Similarly, by definition, an act of aggression is otherwise inconsistent with life-protecting laws, namely the general prohibition of the use of armed force. It follows that a deprivation of life that is inconsistent with the life-protecting rules of international humanitarian law is, as a rule, presumptively arbitrary in nature.įinally, we come to the Committee’s Draft’s conclusion that “States parties engaged in acts of aggression contrary to the United Nations Charter violate ipso facto article 6 of the Covenant.” By definition, an act of aggression lacks a legal basis in either the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense or the authorization of military force by the United Nations Security Council. (para 67)Īs the Committee’s Draft explains in an earlier passage, “a deprivation of life that lacks a legal basis or is otherwise inconsistent with life-protecting laws and procedures is, as a rule, arbitrary in nature” (para 17). Practices inconsistent with international humanitarian law, entailing a risk to the lives of civilians and persons hors de combat, including the targeting of civilians and civilian objects, indiscriminate attacks, failure to apply adequate measures of precaution to prevent collateral death of civilians, and the use of human shields, violate article 6 of the Covenant. Third, the Committee’s Draft underscores that Together, these two positions create space for the view that acts of aggression, which necessarily take place outside a State’s own territory, may violate the human right to life even if they do not violate international humanitarian law. Hile rules of international humanitarian law may be relevant for the interpretation and application of article 6, both spheres of law are complementary, not mutually exclusive. Second, the Committee’s Draft reaffirms the Committee’s view that, during armed conflict, human rights law continues to apply alongside international humanitarian law (also known as the law of armed conflict). This includes persons located outside any territory effectively controlled by the State who are nonetheless impacted by its military or other activities in a, significant and foreseeable manner. According to the Committee’s Draft,Ī State party has an obligation to respect and to ensure the rights under article 6 of all persons who are found within its territory and all persons subject to its jurisdiction, that is, all persons over whose enjoyment of the right to life it exercises power or effective control. The Committee’s Draft also raises two legal concerns that the Committee would be wise to avoid.įirst, the Committee’s Draft clarifies that human rights law applies to extraterritorial military operations. After all, on this view, the legality of military action is, ultimately, a question of human rights law. At the same time, if adopted, the Committee’s Draft will place human rights law-along with its monitoring and accountability mechanisms-at the center of legal controversies over the resort to armed force and the conduct of hostilities. In my view, the Committee’s Draft is legally correct on both points. According to the Committee’s Draft, any act of aggression contrary to the United Nations Charter, as well as every breach of the law of armed conflict, violates the right to life of every person it kills. Is it possible to respect the human right to life in the context of war? Or does war, by its very nature, involve the arbitrary deprivation of life? Last month, the United Nations Human Rights Committee released its draft General Comment on article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which mandates legal protection of the right to life and prohibits the arbitrary deprivation of life.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |