Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Interface, Correspondence and Convergence of Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law

  • Chapter
Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law

Part of the book series: Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law ((YIHL,volume 1))

Abstract

From a doctrinal point of view, the relationship between human rights and international humanitarian law (IHL) seems like a settled issue in terms of the correspondence of basic objectives and common aims.1

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. See J. Pictet, Développement et Principes du Droit International Humanitaire (Genève, Institut Henry Dunant 1983); M. El Kouhene, Les garanties fondamentales de la personne en droit humanitaire et droit de l’homme (Dordrecht, Nijhoff 1986); D. Schindler, ‘El Comité Internacional de la Cruz Roja y los Derechos Humanos’ [International Committee of the Red Cross and Human Rights], 116 International Review of the Red Cross (1979) p. 99 at p. 126; D. Weissbrodt and P. Hicks, ‘Aplicación de los derechos humanos y del derecho humanitario en caso de conflicto armado’ [Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Application during Armed Conflicts] 116 International Review of the Red Cross (1979) p. 127 at p. 147; T. Meron, Human Rights and Humanitarian Norms as Customary Law (Oxford, Clarendon Press 1989); ‘The Protection of the Human Person under Human Rights Law and Humanitarian Law’, 91/1 Bulletin of Human Rights (New York, United Nations 1992); C. Cerna, ‘Human Rights in Armed Conflict: Implementation of International Humanitarian Law Norms by Regional Intergovernmental Human Rights Bodies’ in F. Kalshoven and Y. Sandoz, eds., Implementation of International Humanitarian Law/Mise en oeuvre du Droit International Humanitaire (Dordrecht, Nijhoff 1989); H. Gros Espiell, ‘Derechos Humanos, Derecho Internacional Humanitario y Derecho Internacional de los Refugiados’ [Human Rights, International Humanitarian Law and International Refugee Law], in C. Swinarski, ed., Etudes et essais sur le droit international humanitaire et sur les principes de la Croix Rouge en l’honneur de Jean Pictet (Genève, The Hague, ICRC, Nijhoff) p. 706 et seq.

    Google Scholar 

  2. See A. Cançado Trindade, ‘Aproximaciones o convergencias entre el derecho international humanitario y la protection international de los derechos humanos’ [Approximations or Convergences between International Humanitarian Law and International Protection of Human Rights], in Seminario Interamericano sobre la Protection de la Persona en Situaciones de Emergencia (San José de Costa Rica, Instituto Interamericano de Derechos Humanos 1996) p. 33 at p. 88.

    Google Scholar 

  3. See P. Alston, ed., The United Nations and Human Rights: A Critical Appraisal (Oxford, Clarendon Press 1992); T. Buergenthal, International Human Rights in a Nutshell (St. Paul, West Publishing Co. 1995); A. Cassese, Human Rights in a Changing World (Philadelphia, Temple University Press 1990); Centre for Human Rights, United Nations Action in the Field of Human Rights (New York, United Nations 1995); J. Donnelly, International Human Rights (Boulder, Westview Press 1993); H. Hannum, ed., Guide to International Human Rights Practice (Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press 1992); L. Henkin, ed., The International Bill of Rights: The Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (New York, Columbia University Press 1981); A. Robertson and J. Merrills, Human Rights in the World (New York, Manchester University Press 1989); P. Sieghart, The International Law of Human Rights (Oxford, Clarendon Press 1983); K. Vassak and P. Alston, eds., The International Dimensions of Human Rights, (Westport, Greenwood Press 1982).

    Google Scholar 

  4. See A. Delissen, et al, eds., Humanitarian Law of Armed Conflict: Challenges Ahead. Essays in Honor of Frits Kalshoven (Dordrecht, Nijhoff 1991); International Dimensions of Humanitarian Law (Geneva, Henry Dunant Institute (Dordrecht, Nijhoff 1988); T. Meron, Human Rights in Internal Strife: Their International Protection (Cambridge, Grotius 1987); Y. Sandoz, et al, eds., Commentary on the Additional Protocols of 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 (Geneva, The Hague, ICRC, Nijhoff 1987); Swinarski, ed., op. cit. n. 1.

    Google Scholar 

  5. I/A Court H.R., The Effect of Reservations on the Entry into Force of the American Convention on Human Rights (Arts. 74 and 75), Advisory Opinion OC-2/82 of 24 September 1982, Series A No. 2.

