakhstan

    Nicolás Zambrana-Tévar

  6. Bristol Law School, University of the West of England, Bristol, UK

    Noëlle Quénivet

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 T.M.C. Asser Press and the authors

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

O’Brien, M. (2022). International Human Rights Law. In: Sayapin, S., Atadjanov, R., Kadam, U., Kemp, G., Zambrana-Tévar, N., Quénivet, N. (eds) International Conflict and Security Law. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-515-7_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-515-7_11

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-514-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-515-7

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation