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
120
Language
English
Court
Reference
A. BELLAL en E. HEFFES, “‘Yes, I Do’: Binding Armed Non-State Actors to IHL and Human Rights Norms through Their Consent”, HRILD 2018, nr. 1, 120-136
Recapitulation
In the last few decades, the role and status of armed non-state actors (ANSA) have become essential topics of analysis and discussion in order to better understand current international humanitarian law (IHL) and international human rights law (IHRL) dynamics. Although contemporary public international law still seems to be predominantly State-oriented, it is undeniable that a variety of these non-state entities have played quite important roles, giving rise to many discussions and complex debates. One relevant issue is related to the reasons why they are bound by international law. A classical approach to the traditional theory of sources of international law relies on the consent given by States to be bound by an international rule. When dealing with ANSAs, however, the reasons why they are obligated by both IHL and IHRL lie beyond merely accepting the existence of their obligations. While some views take into account their consent, others are based on their relationship with territorial States and the rules previously accepted by States’ authorities. Implementing one or the other is not merely an intellectual exercise, and which alternative is taken will certainly have a direct impact on the effectiveness of international law as perceived by ANSAs.