    Google Scholar 

  6. S. Junod, ‘Los derechos humanos y el derecho internacional humanitario’ [Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law], in Primer Seminario sobre Derecho Internacional Humanitario (Buenos Aires, Instituto de Derecho Internacional Público, U.B.A. 1981) p. 17 at p. 23.

    Google Scholar 

  7. UNGA Res. 2675(XXV).

    Google Scholar 

  8. The Preamble of Protocol II prescribes that, ‘Recalling furthermore that international instruments relating to human rights offer a basic protection to the human person.’ 10. See Proclamation of Teheran, proclaimed by the International Conference on Human Rights at Teheran, 13 May 1968; see also Y. Dinstein, ‘Human Rights in Armed Conflicts: International Humanitarian Law’, in T. Meron, ed., Human Rights in International Law (Oxford, Clarendon Press 1984) p. 345 et seq.

    Google Scholar 

  9. L. Condorelli and L. Boisson de Chazournes, ‘Quelques remarques a propos de l’obligation des Etats de “respecter et faire respecter” le Droit International Humanitaire “en toutes circonstances”’, in Swinarski, ed., op. cit. n. 1.

    Google Scholar 

  10. T. Buergenthal, ‘To Respectand to Ensure State Obligations and Permissible Derogations’, in Henkin, ed., op. cit. n. 3.

    Google Scholar 

  11. The European Court of Human Rights in the Brannigan and McBride case has declared that ‘The power of extended detention with such judicial control and the derogation of 23 December 1988 being clearly linked to the persistence of the emergency situation, there is no indication that the derogation was other than a genuine response’, Branningan and McBride v. United Kingdom, Judgment of 26 May 1993, Series A, No 258=B (1994) 17 EHRR 539.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Declaration of Minimum Humanitarian Standards adopted by a Group of Experts at Turku, Finland, 1990. Text reproduced at 89 AJIL (1995) p. 218 et seq.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Silva, et al. v. Uruguay (E.8/34) HRC 36, 130.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Eur. Ct. HR, Lawless v. Ireland (322/57), Judgment: 1 EHRR 15.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Eur. Comm. HR, in Denmark, Norway, Sweden and the Netherlands v Greece, (3321-3/67; 3344/67) Report: 5 November 1969.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Eur. Comm. HR, Ireland v. United Kingdom (5310/71) 2 EHRR 25.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Lawless v. Ireland, see supra n. 21.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Ireland v. United Kingdom, see supra n. 23.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Denmark, Norway, Sweden and the Netherlands v. Greece, see supra n. 22.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Lawless v. Ireland, see supra n. 21.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Ireland v. United Kingdom, see supra n. 23.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  24. I/A Court HR, Habeas Corpus in Emergency Situations (Arts. 27(2), 25(1) and 7(6) American Convention on Human Rights), Advisory Opinion OC-8/87 of 29 January 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Ibid., para. 12, p. 31.

    Google Scholar 

  26. See supra n. 33, para. 12, p. 32.

    Google Scholar 

  27. See supra n. 33, para. 12, p. 32. Cf., Arts. 27 and 5 American Convention.

    Google Scholar 

  28. See supra n. 33, para. 12, p. 33.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Cf., I/A Court HR, Restrictions to the death penalty (Arts. 4(2) and 4(4) American Convention on Human Rights), Advisory Opinion OC-3/83 of 8 September 1983, Series A No. 3, para. 48.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Art. 29 American Convention; OC-3/83, see supra n. 33, para. 16, p. 36.

    Google Scholar 

  31. See supra n. 33, para. 17, p. 37.

    Google Scholar 

  32. See supra n. 33, para. 20, p. 38: the Court states that ‘...the soundness of this conclusion gains special validity given the context of the Convention, whose Preamble reaffirms the intention (of the American States)... to consolidate in this hemisphere, within the framework of democratic institutions, a system of personal liberty and social justice based on respect for the essential rights of man.’

    Google Scholar 

  33. See supra n. 33, para. 22, p. 39.

    Google Scholar 

  34. See supra n. 33, para. 24, p. 40.

    Google Scholar 

  35. See supra n. 33, para. 2 and para. 24, p. 40; Cf., I/A Court HR, The Word ‘Laws’ in Article 30 of the American Convention on Human Rights, Advisory Opinion OC-6/86 of 9 May 1986, Series A. No. 6, para. 32; ‘... in a democratic society, the rights and freedoms inherent in the human person, the guarantees applicable to them and the rule of law form a triad. Each component thereof defines itself, complements and depends on the other for its meaning, idem, p. 41.

