Advertisement

Targeting Members of Non-State Armed Groups in NIACs: An Attempt to Reconcile International Human Rights Law with IHL’s (De Facto) Status-Based Targeting

  • Nader I. DiabEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter explores the relationship between international human rights law and international humanitarian law in the targeting of members of armed groups in non-international armed conflicts. It attempts to flesh out points of convergence between these two branches concerning their respective frameworks on the use of lethal force against persons. In this regard, the chapter analyzes the role played by ‘conduct’ and ‘function’ in determining the lawfulness of the use of lethal force in both legal regimes and demonstrates that these are not as far apart on this issue as is generally believed. Hence, by applying the principle of systemic integration, it attempts to use these points of convergence to find a space in human rights law for a quasi-regime of status-based targeting of members of armed groups in non-international armed conflicts. The chapter nonetheless cautions against any exercise of interpretation that overstretches and distorts international human rights law or international humanitarian law. It thus highlights the limits in some circumstances of incorporating the abovementioned status-based regime, as well as guarding against attempts to align both legal branches to the detriment of their object and purpose.

Keywords

Lex Specialis Systemic Integration Conduct of Hostilities Law Enforcement Non-State Armed Groups Non-International Armed Conflicts Use of Lethal Force 

References

  1. Abresch W (2005) A Human Rights Law of Internal Armed Conflict: The European Court of Human Rights in Chechnya. European Journal of International Law 16:741–767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (2015) General Comment No. 3 on the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights: The Right to Life (Article 4). http://www.achpr.org/instruments/general-comments-right-to-life/. Accessed 12 December 2016.
  3. Akande D (2010) Clearing the Fog of War? The ICR’s Interpretive Guidance on Direct Participation in Hostilities. The International and Comparative Law Quarterly 59:180–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aughey S, Sari A (2015) Targeting and Detention in Non-International Armed Conflict: Serdar Mohammed and the Limits of Human Rights Convergence. International Law Studies 91:60–118.Google Scholar
  5. Borelli S (2015) The (Mis)-Use of General Principles of Law: Lex Specialis and the Relationship Between International Human Rights Law and the Laws of Armed Conflict. In: Pineschi L (ed) General Principles of Law - The Role of the Judiciary. Springer, Cham, pp 265–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Corn G (2010) Mixing Apples and Hand Grenades: The Logical Limit of Applying Human Rights Norms to Armed Conflict, International Humanitarian Legal. Journal of International Humanitarian Legal Studies 1:52–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Corn G (2013) Two Sides of the Combatant Coin: Untangling Direct Participation in Hostilities from Belligerent Status in Non-International Armed Conflicts. In: Banks W (ed) Counterinsurgency Law: New Directions in Asymmetric Warfare. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 58–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cullen A (2010) The Concept of Non-International Armed Conflict. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  9. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders (1990), Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials. https://www.un.org/ruleoflaw/files/BASICP~3.PDF. Accessed 24 December 2016.
  11. Fachathaler T (2016) Hassan v. United Kingdom and the Interplay Between International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights Law in the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. In: Benedek W, Benoît-Rohmer F, Kettemann M, Klaushofer R, Nowak M (eds) European Yearbook on Human Rights. Intersentia, Cambridge, pp 345–356.Google Scholar
  12. Gaggioli G (2013) L’influence mutuelle entre les droits de l’homme et le droit international humanitaire à la lumière du droit à la vie. Édition A. Pedone, Paris.Google Scholar
  13. Gaggioli G (2018) Targeting Individuals Belonging to an Armed Group. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 51:901–917.Google Scholar
  14. Goodman R (2013) The Power to Kill or Capture Enemy Combatants. The European Journal of International Law 24:819–853.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hakimi M (2012) A Functional Approach to Targeting and Detention. Michigan Law Review 110:1365–420.Google Scholar
  16. Hakimi M (2016) Taking Stock of the Law on Targeting, Part I. http://www.ejiltalk.org/taking-stock-of-the-law-on-targeting-part-i/. Accessed 12 December 2016.
  17. Hampson F (1992) Using International Human Rights Machinery to Enforce the International Law of Armed Conflicts. Military Law and Law of War Review 31:117–147.Google Scholar
