Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Armed Conflict and the Inter-American Human Rights System: Application or Interpretation of International Humanitarian Law?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Applying International Humanitarian Law in Judicial and Quasi-Judicial Bodies

  • 892 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter explores the complexities that arise when the Inter-American System of Human Rights is confronted with situations of armed conflict which may give rise not only to the application of human rights law, but also of international humanitarian law. International humanitarian law has been incorporated into the jurisprudence of the IASHR in two primary means: first, through direct application of the law of war and the subsequent holding that states were in violation of this law, and second, through utilization of IHL as lex specialis providing interpretive reference to the interpretation of human rights during times of armed conflict. This chapter discusses the Commission’s and the Court’s respective jurisprudence on cases that grapple with the interplay between these two branches of international law, and explores the implications of these two approaches to integration of IHL by judicial bodies whose ratione materie is limited to human rights law. The author suggests that the current position of international humanitarian law within the Inter-American Human Rights System is a result of jurisdictional restraints, and not to the substantive differences between the two areas of law.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See Parada Cea v. El Salvador [1999] Report No. 1/99, OEA/Ser.L./V/II.102 doc. 6 rev. 165; IACHR Case 11.142 Avilan v. Colombia [1998] Report No. 26/97, OEA/Ser.L./V/ 11.98, doc. 6 rev.; IACtHR Judgment [2000] Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala Series C No. 70; IACHR Case 11.565 Gonzalez Perez v. Mexico [2001] Report No. 53/01, OEA/Ser.L/V/I11.I doc. 20 rev.; IACHR Case 10.548 Hugo Bustios Saavedra v. Peru [1997] Report No. 38/97.

  2. 2.

    IACHR Press Release, 10 Years After Detentions in Guantanamo Began, the IACHR Repeats its Call to Close the Detention, 11 January 2012, http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/media_center/PReleases/2012/003.asp (last accessed on 31 June 2013); IACHR (2011) Resolution No. 2/11 Regarding the Situation of Detainees at Guantanamo Bay. http://www.cidh.oas.org/pdf files/Resolution 2-11 Guantanamo.pdf. Accessed 31 June 2013; IACHR (2002) Report on Terrorism and Human Rights, paras 61, 146. http://www.cidh.org/Terrorism/Eng/toc.htm. Accessed 31 June 2013.

  3. 3.

    IACHR, Case 11.137 Abella v. Argentina [1997] Report No. 55/97, 271, OEA/ Ser.L/V/II.98, doc. 6 rev., paras 160, 164 (“during situations of internal armed conflict that these two branches of international law most converge and reinforce each other” … “in those situations where the American Convention and humanitarian law instruments apply concurrently, Article 29(b) of the American Convention necessarily require the Commission to take due notice of and, where appropriate, give legal effect to applicable humanitarian law rules.”).

  4. 4.

    Moir 2003.

  5. 5.

    Droege C 2008.

  6. 6.

    ICJ Reports (2004) Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1671.pdf, p. 178. Accessed 31 June 2013; see infra Sect. 8.2 discussion of ICJ jurisprudence.

  7. 7.

    Happold 2010.

  8. 8.

    American Declaration of Rights of Man, Organization of American States, American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, Apr. 30, 1948, Hein's No. KAV 7225; American Convention on Human Rights Article 44. http://www.oas.org/dil/treaties_B-32_American_Convention_on_Human_Rights.pdf.

  9. 9.

    IACHR, Case 11.137 Abella v. Argentina [1997] Report No. 55/97, 271, OEA/ Ser.L/V/II.98, doc. 6 rev., paras 158, 161 (“human rights instruments do not govern the means and methods of warfare…[t]herefore, the Commission must necessarily look to and apply definitional standards and relevant rules of humanitarian law as sources of authoritative guidance in its resolution of this and other kinds of claims alleging violations of the American Convention in combat situations.”).

  10. 10.

    For example, IACHR, Case 11.137 Abella v. Argentina [1997] Report No. 55/97, 271, OEA/ Ser.L/V/II.98, doc. 6 rev.

  11. 11.

    Zegveld 1998; Moir 2003.

  12. 12.

    Meron 2000.

  13. 13.

    Byron 2006–2007.

  14. 14.

    For a detailed analysis of fragmentation, international human rights law, and international humanitarian law, see Orakhelashvili 2008.

  15. 15.

    Koskenniemi 2006, pp. 13–14.

  16. 16.

    Cassese 2001, p. 45.

  17. 17.

    See for example, Happold 2010, a symposium of authors dedicated to exploring the intersections between the two, including Cryer 2010 as well as Droege 2008; Hathaway 2012.

  18. 18.

    Hampson 2008, p. 559; Orakhelashvili 2008, p. 168 (“…[states] are expected, at least by implication, to consider the impact of both human rights law and humanitarian law, to reach the outcomes permissible at the level of international law” during armed conflict).

  19. 19.

    Kellenberger, Address at the 27th Annual Round Table on Current Problems of International Humanitarian Law. 2003 http://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/irrc_851_kellenberger.pdf. Accessed 12 July 2013.

  20. 20.

    Bowring 2009.

  21. 21.

    Scobbie 2009, indicating that although some overlap exists, “there is a fundamental incompatibility in what the two systems set out to achieve. There is no over-reaching axiology, no value system that unifies the objectives of these fields of international law.” See also Schindler 1979 articulating the separatist view that the two legal regimes have evolved “along entirely different and totally separate lines”, p. 5.

  22. 22.

    IACHR, Case 11.137 Abella v. Argentina [1997] Report No. 55/97, 271, OEA/ Ser.L/V/II.98, doc. 6 rev., para 158. (indicating that one of the primary purposes of human rights instruments is to prevent warfare).

  23. 23.

    Escorihuela 2011, p. 362.

  24. 24.

    Meron 2000.

  25. 25.

    See for example, American Convention on Human Rights (November 22, 1969) http://www.oas.org/dil/treaties_B-32_American_Convention_on_Human_Rights.pdf. Accessed 28 Sept. 2013; African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, OAU Doc. CAB/LEG/67/3 rev. 5, 21 I.L.M. 58 (June 27, 1981) http://www.achpr.org/files/instruments/achpr/banjul_charter.pdf Accessed 28 Sept. 2013; European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Nov. 4, 1950) http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf Accessed 28 Sept. 2013, UN Charter http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, G.A. Res. 217 (III) A, U.N. Doc. A/RES/217(III) (Dec. 10, 1948), Convention on the Rights of the Child, G.A. Res. 44/25, U.N. Doc. A/RES/44/25 (Nov. 20, 1989).

  26. 26.

    Ibid.

  27. 27.

    Bowring 2009.

  28. 28.

    Specific features of the IACHR will be discussed in Sect. 8.3.1 infra.

  29. 29.

    Occupation for the purposes of application of IHL is defined as “effective control” of a region, as determined by Article 42 of 1907 Hague Regulations. Definitions of the limits of effective control have been discussed by scholars extensively. See Hathaway et al. 2012, pp.1883, 1893, 1920 (“…there is growing consensus among international bodies and foreign States that human rights law obligations apply abroad wherever a State exercises “effective control” over territory or individuals outside its borders” “…the scope of States' human rights obligations is limited during battlefield hostilities because the States lack effective control…”); Le Mon 2002–2003, pp. 741, 743, 793 (2002–2003) (discussing the “dissonance within the law” created by the acceptance of unilateral intervention while upholding standards of effective control and the questionable legitimacy of the legitimacy of invited external government intervention); Holland 2011, p. 165 (addressing the ICJ’s articulation and application of the “effective control test” regarding US activities in Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua); Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicar. vs. U.S.), 1986 I.C.J. 14, 181 paras 123–124 (June 27) (finding that while the US closely collaborated with the contra force providing intelligence and logistic support the US’ “operational support” did not “justify treating the contras as acting on its behalf” precluding the claim of effective control).

  30. 30.

    Convention (IV) respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land and its annex: Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land. (Oct. 18, 1907) http://www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/INTRO/195 Accessed 28 Sept. 2013.

  31. 31.

    Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Aug. 12, 1949, 6 U.S.T.3516, 75 U.N.T.S. 287 [hereinafter Geneva Convention IV].

  32. 32.

    Weissbrodt 2009–2010; see also Caceres 2003.

  33. 33.

    Greenwood 1989, p. 38.

  34. 34.

    Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field Article 46, Aug. 12, 1949, 6 U.S.T. 3114, 75 U.N.T.S. 31 [hereinafter Geneva Convention I]; Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded, Sick, and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea Article 47, Aug. 12, 1949, 6 U.S.T. 3217, 75 U.N.T.S. 85 [hereinafter Geneva Convention II]; Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War Article 13, Aug. 12, 1949, 6 U.S.T.3316, 75 U.N.T.S. 135 [hereinafter Geneva Convention III]; Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War Article 33, Aug. 12, 1949, 6 U.S.T.3516, 75 U.N.T.S. 287 [hereinafter Geneva Convention IV]; Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts Articles 20, 51(6), 52(1), 53(4), 55(2), 56(4), June 8, 1977, 1125 U.N.T.S. 3 [hereinafter Additional Protocol I]; see Darcy 2003, pp. 199–216; Mitchell 2001, pp. 164–170.

  35. 35.

    Established by Geneva Convention I, supra note 12, Articles 8, 10; Geneva Convention II, supra note 12, Articles 8, 10; Geneva Convention III, supra note 12, Articles 8, 10; Geneva Convention IV, supra note 12, Articles. 9, 11. See generally Pierce 1980.

  36. 36.

    Kleffner and Zegveld 2000.

  37. 37.

    Heintze 2004, p. 797.

  38. 38.

    Byron 2006–2007, p. 847.

  39. 39.

    Gardam 2001, p. 353.

  40. 40.

    Juan Carlos Abella v. Argentina, IACHR, Case 11.137, Report No. 355/97, 18 November 1997.

  41. 41.

    Heintze 2004, p. 797.

  42. 42.

    Koskenniemi 2006, para 5.

  43. 43.

    Hampson 2008, indicating that the decisions at the ICJ have not fully resolved questions about the relationship of the two bodies of law.

  44. 44.

    ICJ Reports (2004) Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1671.pdf, p. 178. Accessed 31 June 2013; see ICJ Reports (1996) Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, ICJ 226, p. 240. http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/95/7495.pdf. Accessed 31 June 2013; ICJ Reports (2005) Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (DRC v. Uganda) p. 69, para 216. http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/116/10455.pdf. Accessed 7 July 2013.

  45. 45.

    ICJ Reports (1996) Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, ICJ 226, p. 240, para 25. http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/95/7495.pdf. Accessed 28 Sept. 2013.

  46. 46.

    ICJ Reports (2004) Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1671.pdf, p. 178. Accessed 31 June 2013. See also ICJ, Case concerning armed activity on the territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo vs. Uganda), Judgment of 19 December 2005, paras 216–220.

  47. 47.

    Hampson 2008.

  48. 48.

    ICJ Reports (2005) Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (DRC vs. Uganda), p. 69, para 216. http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/116/10455.pdf. Accessed 7 July 2013.

  49. 49.

    ICJ Statute, Article 38.

  50. 50.

    Lorite Escorihuela 2011, at p. 377.

  51. 51.

    IACHR, Case 11.137 Abella v. Argentina [1997] Report No. 55/97, 271, OEA/ Ser.L/V/II.98, doc. 6 rev., para 161.

  52. 52.

    Rules of Procedure of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Annual Report of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, 1991, O.A.S. Doc. OEA/Ser.L/V/III.25 doc. 7 at 18 (1992) http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/oasinstr/zoas7ctr.htm Accessed Oct. 8, 2013.

  53. 53.

    Dulitzky 2011, p.135

  54. 54.

    Universal Declaration of Human Rights, G.A. Res. 217 (III) A, U.N. Doc. A/RES/217(III) (Dec. 10, 1948); Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Jan. 12, 1951, 78 U.N.T.S. 277.

  55. 55.

    University of Minnesota Human Rights Library (1970) Protocol of Amendment to the Charter of the Organization of American States, "Protocol of Buenos Aires,” O.A.S. Treaty Series No. 1-A. http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/oasinstr/buenosaires.html. Accessed 2 July 2013.

  56. 56.

    IACHR Statute, Adopted by the OAS General Assembly, 9th Regular Session, La Paz, Bolivia, 1979, Res. No. 448.

  57. 57.

    Id. Article 1(2)(a).

  58. 58.

    Buergenthal 1975, pp. 828–829, 835.

  59. 59.

    O.A.S. Resolution XXX, Chap. 2, Articles XXIX–XXXVIII, Adopted by the Ninth International Conference of American States. http://www.hrcr.org/docs/OAS_Declaration/oasrights5.html. Accessed 14 July 2013. The ACHR incorporated the rights that had previously been included in the ADHR, and thus the Commission’s mandate was redefined with this passage of the ACHR, although its existence formally predates the ACHR.