    Google Scholar 

  36. See supra n. 33, para. 27, p. 41.

    Google Scholar 

  37. See supra n. 33, para. 29, p. 42: ‘... the judicial remedies that must be considered to be essential within the meaning of article 27(2) are those that ordinarily will effectively guarantee the full exercise of the rights and freedoms protected by that provision and whose denial or restriction would endanger their full enjoyment.’

    Google Scholar 

  38. See supra n. 33, para. 25, p. 40.

    Google Scholar 

  39. See supra n. 33, para. 36, p. 44; Those who drafted the Convention were aware of these realities, which may well explain why the Pact of San José is the first international human rights instrument to include among the rights that may not be suspended essential judicial guarantees for the protection of non-derogable rights’, idem, para. 36, p. 45.

    Google Scholar 

  40. See supra n. 33, para. 40, p. 46.

    Google Scholar 

  41. See supra n. 33, para. 38, p. 46.

    Google Scholar 

  42. See supra n. 33, para. 42, p. 48 (formalities versus respect and guarantees of rights).

    Google Scholar 

  43. See supra n. 33, para. 43, p. 48.

    Google Scholar 

  44. See United Nations World Conference on Human Rights: Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, 25 June 1993, 32 1LM (1993), p. 1661 et seq.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Cf., International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, Prosecutor v. Tadić a/k/a/“Dule”, Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, Case IT-94-I-AR 72; reproduced at 91 1LM (1996) pp. 32 et seq.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Supra n. 18.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Cf., A. Eide, et al., ‘Combating lawlessness in gray zone conflicts through minimum humanitarian standards’, 89 AJIL (1995) p. 216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Causa originalmente instruida por el Consejo Supremo de las Fuerzas Armadas en cumplimiento del Decreto 158/83 del Poder Ejecutivo Nacional, Cámara Nacional de Apelaciones en lo Criminal y Correccional, sentencia del 9 de Diciembre de 1985, Fallos CSJN, v. 309-1, p. 33 et seq. At p. 288.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Ibid., at pp. 289–290.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Ibid., at pp. 294–295.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Ibid., at p. 295.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Ibid., at p. 297: The unlawfulness of the actions taken is reflected not only in the violence characterizing the operations but also in the measures which were taken for the purpose of concealing the arrests and the fate of the detainees, submitting them to unacceptable conditions of captivity.’

    Google Scholar 

  53. Ibid., at pp. 297–298: There was not enough evidence as to determine the existence of a similar systematic plan as to ascertain criminal responsibility to the defendants in reference to abduction of minors, bribery, kidnapping for ransom, extortion and crimes against property.’

    Google Scholar 

  54. Ibid., at p. 1538.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Ley [Law] No. 16.970 (B. O. 10/10/66); see Causa originalmente instruida por el Consejo Supremo de las Fuerzas Armadas en cumplimiento del Decreto 158/83 del Poder Ejecutivo Nacional, Cámara Nacional de Apelaciones en lo Criminal y Correccional, sentencia del 9 de Diciembre de 1985, Fallos CSJN, v. 309-1 supra n. 68 at p. 1537.

    Google Scholar 

  56. See Causa originalmente instruida por el Consejo Supremo de las Fuerzas Armadas en cumplimiento del Decreto 158/83 del Poder Ejecutivo Nacional, Cámara Nacional de Apelaciones en lo Criminal y Correccional, sentencia del 9 de Diciembre de 1985, Fallos CSJN, v. 309-1 supra n. 68 at p. 1544.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Causa originalmente instruida por el Consejo Supremo de las Fuerzas Armadas en cumplimiento del Decreto 158/83 del Poder Ejecutivo Nacional, Cámara Nacional de Apelaciones en lo Criminal y Correccional, sentencia del 9 de Diciembre de 1985, Fallos CSJN, v. 309-1 Ibid., at p. 1542.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Causa originalmente instruida por el Consejo Supremo de las Fuerzas Armadas en cumplimiento del Decreto 158/83 del Poder Ejecutivo Nacional, Cámara Nacional de Apelaciones en lo Criminal y Correccional, sentencia del 9 de Diciembre de 1985, Fallos CSJN, v. 309-1 Ibid., at p. 1543.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Causa originalmente instruida por el Consejo Supremo de las Fuerzas Armadas en cumplimiento del Decreto 158/83 del Poder Ejecutivo Nacional, Cámara Nacional de Apelaciones en lo Criminal y Correccional, sentencia del 9 de Diciembre de 1985, Fallos CSJN, v. 309-1 Ibid., at p. 1545.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Causa originalmente instruida por el Consejo Supremo de las Fuerzas Armadas en cumplimiento del Decreto 158/83 del Poder Ejecutivo Nacional, Cámara Nacional de Apelaciones en lo Criminal y Correccional, sentencia del 9 de Diciembre de 1985, Fallos CSJN, v. 309-1 Ibid., at pp. 1547–1548: ‘In order to understand the legal context within which the presidential order ‘to exterminate’ subversives was issued, it must be recalled that article 31 of the national constitution was still in force. According to this article, the National Constitution, the laws enacted as a consequence of constitutional prescriptions and treaties concluded with foreign nations, are the supreme law of the land. Consequently, even if the President would have desired to issue an administrative act derogating the supreme law of the land, he was not in a position to do so because it was beyond the powers granted to him by the Constitution.’

    Google Scholar 

  61. See Causa originalmente instruida por el Consejo Supremo de las Fuerzas Armadas en cumplimiento del Decreto 158/83 del Poder Ejecutivo Nacional, Cámara Nacional de Apelaciones en lo Criminal y Correccional, sentencia del 9 de Diciembre de 1985, Fallos CSJN, v. 309-1 supra n. 68 at p. 1555: ‘The discrepancy between the acts that were carried out and what is admissible to a civilized society appears to have been recognized by the commanders themselves. For this reason, they choose to keep covert the procedures they had employed, even after the fight was over.’ The Court added at p. 1557 that, ‘The means with which the defendants conducted the fight against subversion do not correspond to the notion of excessive use of defensive force. Excess, as said above, stems from fear, surprise and an agitated state of mind. The terrorist aggression was grave, serious and it had to be stopped; however, it cannot be accepted that a government which held all the power of law and of force, behaved as it did out of a change in the state of mind of its members. The acts in question were planned, directed and ordered ... In no way can it be accepted that the defendants subjectively acted using excessive defensive force.’

    Google Scholar 

  62. See Causa originalmente instruida por el Consejo Supremo de las Fuerzas Armadas en cumplimiento del Decreto 158/83 del Poder Ejecutivo Nacional, Cámara Nacional de Apelaciones en lo Criminal y Correccional, sentencia del 9 de Diciembre de 1985, Fallos CSJN, v. 309-1 supra n. 68, at p. 1560.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Causa originalmente instruida por el Consejo Supremo de las Fuerzas Armadas en cumplimiento del Decreto 158/83 del Poder Ejecutivo Nacional, Cámara Nacional de Apelaciones en lo Criminal y Correccional, sentencia del 9 de Diciembre de 1985, Fallos CSJN, v. 309-1 Ibid., at pp. 1560–1561; the Court of Appeals quoted R. Thompson, Guerra Revolucionaria y Estrategia Mundial (Buenos Aires, Paidós 1969) p. 20.

    Google Scholar 

  64. See Causa originalmente instruida por el Consejo Supremo de las Fuerzas Armadas en cumplimiento del Decreto 158/83 del Poder Ejecutivo Nacional, Cámara Nacional de Apelaciones en lo Criminal y Correccional, sentencia del 9 de Diciembre de 1985, Fallos CSJN, v. 309-1 supra n. 68, at p. 1561.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Causa originalmente instruida por el Consejo Supremo de las Fuerzas Armadas en cumplimiento del Decreto 158/83 del Poder Ejecutivo Nacional, Cámara Nacional de Apelaciones en lo Criminal y Correccional, sentencia del 9 de Diciembre de 1985, Fallos CSJN, v. 309-1 Ibid., at p. 1562.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Causa originalmente instruida por el Consejo Supremo de las Fuerzas Armadas en cumplimiento del Decreto 158/83 del Poder Ejecutivo Nacional, Cámara Nacional de Apelaciones en lo Criminal y Correccional, sentencia del 9 de Diciembre de 1985, Fallos CSJN, v. 309-1 Ibid., at pp. 1562–1563.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Causa originalmente instruida por el Consejo Supremo de las Fuerzas Armadas en cumplimiento del Decreto 158/83 del Poder Ejecutivo Nacional, Cámara Nacional de Apelaciones en lo Criminal y Correccional, sentencia del 9 de Diciembre de 1985, Fallos CSJN, v. 309-1 Ibid., at p. 1563: ‘A war cannot be tried in court. And if it were, only the defeated side could be brought to justice. In no way can this court accept such a theory, which obviously disregards a legal and cultural tradition that also pertains to the armed forces.