  18. Hampson F (2008) The relationship between international humanitarian law and human rights law from the perspective of a human rights treaty body. International Review of the Red Cross 90:549–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hampson F (2011) Direct Participation in Hostilities and the Interoperability of the Law of Armed Conflict and Human Rights Law. International Law Studies 87:187–213.Google Scholar
  20. Hampson F (2015) Can human rights requirements limit the right to use force against legitimate targets under IHL? In: Greppi E (ed) Conduct of Hostilities: the Practice, the Law and the Future. Franco Angeli, Milan, pp 149–154.Google Scholar
  21. Haque A (2017a) Untitled Submission to the Human Rights Committee on its General Comment on the Right to Life. https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/CCPR/GCArticle6/AdilHaque.docx. Accessed 19 December 2018.
  22. Haque A (2017b) Aggression, Armed Conflict, and the Right to Life: Does UN Human Rights Get it Right. https://www.justsecurity.org/44040/aggression-armed-conflict-life-human-rights-committee-right/. Accessed 19 December 2018.
  23. Henckaerts JM (2008) Concurrent Application of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights Law: A Victim Perspective. In: Arnold R, Quénivet N (eds) International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights Law: Towards a New Merger in International Law. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden, pp 237–267.Google Scholar
  24. Henckaerts JM, Doswald-Beck L (2005) Customary International Humanitarian Law Volume 1: Rules. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  25. Heyns C, Akande D, Hill-Cawthorne L, Chengeta T (2016) International Legal Framework Regulating the Use of Armed Drones. International & Comparative Law Quarterly 65:791–827.Google Scholar
  26. Hill-Cawthorne L (2014) The Role of Necessity in International Humanitarian and Human Rights Law. Israel Law Review 47:225–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. International Committee of the Red Cross (1987) Commentary on the Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden/Boston.Google Scholar
  28. International Committee of the Red Cross (2009) Interpretive guidance on the notion of direct participation in hostilities under international humanitarian law. https://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/icrc-002-0990.pdf. Accessed 3 November 2016.
  29. International Committee of the Red Cross (2013) Expert Meeting Report, Use of Force in Armed Conflicts: Interplay between the Conduct of Hostilities and Law Enforcement Paradigms. Prepared and edited by Gaggioli G https://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/publications/icrc-002-4171.pdf. Accessed 2 November 2016.
  30. International Committee of the Red Cross (2015) International Humanitarian Law and the Challenges of Contemporary Armed Conflicts. https://www.icrc.org/en/document/international-humanitarian-law-and-challenges-contemporary-armed-conflicts. Accessed 14 August 2017.
  31. International Committee of the Red Cross (2016) Updated Commentary on the First Geneva Convention: Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field. https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/ihl/full/GCi-commentary. Accessed 6 January 2017.
  32. International Law Commission (2006) Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising from Diversification and Expansion of International Law. A/CN.4/L.682.Google Scholar
  33. Kleffner J (2015) The Beneficiaries of the Rights Stemming from Common Article 3. In: Clapham A, Gaeta P, Sassòli M (eds) The 1949 Geneva Conventions: A Commentary. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 433–447.Google Scholar
  34. Lindroos A (2005) Addressing Norm Conflicts in a Fragmented Legal System: The Doctrine of Lex Specialis. Nordic Journal of International Law 74:27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lubell N (2005) Challenges in Applying Human Rights Law to Armed Conflict. International Review of the Red Cross 87:737–754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. McCarthy C (2008) Legal Reasoning and the Applicability of International Human Rights Standards During Military Occupation. In Arnold R, Quénivet N (eds) International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights Law: Towards a New Merger in International Law. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden/Boston, pp 121–132.Google Scholar
  37. Melzer N (2008) Targeted Killing in International Law. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Melzer N (2015) The Principle of Distinction Between Civilians and Combatants. In: Clapham A, Gaeta P (eds) The Oxford Handbook of International Law in Armed Conflict. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 296–331.Google Scholar
  39. Melzer N, Gaggioli G (2015) Conceptual Distinction and Overlaps Between Law Enforcement and the Conduct of Hostilities. In: Gill T, Fleck D (eds) The Handbook of the International Law of Military Operations, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 63–93.Google Scholar