  60. 60.

    Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Adopted 4 November 1950. Article 1(1) states “The States Parties to the Convention undertake to respect the rights and freedoms recognized herein and to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms, without any discrimination for reasons of race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, economic status, birth, or any other social condition.”

  61. 61.

    Cerna 2006. The unique relationship between the Commission and the U.S. becomes particularly significant in light of ongoing adjudication surrounding detention at the Guantanamo Bay Detention facility, discussed infra, at pp. 19–22.

  62. 62.

    Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Adopted 4 November 1950. Article 1, ‘Nature and Purposes’, of the Statute.

  63. 63.

    American Convention on Human Rights Article 44. http://www.oas.org/dil/treaties_B-32_American_Convention_on_Human_Rights.pdf. Accessed 13 July 2013.

  64. 64.

    Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. 1115 UNTS 331, entry into force 1980. http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/1_1_1969.pdf. Accessed 13 July 2013.

  65. 65.

    IACHR Report on Terrorism and Human Rights (2002), para 116. http://www.cidh.org/Terrorism/Eng/toc.htm. (discussing to the right to life and terrorism, the IACHR Report on Terrorism states “additional procedural requirements, such as the notification of Protecting Powers, may apply based upon the lex specialis of international humanitarian law governing international armed conflicts”).

  66. 66.

    American Convention on Human Rights Article 62(3), July 18, 1978, O.A.S.Treaty Series No. 36, 1144 U.N.T.S. 123 (“The jurisdiction of the Court shall comprise all cases concerning the interpretation and application of the provisions of this Convention that are submitted to it, provided that the States Parties to the case recognize or have recognized such jurisdiction, whether by special declaration pursuant to the preceding paragraphs, or by a special agreement”).

  67. 67.

    American Convention on Human Rights Article 44. http://www.oas.org/dil/treaties_B-32_American_Convention_on_Human_Rights.pdf. Accessed 13 July 2013.

  68. 68.

    Burgorgue-Larsen and Ubeda de Torres 2011, p. 67.

  69. 69.

    Hathaway 2012.

  70. 70.

    IACtHR (2000) Las Palmeras Case, Judgment on Preliminary Objections of February 4, 2000, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (Ser. C) No. 67. paras 32–33.

  71. 71.

    Ibid.

  72. 72.

    See IACHR Report on Terrorism and Human Rights (2002), paras 57–62. http://www.cidh.org/Terrorism/Eng/toc.htm. Accessed 31 June 2013.

  73. 73.

    IACHR, Case 10.951 Coard v. United States [1999] Report No. 109/99, OEA/Ser.L./V/II.106, doc. 6 rev. 39.

  74. 74.

    IACHR Case 11.142 Avilan v. Colombia [1998] Report No. 26/97, OEA/Ser.L./V/ 11.98, doc. 6 rev. para 202; IACHR Case 10.548 Hugo Bustios Saavedra v. Peru [1997] Report No 38/97, para 61; IACHR, Case 11.137 Abella v. Argentina [1997] Report No. 55/97, 271, OEA/ Ser.L/V/II.98, doc. 6 rev., para 178.

  75. 75.

    Abella v. Argentina, para 16.

  76. 76.

    Goldman 2013, p. 14.

  77. 77.

    Moir 2003

  78. 78.

    IACtHR (2000) Las Palmeras Case, Judgment on Preliminary Objections of February 4, 2000, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (Ser. C) No. 67.

  79. 79.

    Weissbrodt 2009–2010.

  80. 80.

    IACHR 1997 Annual Report of the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights, C.H.R. OAS/Ser L./V/ II.98 doc. 7 rev. (1998).

  81. 81.

    IACHR Case 11.142 Avilán v. Colombia [1998] Report No. 26/97, OEA/Ser.L./V/ 11.98, doc. 6 rev.

  82. 82.

    IACHR Case 10.548 Hugo Bustios Saavedra v. Peru [1997] Report No 38/97 para 88. In this case against Peru, the Commission found state violations of IHL: “With respect to the right to life of Hugo Bustíos Saavedra and the personal integrity of Eduardo Rojas Arce, the Peruvian State has also violated common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions.”

  83. 83.