    Google Scholar 

  68. See Causa originalmente instruida por el Consejo Supremo de las Fuerzas Armadas en cumplimiento del Decreto 158/83 del Poder Ejecutivo Nacional, Cámara Nacional de Apelaciones en lo Criminal y Correccional, sentencia del 9 de Diciembre de 1985, Fallos CSJN, v. 309-1 supra n. 68 at pp. 1563–1564.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Causa originalmente instruida por el Consejo Supremo de las Fuerzas Armadas en cumplimiento del Decreto 158/83 del Poder Ejecutivo Nacional, Cámara Nacional de Apelaciones en lo Criminal y Correccional, sentencia del 9 de Diciembre de 1985, Fallos CSJN, v. 309-1, p. 33 Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Causa originalmente instruida por el Consejo Supremo de las Fuerzas Armadas en cumplimiento del Decreto 158/83 del Poder Ejecutivo Nacional, Cámara Nacional de Apelaciones en lo Criminal y Correccional, sentencia del 9 de Diciembre de 1985, Fallos CSJN, v. 309-1 Ibid., at p. 1566.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Causa originalmente instruida por el Consejo Supremo de las Fuerzas Armadas en cumplimiento del Decreto 158/83 del Poder Ejecutivo Nacional, Cámara Nacional de Apelaciones en lo Criminal y Correccional, sentencia del 9 de Diciembre de 1985, Fallos CSJN, v. 309-1 Ibid., at p. 1572: ‘When the government has recognized the opposing forces as belligerent, or treats the rebel party as a de facto government; or when without reaching any of such instances the government must resort to measures of war in view of the magnitude of the armed rebellion, it can be said that the situation is one of civil war. Then, there are no political criminals, but only enemies. Both belligerent parties stand on equal footing and must be ruled by the laws and usages of war as if the conflict is international ... G. Bidart Campos, Derecho Constitutional, Vol. 1, p. 582’.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Causa originalmente instruida por el Consejo Supremo de las Fuerzas Armadas en cumplimiento del Decreto 158/83 del Poder Ejecutivo Nacional, Cámara Nacional de Apelaciones en lo Criminal y Correccional, sentencia del 9 de Diciembre de 1985, Fallos CSJN, v. 309-1 Ibid., at pp. 1528 and 1577.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Causa originalmente instruida por el Consejo Supremo de las Fuerzas Armadas en cumplimiento del Decreto 158/83 del Poder Ejecutivo Nacional, Cámara Nacional de Apelaciones en lo Criminal y Correccional, sentencia del 9 de Diciembre de 1985, Fallos CSJN, v. 309-1 Ibid., at pp. 1574–1576 and 1578.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Causa originalmente instruida por el Consejo Supremo de las Fuerzas Armadas en cumplimiento del Decreto 158/83 del Poder Ejecutivo Nacional, Cámara Nacional de Apelaciones en lo Criminal y Correccional, sentencia del 9 de Diciembre de 1985, Fallos CSJN, v. 309-1 Ibid., at p. 1568.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Causa originalmente instruida por el Consejo Supremo de las Fuerzas Armadas en cumplimiento del Decreto 158/83 del Poder Ejecutivo Nacional, Cámara Nacional de Apelaciones en lo Criminal y Correccional, sentencia del 9 de Diciembre de 1985, Fallos CSJN, v. 309-1 Ibid., at pp. 1583 and 1584.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Causa originalmente instruida por el Consejo Supremo de las Fuerzas Armadas en cumplimiento del Decreto 158/83 del Poder Ejecutivo Nacional, Cámara Nacional de Apelaciones en lo Criminal y Correccional, sentencia del 9 de Diciembre de 1985, Fallos CSJN, v. 309-1 Ibid., at p. 1584.