  40. Milanović M (2011a) Norm Conflicts, International Humanitarian Law, and Human Rights Law. In: Ben-Naftali O (ed) International Humanitarian Law and International Human Rights Law: Pas de Deux. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 96–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Milanović M (2011b) Extraterritorial Application of Human Rights Treaties: Law, Principles, and Policy. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  42. Milanović M (2014) A Few Thoughts on Hassan v. United Kingdom. http://www.ejiltalk.org/a-few-thoughts-on-hassan-v-united-kingdom/. Accessed 5 November 2016.
  43. Milanović M (2016) The Lost Origins of Lex Specialis: Rethinking the Relationship between Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law. In: Ohlin J (ed) Theoretical Boundaries of Armed Conflict and Human Rights. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 78–117.Google Scholar
  44. Oberleitner G (2015) Human Rights in Armed Conflict: Law, Practice, Policy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  45. Ohlin J, May L (2016) Necessity in International Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  46. Otto R (2012) Targeted Killings and International Law: With Special Regard to Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law. Springer-Verlag, Berlin/Heidelberg.Google Scholar
  47. Prud’homme N (2007) Lex Specialis: Oversimplifying A More Complex and Multifaceted Relationship? Israel Law Review 40:355–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Quénivet N (2008) The Right to Life in International Humanitarian Law and
Human Rights Law. In: Arnold R, Quénivet N (eds) International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights Law: Towards a New Merger in International Law. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden/Boston, pp 331–354.Google Scholar
  49. Sassòli M (2007) Le droit international humanitaire, une lex specialis par rapport aux droits humains? In: Auer A, Flückiger A, Hottelier M (eds) Les droits de l’homme et la constitution: études en l’honneur du Professeur Giorgio Malinverni. Schulthess, Geneva, pp 375–395.Google Scholar
  50. Sassòli M, Olson L (2008) The Relationship between International Humanitarian and Human Rights Law Where It Matters: Admissible Killing and Internment of Fighters in Non-International Armed Conflicts. International Review of the Red Cross 90:599–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Schmitt M (2010) Military Necessity and Humanity in International Humanitarian Law: Preserving the Delicate Balance. Virginia Journal of International Law 50:795–839.Google Scholar
  52. Schmitt M (2012) Status of Opposition Fighters in a Non-International Armed Conflict. International Law Studies, 88:119–144.Google Scholar
  53. Srivastava S (2016) Nice attack: What it means for fight in Syria, Iraq. CNBC, 15 July 2016. http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/15/nice-attack-what-it-means-for-fight-in-syria-iraq.html. Accessed 24 December 2016.
  54. Tabak H (2014) Armed Conflict and the Inter-American Human Rights System: Application or Interpretation of International Humanitarian Law? In: Jinks E, Maogoto JN, Solomon S (eds) Applying International Humanitarian Law in Judicial and Quasi-Judicial Bodies: International and Domestic Aspects. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, pp 219–256.Google Scholar
  55. Tamura E (2011) The Isayeva Cases of the European Court of Human Rights: The Application of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights Law in Non-International Armed Conflicts. Chinese Journal of International Law 10(1):129–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. UN Economic and Social Council (1989) Principles on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions, E/RES/1989/65. https://www.un.org/ruleoflaw/files/PRINCI~2.PDF. Accessed 24 December 2016.
  57. UN General Assembly (1979) United Nations Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials, A/RES/34/169. https://www.un.org/ruleoflaw/files/CODEOF~1.PDF. Accessed 24 December 2016.
  58. UN Human Rights Committee (2014) Concluding observations on the fourth periodic report of the United States of America, CCPR/C/USA/CO/4.Google Scholar
  59. UN Human Rights Committee (2017) Draft General comment No. 36 on Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, on the right to life. https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/CCPR/GCArticle6/GCArticle6_EN.pdf. Accessed 19 December 2018.
  60. UN Human Rights Committee (2018) General comment No. 36 on Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, on the right to life, CCPR/C/GC/36.Google Scholar
  61. UN Human Rights Council (2014) Report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions. A/HRC/26/36.Google Scholar
  62. Watkin K (2004) Controlling the Use of Force: A Role for Human Rights Norms in Contemporary Armed Conflict. The American Journal of International Law 98:1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Watkin K (2005) Humans in the Cross-Hairs: Targeting, Assassination and Extra-Legal Killing in Contemporary Armed Conflict. In: Wippman D, Evangelista M (eds) New Wars, New Laws? Applying the Laws of War in 21st Century Conflicts. Transnational Publishers, New York, pp 137–179.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© T.M.C. Asser Press and the authors 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Independent ResearcherBrusselsBelgium

Personalised recommendations