    IACHR, Case 11.137 Abella v. Argentina [1997] Report No. 55/97, 271, OEA/ Ser.L/V/II.98, doc. 6 rev.

  84. 84.

    IACHR 1997 Annual Report of the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights, C.H.R. OAS/Ser L./V/ II.98 doc. 7 rev. (1998), para 202. “The state of Colombia did not carry out its obligation to respect and guarantee the rights of persons who are placed in hors de combat in an internal armed combat. The extrajudicial execution of 11 victims constituted a flagrant violation of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions in that state agents were absolutely required to treat humanely all of the persons within their power due to injury, surrender or detention, whether or not they had previously participated in hostilities.”

  85. 85.

    IACtHR Velasquez Rodriguez Case [1988] (ser. C) No. 4, para 163.

  86. 86.

    IACHR Case 11.142 Avilán v. Colombia [1998] Report No. 26/97, OEA/Ser.L./V/ 11.98, doc. 6 rev., para 174.

  87. 87.

    para 180.

  88. 88.

    IACHR, Case 11.137 Abella v. Argentina [1997] Report No. 55/97, 271, OEA/ Ser.L/V/II.98, doc. 6 rev., p. 92, para 327; p. 93, para 328. The Commission concluded that Argentina did not violate the applicable provisions of international humanitarian law.

  89. 89.

    For an in-depth analysis of each of these defenses as discussed by the Commission, see Moir 2003, p. 194.

  90. 90.

    IACHR, Case 11.137 Abella v. Argentina [1997] Report No. 55/97, 271, OEA/ Ser.L/V/II.98, doc. 6 rev.; IACHR Case 11.142 Avilán v. Colombia [1998] Report No. 26/97, OEA/Ser.L./V/ 11.98, doc. 6 rev.

  91. 91.

    IACHR, Case 10.951 Coard v. United States [1999] Report No. 109/99, OEA/Ser.L./V/II.106, doc. 6 rev. 39.

  92. 92.

    Gardam 2001, p. 353.

  93. 93.

    Article 29 of the American Convention on Human Rights Article states, “No provision of this convention shall be interpreted as … restricting the enjoyment or exercise of any right or freedom recognized by virtue of the laws of any State Party or by virtue of another convention to which one of the said states is a party.” http://www.oas.org/dil/treaties_B-32_American_Convention_on_Human_Rights.pdf. Accessed 13 July.

  94. 94.

    IACHR, Case 11.137 Abella v. Argentina [1997] Report No. 55/97, 271, OEA/ Ser.L/V/II.98, doc. 6 rev., p. 161; IACHR Case 10.480 Parada Cea v. El Salvador [1999] Report No. 1/99, OEA/Ser.L./V/II.102 doc. 6 rev. 165; IACHR Case 11.142 Avilán v. Colombia [1998] Report No. 26/97, OEA/Ser.L./V/ 11.98, doc. 6 rev., p. 173.

  95. 95.

    IACHR, Case 11.137 Abella v. Argentina [1997] Report No. 55/97, 271, OEA/ Ser.L/V/II.98, doc. 6 rev., para 156.

  96. 96.

    IACHR, Case 11.137 Abella v. Argentina [1997] Report No. 55/97, 271, OEA/ Ser.L/V/II.98, doc. 6 rev., para 437. Similarly, in Coard, the Commission utilized the lex specialis argument, where it was asked to adjudicate on the right to liberty during an international armed conflict, and again, it interpreted this right (under the ACHR) in the context of armed conflict with the benefit of definitional guidance from IHL. IACHR, Case 10.951 Coard v. United States [1999] Report No. 109/99, OEA/Ser.L./V/II.106, doc. 6 rev. 39.

  97. 97.

    Orakhelashvili 2008, p. 167.

  98. 98.

    In retrospect, it is difficult to understand why petitioners chose to invoke IHL considering the outcome, but it is possible that counsel for the victims (the armed attackers of the military compound) were emboldened by the Commission’s holding in Avilán that Colombia had violated IHL, resulting in their petition that the Commission find that Argentina had also violated IHL.

  99. 99.

    IACHR, Case 11.137 Abella v. Argentina [1997] Report No. 55/97, 271, OEA/ Ser.L/V/II.98, doc. 6 rev., para 178. “The Commission believes that petitioners misperceive the practical and legal consequences that ensued with respect to the application of these rules to those MTP members who participated in the Tablada attack.”

