On the relationship between IHL and IHRL ‘where it matters’ once more: Assessing the position of the European Court of Human Rights after Hassan and Jaloud
On the relationship between IHL and IHRL ‘where it matters’ once more: Assessing the position of the European Court of Human Rights after Hassan and Jaloud / Zoom In
Jaloud v Netherlands and Hassan v United Kingdom: Time for a principled approach in the application of the ECHR to military action abroad
1. Introduction The aim of the present piece is not to undertake an examination of which of international human rights law (IHRL) and international humanitarian law (IHL) is ‘better’ or more appropriate to regulate the conduct of States in situations of armed conflict. Advocates of IHRL argue that it provides heightened protection for individuals, and...
On the relationship between IHL and IHRL ‘where it matters’ once more: Assessing the position of the European Court of Human Rights after Hassan and Jaloud / Zoom In
Human Rights vs Humanitarian Law or rights vs obligations: Reflections following the rulings in Hassan and Jaloud
1. Introduction In two recent cases, Hassan v United Kingdom[1] and Jaloud v Netherlands,[2] the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) extended the wartime application of International Human Rights Law (IHRL). Although these cases have been celebrated for reducing the horrors of war, this paper shows otherwise.[3] Critical examination of them suggests that applying IHRL...