    Google Scholar 

  77. See Causa originalmente instruida por el Consejo Supremo de las Fuerzas Armadas en cumplimiento del Decreto 158/83 del Poder Ejecutivo Nacional, Cámara Nacional de Apelaciones en lo Criminal y Correccional, sentencia del 9 de Diciembre de 1985, Fallos CSJN, v. 309-1 supra n. 68 at p. 1566; Quoting González Calderón, Curso de Derecho Internacional, (Buenos Aires, Depalma 1974), at p. 280. A state of siege was declared on November 1974 by Presidential Decree No. 1368. (Gaceta Oficial, 7 November 1974). That state of siege was also in force during the de facto military government. The National Constitution prescribes the legal framework within which a state of siege should be applied. Art. 23 of the National Constitution provides that ‘in the event of internal disorder or foreign attack endangering the functioning of this Constitution and the authorities created thereby, the province or territory in which the disturbance of order exists shall be declared to be in a state of siege and the constitutional guarantees shall be suspended therein. But during such suspension the President of the Republic shall not convict or punish upon his own authority. His power shall be limited, in such a case, with respect to persons, to arresting or transferring them from one point of the nation to another, if they do not prefer to leave Argentine territory.’ The judiciary has defined the declaration of a state of siege as a political act. Such act is not subject to any approval nor is it subject to judicial review.(See supra n. 68 at p. 1568: Fallos Vol. 233, p. 206). A state of siege did not allow the armed forces to arrest without trial, to torture or to provoke a massive disappearance of persons. The Court added that it cannot be accepted that a de facto government, that concentrated all power in its hands and even bestowed on itself the ability to alter the Constitution, had no other way to curb terrorism than to act beyond the legal framework and to resort to clandestine operations and to a regime of terror equal to the one which it was supposed to curb. (See supra n. 68 at pp. 1569/1577).

    Google Scholar 

  78. See Causa originalmente instruida por el Consejo Supremo de las Fuerzas Armadas en cumplimiento del Decreto 158/83 del Poder Ejecutivo Nacional, Cámara Nacional de Apelaciones en lo Criminal y Correccional, sentencia del 9 de Diciembre de 1985, Fallos CSJN, v. 309-1 supra n. 68 at pp. 1575–1576.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Regulations RC-9-1 of the Argentine Army, at p. 173, See Causa originalmente instruida por el Consejo Supremo de las Fuerzas Armadas en cumplimiento del Decreto 158/83 del Poder Ejecutivo Nacional, Cámara Nacional de Apelaciones en lo Criminal y Correccional, sentencia del 9 de Diciembre de 1985, Fallos CSJN, v. 309-1 supra n. 68 at p. 1571.

    Google Scholar 

  80. Causa originalmente instruida por el Consejo Supremo de las Fuerzas Armadas en cumplimiento del Decreto 158/83 del Poder Ejecutivo Nacional, Cámara Nacional de Apelaciones en lo Criminal y Correccional, sentencia del 9 de Diciembre de 1985, Fallos CSJN, v. 309-1 Ibid., n. 68 at p. 1578.

    Google Scholar 

  81. Causa originalmente instruida por el Consejo Supremo de las Fuerzas Armadas en cumplimiento del Decreto 158/83 del Poder Ejecutivo Nacional, Cámara Nacional de Apelaciones en lo Criminal y Correccional, sentencia del 9 de Diciembre de 1985, Fallos CSJN, v. 309-1 Ibid., at p. 1583.

    Google Scholar 

  82. Causa originalmente instruida por el Consejo Supremo de las Fuerzas Armadas en cumplimiento del Decreto 158/83 del Poder Ejecutivo Nacional, Cámara Nacional de Apelaciones en lo Criminal y Correccional, sentencia del 9 de Diciembre de 1985, Fallos CSJN, v. 309-1 Ibid., at pp. 1583–1584.

    Google Scholar 

  83. ‘...At that time — in reference to internal violence during the seventies — war was not mentioned but fighting against delinquent subversive bands, which was a fact. But as soldiers we know that hostilities should be conducted with due respect to the Geneva Conventions. Many of you present here ... know to what I particularly referred to, because you have been prisoners of war in the Malvinas and the rest of the army knows because of the knowledge of international humanitarian law ...’ Discourse pronounced by General M. Balza on 12 February 1998, text reproduced in El Soldado Journal (Buenos Aires, 13 February 1998).

    Google Scholar 

  84. International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, Prosecutors. Tadić Opinion and Judgment, Case No. IT-94-1-T, Judgment 7 May 1997, at 36 ILM (1997) p. 908 et seq.