  100. 100.

    IACHR Case 11.142 Avilán v. Colombia [1998] Report No. 26/97, OEA/Ser.L./V/ 11.98, doc. 6 rev., paras 177–178.

  101. 101.

    American Convention on Human Rights Article 27. http://www.oas.org/dil/treaties_B-32_American_Convention_on_Human_Rights.pdf. Accessed 29 Sept. 2013.

  102. 102.

    IACHR Case 11.142 Avilán v. Colombia [1998] Report No. 26/97, OEA/Ser.L./V/ 11.98, doc. 6 rev., para 135.

  103. 103.

    “Other Treaties” Subject to the Consultative Jurisdiction of the Court (Article 64 of the American Convention on Human Rights), Advisory Opinion OC-1/82, September 24, 1982, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (Ser. A) No. 1 (1982), para 42. http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/iachr/b_11_4a.htm. Accessed 12 July 2013.

  104. 104.

    American Convention on Human Rights, Article 64, “The member states of the Organization may consult the Court regarding the interpretation of this Convention or of other treaties concerning the protection of human rights in the American states.” http://www.oas.org/dil/treaties_B-32_American_Convention_on_Human_Rights.htm. Accessed 13 July 2013.

  105. 105.

    IACHR Case 11.142 Avilán v. Colombia [1998] Report No. 26/97, OEA/Ser.L./V/ 11.98, doc. 6 rev., para 132.

  106. 106.

    One commentator, writing in 1998, predicted “at some point in the future, the Court may be in the position to give an opinion on the Commission’s decision to apply international humanitarian law directly.” Zegveld 1998, p. 511.

  107. 107.

    IACtHR (2000) Las Palmeras Case, Judgment on Preliminary Objections of February 4, 2000, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (Ser. C) No. 67. Although it is correct that this was the first case in which the Court addressed the application of IHL, one commentator highlights that the Court had previously considered the challenges inherent in the application of other treaties, notably the Inter-American Convention on Torture, the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture and the Convention on the Rights of the Child; See also Buis (2008).

  108. 108.

    “Other Treaties” Subject to the Consultative Jurisdiction of the Court (Article 64 of the American Convention on Human Rights), Advisory Opinion OC-1/82, September 24, 1982, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (Ser. A) No. 1 (1982), para 42. http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/iachr/b_11_4a.htm. Accessed 12 July 2013.

  109. 109.

    IACtHR (2000) Las Palmeras Case, Judgment on Preliminary Objections of February 4, 2000, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (Ser. C) No. 67, pp. 60–61.

  110. 110.

    IACtHR (2000) Las Palmeras Case, Judgment on Preliminary Objections of February 4, 2000, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (Ser. C) No. 67, pp. 60–61, para 28.

  111. 111.

    Ibid.

  112. 112.

    Ibid at para 29 (“…Colombia had not objected to the Commission’s observation that, at the time that the loss of lives set forth in the application occurred, an internal armed conflict was taking place on its territory…”).

  113. 113.

    Id. at para 34 “Although the Inter-American Commission has broad faculties as an organ for the promotion and protection of human rights, it can clearly be inferred from the American Convention that the procedure initiated in contentious cases before the Commission, which culminates in an application before the Court, should refer specifically to rights protected by that Convention (cf. Articles 33, 44, 48.1 and 48).”

  114. 114.

    Id. at pp. 60–62.

  115. 115.

    Martin 2001.

  116. 116.

    Burgorgue-Larsen and Ubeda de Torres 2011, p. 69; Article 29(d) of the American Convention on Human Rights states “…” http://www.oas.org/dil/treaties_B-32_American_Convention_on_Human_Rights.htm. Accessed 13 July 2013.

  117. 117.

    In the Serrano-Cruz Sisters case, for example, the Court recalled the “complementarity of international human rights law and international humanitarian law.” IACtHR Preliminary Objections [2004] Serrano-Cruz Sisters v. El Salvador Series C No. 118, para 112.

  118. 118.

    See also IACtHR [2005] Mapiripan Massacre v. Colombia Series C No. 134, para 115.

  119. 119.

    IACtHR Judgment [2000] Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala Series C No. 70.

  120. 120.

    Ibid at para 2.

  121. 121.

    Ibid at para 208.

  122. 122.

    IACtHR Judgment [2000] Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala Series C No. 70, para 209 (author’s emphasis).

  123. 123.

    For a more complete discussion of the importance of the Bámaca Velásquez case, see Byron 2006–2007, pp. 861–862.

  124. 124.

    In the 2012 case of Caso Masacre de Santo Domingo Vs. Colombia. Sentencia de Excepciones Preliminares, Fondo y Reparaciones de 30 de noviembre de 2012. Serie C No. 259 , the Court in no uncertain terms reiterated its commitment to using IHL as an interpretive reference, but remained unwilling to directly apply it (“Based on the foregoing considerations, the Court reiterates that although the American Convention has only empowered it to determine the compatibility of the States’ acts and omissions or laws with this Convention and not with the provisions of other treaties or customary norms, when making this analysis, it can, as it has in other cases… interpret the obligation and the rights contained in the American Convention in light of other treaties. In this case, by using IHL as a supplementary norm of interpretation to the treaty-based provisions, the Court is not making a ranking between normative systems, because the applicability and relevance of IHL in situations of armed conflict is evident. This only means that the Court can observe the regulations of IHL, as the specific law in this area, in order to make a more specific application of the provisions of the Convention when defining the scope of the State’s obligations.”) It should be noted that at the time of this writing, two cases are pending at the IACtHR which concern the intersections between IHL and HRL, yet there is no indication that the Court will deviate from its previous holdings in either of these cases: Case No. 12.444, Eduardo Nicolás Cruz Sánchez et al. (Operation Chavín de Huántar) v. Peru, and Case No. 12.167 Hugo Oscar Arguelles et al. v. Argentina.

  125. 125.

    IACHR Case 11.481 Romero y Galdimez v. El Salvador [2000] Report No. 37/00, OEA/Ser.L./V/II.106, doc. 6 rev., p. 66–72.

  126. 126.

    Moir 2003.

  127. 127.

    See IACHR Case 10.247 Extrajudicial Executions and Forced Disappearances v. Peru, et al. [2001] Report No. 101/01, OEA/Ser.L./V/II.114 doc. 5 rev., p. 208–15; IACHR Case 11.654 Rio Frio Massacre v. Colombia [2001] Report No. 62/01, OEA/Ser.L./V/ 11.111 doc. rev., p. 54–58; IACHR Case 11.710 Bolaio Castro v. Colombia [2001] Report No. 63/01, OEA/Ser.L./V/II.102 doc. rev., p. 32–35; IACHR Case 11.565 Gonzalez Perez v. Mexico [2001] Report No. 53/01, OEA/Ser.L/V/I11.I doc. 20 rev., 45, 54.

  128. 128.

    Moir 2003, p. 212.

  129. 129.

    Cerna 2006.

  130. 130.

    American Convention on Human Rights Article 1(1) http://www.oas.org/dil/treaties_B-32_American_Convention_on_Human_Rights.pdf. Accessed 29 Sept. 2013.

  131. 131.

    Cleveland 2010, p. 229 (“Regional human rights tribunals, the U.N. treaty bodies, and the International Court of Justice (ICJ) all have recognized that human rights obligations travel with a state when a state or its agents place persons or territories under the state’s ‘effective control.’”); See pp. 248–270.

  132. 132.

    Goldman 2013, p. 106.

  133. 133.

    American Declaration of Rights of Man, Organization of American States, American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, Articles. XVIII, XXV, XXVI, Apr. 30, 1948, Hein's No. KAV 7225. Charter of the Organization of American States, Apr. 30, 1948, 2 U.S.T. 2394 (entered into force Dec. 13, 1951) (ratified by the United States, June 15, 1951); amended by Protocol of Buenos Aires, 721 U.N.T.S. 324, O.A.S. Treaty Series, No. 1-A (entered into force Feb. 27, 1970); amended by Protocol of Cartagena, O.A.S. Treaty Series, No. 66, 25 I.L.M. 527 (entered into force Nov. 16, 1988); amended by Protocol of Washington, 1-E Rev. OEA Documentos Oficiales OEA/Ser.A/2 Add. 3 (SEPF), 33 I.L.M. 1005 (entered into force Sept. 25, 1997); amended by Protocol of Managua, 1-F Rev. OEA Documentos Oficiales OEA/Ser.A/2 Add.4 (SEPF), 33 I.L.M. 1009 (entered into force Jan. 29, 1996). See also IACHR Case 9647 Roach v. United States [1987] Resolution No. 3/87, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.71, doc. 9 rev. 1, para 46; IACHR Petition 8-03 Smith v. United States [2006] Report No. 56/06, OEA/Ser.L/VII.127, doc. 4 rev. 1, paras 32–33.

