International Humanitarian vs Human Rights Law

Human rights law is a set of international standards established by treaties or practices that allow individuals and groups to demand and claim certain rights from their governments that must be recognised and maintained. 

The International Human Rights Standards Body also contains a variety of non-treaty-based principles and guidelines, sometimes known as “soft law.” Human rights bodies supervise the Committee on Human Rights, which oversees the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the European Court of Human Rights, which oversees the European Convention on Human Rights. 

While IHL and human rights law developed independently, several human rights treaties include IHL provisions, such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child and its Optional Protocol on the involvement of minors in armed conflict and the Convention on Enforced Disappearance.

History of International humanitarian

Under the influence of Henry Dunant, a founding father of the International Committee of the Red Cross, the IHL, which has ancient origins, was defined in the late 19th century. The four Geneva Conventions of 1949 contain a substantial portion of international humanitarian law. Almost every country on the planet has committed to abide by them. 

Two additional accords have been formed and supplemented the Conventions: the 1977 Additional Protocol on the Protection of Victims of Armed Conflicts and the 1982 Additional Protocol on the Protection of Victims of Armed Conflicts. Other agreements include the prohibition of particular weapons and military methods and the protection of certain groups of people and property. They essentially ban the employment of particular weapons and military techniques and collaborate to defend specific groups of people and property. The 1954 Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in Armed Conflict, the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention, the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention, and the 1997 Ottawa Convention are among these agreements.

History of International human rights law

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is widely regarded as the international human rights law cornerstone. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), initially adopted in 1948, has spawned a plethora of legally enforceable international human rights treaties. Its fundamental goal was to eliminate injustice in conflict and oppressed societies and achieve universal human rights enjoyment. 

International human rights legislation reflects the universal concept that all human beings have inherent rights and freedoms, that these rights and freedoms are inalienably applicable to all, and that all are free, respected, and given rights. 

Regardless of our nationality, place of residence, gender, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, language, or any other status, the international community pledged on December 10, 1948, to treat us all with respect and justice.

Where do international humanitarian and international human rights laws apply?

International humanitarian law (IHL) applies primarily to times of armed conflict, whether international or non-international, which are primarily international conflicts involving two or more governments, occupying positions or fights for self-determination. The term “non-international armed conflict” refers to conflicts fought by government troops. Armed insurgents, or rebel organisations, are fighting among themselves simultaneously. 

The International Humanitarian Law (IHL) deals with a unique scenario. Its provisions make it illegal to make insults about armed combat. In essence, the IHRL applies at all times, including during times of peace and times of armed conflict. In instances of national emergencies jeopardising the nation’s life, certain IHRL treaties empower governments to strip them of some rights. The insult should be proportional to the crisis and should not be delivered in any discriminatory way.

Other rules of international law, notably the IHL, must not be broken. Some universal human rights are never violated. The right to life, the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman, or humiliating treatment or punishment, the prohibition of slavery and servitude, and the prohibition of retroactive criminal legislation are only a few of them.

The IHL’s objective is to safeguard persons who are no longer or will not be directly involved in hostilities. It safeguards civilians and soldiers from the effects of war, including the wounded, sick, shipwrecks, and prisoners of war. Human rights law, created mainly for peacetime use, extends to all people within a state’s jurisdiction. It does not distinguish between combatants and civilians or allow for ‘protected person’ categories, unlike the IHL.

In human rights law, there is also a situation distinct from humanitarian law: the simultaneous presence of both universal and territorial treaties, as well as treaties discriminating between “civil and political rights” and “economic rights.” “Rights” of a social and cultural nature. The presence of so-called “thin generation” human rights, such as the right to development, the right to peace, and so on, further complicates the situation.

Conclusion

Both International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and International Human Rights Law (IHRL) use distinct approaches to protecting people’s lives, health, and dignity. As a result, it’s not surprising that, despite significant structural differences, the substance of some regulations is the same but not identical. It was established to safeguard human life, prevent cruel treatment, establish fundamental rights for people involved in the criminal justice system, and prevent discrimination, among other things.