    Google Scholar 

  85. On the contrary, the Swiss Military Tribunal gave an broad interpretation of the applicability of IHL to internal armed conflicts, In re. G., Military Tribunal, Division 1, Lausanne, Switzerland, 18 April 1997. See commentary at 92 AJIL (1998) p. 78 et seq.

    Google Scholar 

  86. Causa originalmente instruida por el Consejo Supremo de las Fuerzas Armadas en cumplimiento del Decreto 158/83 del Poder Ejecutivo Nacional, Cámara Nacional de Apelaciones en lo Criminal y Correccional, sentencia del 9 de Diciembre de 1985, Fallos CSJN, v. 309-1, p. 33 Supra n. 68.

    Google Scholar 

  87. Causa originalmente instruida por el Consejo Supremo de las Fuerzas Armadas en cumplimiento del Decreto 158/83 del Poder Ejecutivo Nacional, Cámara Nacional de Apelaciones en lo Criminal y Correccional, sentencia del 9 de Diciembre de 1985, Fallos CSJN, v. 309-1, p. 33 Ibid., at para. 238.

    Google Scholar 

  88. Declaration on the Protection of all Persons from enforced Disappearances, 18 December 1992, A/RES/47/133; see also Art. 3.2.(d) Declaration of Minimum Humanitarian Standards, supra n. 32.

    Google Scholar 

  89. Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, S/RES/808 (1993).

    Google Scholar 

  90. See supra n. 107 at para. 595.

    Google Scholar 

  91. Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua, Nicaragua v. United States, Merits, 1986, ICJ Rep. 14.

    Google Scholar 

  92. See supra n. 107, Dissenting opinion of Judge McDonald, para. 7.

    Google Scholar 

  93. International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, Prosecutor v. Rajić, Review of Indictment Pursuant to Rule 61 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, case No. IT-95-12-R61, 13 September 1996, para. 22.

    Google Scholar 

  94. Ibid. para. 14.

    Google Scholar 

  95. Ibid., at para. 21.

    Google Scholar 

  96. See contra, G. Aldrich, ‘Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Tribunal forthe Former Yugoslavia’, 90 AJIL (1996) p. 64 et seq.; see also Prosecutor v. Tadić, Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, Case No. IT-94-1-AR72, 2 October 1995, para. 76, at 35 ILM (1996) p. 57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  97. O. Swaak-Goldman, ‘Prosecutor v. Rajić, Review of the Indictment Pursuant to Rule 61 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence’, 91 AJIL (1997) p. 523 et seq., see at p. 531: ‘Another aspect of this decision that deserves comment is the Trial Chamber’s conclusion, in its discussion of protected property, that control equals occupation and that this occurs almost immediately. This finding seems to make the phrasing in the Four Geneva Conventions related to protected persons — “in the hands of a party to the conflict or Occupying Power”— redundant.’

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. See supra n. 119, paras. 127 and 128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. See Pictet, op. cit. n. 1, at p. 75.

    Google Scholar 

  100. L. Doswald-Beck and S. Vité, ‘Derecho international humanitario y derecho de los derechos humanos’ [International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights Law], 116 International Review of the Red Cross (1993) p. 99 at p. 124.

    Google Scholar 

  101. See supra n. 59, Part II, para. 96, at p. 1687.

    Google Scholar 

  102. See supra n. 59, para. 29, at p. 1671.

    Google Scholar 

  103. Cf., Address by the President of the ICRC, Cornelio Somaruga, UN World Conference on Human Rights, Vienna, 14–25 June 1993, Internal Document of the Conference, pp. 2 and 3.

    Google Scholar 

  104. See supra n. 119, at p. 32 et seq. and para. 97, at p. 63.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, University of Buenos Aires, Argentina

    Raúl Emilio Vinuesa (Professor of International Law and Human Rights)

Authors
  1. Raúl Emilio Vinuesa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. T.M.C. Asser Instituut, The Hague, The Netherlands

    Karin Peters (Editorial Assistant) (Editorial Assistant)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1998 T.M.C. Asser Instituut, The Hague, The Netherlands

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Vinuesa, R.E. (1998). Interface, Correspondence and Convergence of Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law. In: Peters, K. (eds) Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law. Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law, vol 1. T.M.C. Asser Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-6704-747-0_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-6704-747-0_3

  • Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press

  • Print ISBN: 978-90-6704-107-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-90-6704-747-0

  • eBook Packages: Law and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation