Noam Lubell

Challenges in Applying Human Rights Law to Armed Conflict

The debates over the relationship between International Humanitarian Law and International Human Rights Law, have often focused on the question of whether human rights law continues to apply during armed conflict, and if so, on how these two bodies of law can complement each other. This article takes the continuing applicability of human rights law as an accepted and welcome starting point, and proceeds to lay out some of the challenges and obstacles encountered during the joint application of IHL and Human Rights Law, that still need to be addressed. These include extra-territorial applicability of human rights law; the mandate and expertise of human rights bodies; terminological and conceptual differences between the bodies of law; particular difficulties raised in non-international armed conflicts; and the question of economic, social and cultural rights during armed conflict.

Extraterritorial use of force against non-state actors

Introduction PART I: THE INTER-STATE RELATIONSHIP: EXTRATERRITORIAL USE OF FORCE AND SELF-DEFENCE AGAINST NON-STATE ACTORS 1. The Possibility of Self-Defence Against Non-State Actors 2. The Parameters of Self-Defence 3. Measures Taken Outside the Self-Defence Framework Part I Conclusion PART II: INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW 4. Force Against Non-State Actors as Armed Conflict 5. Non-Traditional Models of Armed Conflict 6. Status of Individuals and the Regulation of Force Part II Conclusion PART III: INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW 7. The Principal Practices and Primarily Affected Rights 8. Extraterritorial Applicability of Human Rights Law 9. Concurrent Applicability of International Humanitarian Law and International Human Rights Law Part III Conclusion Concluding Chapter

Human rights obligations in military occupation

This article examines the applicability of international human rights law in situations of military occupation. Proceeding from the position that human rights obligations can exist in these circumstances, the article provides an analysis of the precise modalities of application. It examines the tests for the determination of human rights applicability, and how these are linked to the concept of occupation. Finally, it recognizes the practical and legal challenges to the implementation of human rights obligations, and argues for a contextual approach that provides for human rights protection while recognizing the realities of military occupation.

Parallel Application of International Humanitarian Law and International Human Rights Law: An Examination of the Debate

This article provides a critical examination of the debate over the relationship between international humanitarian law and international human rights law. On the question surrounding the very fact of co-application, it appears that the dominant view supports the co-applicability of the two legal regimes. Opinion is however far from settled on the scope of application of international human rights law, especially insofar as it relates to the issue of extra-territorial applicability. The approach taken in the event of co-applying the two frameworks to specific circumstances, and whether and how one is to use the doctrine of lex specialis, reveals further questions in need of coherent answers. Finally, there remain particular areas in which the co-application faces challenges that must be surmounted, if it is to prove a useful approach. These include the issues of the so-called “war on terror,” the distinction between the jus ad bellum and the jus in bello, non-international armed conflicts, and more. Whilst the co-application of the two regimes is now almost undisputed, it appears therefore that obstacles remain that must be dealt with in order for the relationship of the regimes to be of a fully harmonious nature.

The Contemporary Legal Nature of UN Security Council Ceasefire Resolutions

This article sets out to examine the legal nature of ceasefire resolutions issued by the United Nations Security Council. While it has become common practice for the Council to issue calls or demands for ceasefires, their legal nature – and in particular whether they are legally binding – remains unclear. Furthermore, given the ubiquity of non-international armed conflict, there is an additional challenge with regard to the legal effect of such resolutions upon non-state armed groups. The article provides an analysis of these issues and concludes with a potential way forward.

Selective Conscientious Objection in International Law: Refusing to Participate in a Specific Armed Conflict

This article deals with the issue of selective conscientious objection to military service, and the place of a refusal to take part in a particular armed conflict, within the framework of international law. Selective objection has been a hot topic for debate in the past (e.g. US soldiers sent to Vietnam), and continues to be so today. Thousands of Serbs refused to take part in the Kosovo conflict, many of them having been imprisoned or fled the country. Many hundreds of Israelis have recently refused to perform military service in the Occupied Territories; dozens have been tried and imprisoned for their refusal. Despite the instinctive support that might be raised for these and other individuals involved in controversial conflicts (e.g. Russians refusing to serve in Chechnya), a right of objection to participation in particular conflicts has little approval at the national and international levels. Following a brief examination of the issue of conscientious objection in international law, and an analysis of the difficulties posed by selective objection, this article will attempt to define a specific category of selective conscientious objection to be protected as a recognised right in international law