Volume 12 : 1
Introduction
Human Rights in Armed Conflict: Metaphors, Maxims, and the Move to Interoperability
Concurrent Application of International Humanitarian Law and International Human Rights Law Revisited
The Interplay between International Human Rights Law and International Humanitarian Law during International Criminal Trials
A Green Light Turning Red? The Potential Influence of Human Rights on Developing Customary Legal Protection Against Conflict-Driven Displacement
Soft Law Instruments Regulating Armed Conflict. Are International Human Rights Standards Reflected?
What Does the Jurisdictional Hurdle under International Human Rights Law Mean for the Relationship between International Human Rights Law and International Humanitarian Law?
‘Yes, I Do’: Binding Armed Non-State Actors to IHL and Human Rights Norms through Their Consent
Introduction
Human Rights in Armed Conflict: Metaphors, Maxims, and the Move to Interoperability
Concurrent Application of International Humanitarian Law and International Human Rights Law Revisited
The Interplay between International Human Rights Law and International Humanitarian Law during International Criminal Trials
A Green Light Turning Red? The Potential Influence of Human Rights on Developing Customary Legal Protection Against Conflict-Driven Displacement
Soft Law Instruments Regulating Armed Conflict. Are International Human Rights Standards Reflected?
What Does the Jurisdictional Hurdle under International Human Rights Law Mean for the Relationship between International Human Rights Law and International Humanitarian Law?
‘Yes, I Do’: Binding Armed Non-State Actors to IHL and Human Rights Norms through Their Consent
Year
2018
Volume
12
Number
1
Page
99
Language
English
Court
Reference
K.L. YIP, “What Does the Jurisdictional Hurdle under International Human Rights Law Mean for the Relationship between International Human Rights Law and International Humanitarian Law?”, HRILD 2018, nr. 1, 99-119
Recapitulation
With increasing acceptance of the application of international human rights law (‘IHRL’) in armed conflicts and occupations, the early focus on ‘ jurisdiction’ as a potential limit to applying IHRL extra-territorially has shifted to the relationship between IHRL and international humanitarian law (‘IHL’), leaving the different conceptions of jurisdiction under-theorised and their intimate connection to the relationship between IHL and IHRL under-analysed. This article examines two competing conceptions of jurisdiction, based respectively on factual control and normative legitimacy, to examine what the jurisdictional hurdle under IHRL means for the relationship between IHRL and IHL. It uncovers the different visions of human rights underlying different conceptions of ‘ jurisdiction’ under IHRL and examines how they differently shape the relationship between IHRL and IHL. It argues that while control-based jurisdiction is theoretically under-developed, legitimacy-based jurisdiction constricts our vision of human rights and blinds us to the many non-sovereign actors holding structural power over lives in armed conflicts. It further argues that the proposal to partially abandon the jurisdictional threshold harbours a ‘bare life’ vision of human rights that diverts IHRL’s scrutiny away from structural power altogether, sovereign or otherwise. It then proposes a reconceptualisation of ‘ jurisdiction’ as structural power to reclaim the ambit of IHRL as demanding the transformation of institutions, sovereign or otherwise, so as to create the necessary structural conditions for the fuller enjoyment of human rights.