  134. 134.

    University of Minnesota Human Rights Library (2002) Detainees in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; Request for Precautionary Measures, Inter-Am. C.H.R. http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/cases/guantanamo-2003.html. Accessed 29 Sept. 2013.

  135. 135.

    Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723, 732, 792 (2008) (holding that detained individuals in Guantanamo Bay have the constitutional right to file petitions for habeas corpus proceedings and challenge the legality of their detention and finding that “the constitutional privilege of habeas corpus" extends to aliens detained as enemy combatants at Guantanamo); Al-Bihani v. Obama, No. 09-5051, LEXIS 102, at *871 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 5, 2010) (deciding not to engage in an assessment of international law and laws of war or “quibble over the intricate application of vague treaty provisions and amorphous customary principles”); Final Report: Guantanamo Review Task Force (2010) 2–3 http://www.justice.gov/ag/guantanamo-review-final-report.pdf Accessed 17 Sept. 2013 (demonstrating detainees remained in jurisdictional limbo as 48 detainees “determined to be too dangerous for transfer but not feasible for prosecution,” and 30 Yemeni detainees were kept in “conditional” detention “based on the current security environment in that country”).

  136. 136.

    United States (2002) Response of the United States to Request for Precautionary Measures—Detainees in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, reprinted in 41 I.L.M. 1015, p. 1022.

  137. 137.

    University of Minnesota Human Rights Library (2002) Detainees in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; Request for Precautionary Measures, Inter-Am. C.H.R. http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/cases/guantanamo-2003.html. Accessed 15 July 2013.

  138. 138.

    Ibid.

  139. 139.

    United States (2002) Response of the United States to Request for Precautionary Measures—Detainees in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, reprinted in 41 I.L.M. 1015, p. 1022.

  140. 140.

    Ibid. p. 3.

  141. 141.

    University of Minnesota Human Rights Library (2002) Detainees in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; Request for Precautionary Measures, Inter-Am. C.H.R. http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/cases/guantanamo-2003.html. Accessed 15 July 2013. 112 Id. (emphasis added). Note that one of the non-derogable rights in the Inter-American system is the judicial remedy of habeas corpus. IACtHR (1987) Habeas Corpus in Emergency Situations (Articles 27(2) and 7(6) of the ACHR), Advisory Opinion (ser. A) No. 8.

  142. 142.

    IACHR Report on Terrorism and Human Rights, paras 29, 78. http://www.cidh.org/Terrorism/Eng/toc.htm. Accessed 31 June 2013.

  143. 143.

    Id. para 62 (“It is therefore appropriate, and indeed imperative, for the Commission to consider all relevant international norms, including those of international humanitarian law, while interpreting the international human rights law instruments for which it is responsible.”

  144. 144.

    Additional Protocol I Article 75(4) (“No sentence may be passed and no penalty may be executed on a person found guilty of a penal offense related to the armed conflict except pursuant to a conviction pronounced by an impartial and regularly constituted court respecting the generally recognized principles of regular judicial procedure”).

  145. 145.

    Goldman 2013, p. 118.

  146. 146.

    IACHR Report on Terrorism and Human Rights, para 142. http://www.cidh.org/Terrorism/Eng/toc.htm. Accessed 31 June 2013.

  147. 147.

    Judicial Guarantees in States of Emergency, Articles 27(2), 25 and 8 of the American Convention on Human Rights, IACtHR, Advisory Opinion, 6 October 1987.

  148. 148.

    IACHR Report on Terrorism and Human Rights, para 14. http://www.cidh.org/Terrorism/Eng/toc.htm. Accessed 31 June 2013.

  149. 149.

    See for example, Hathaway et al. 2012.

  150. 150.

    Moir 2003. Moir argues that better state self-regulation may ensue from consideration of IHL by human rights tribunals.

  151. 151.

    O'Donnell 1998, pp. 485–486.

  152. 152.

    Koh 1996 p. 2603.

  153. 153.

    Heintze 2004, p. 797.

  154. 154.

    Byron 2006–2007, p. 877.

  155. 155.

    Dulitzky 2011.

  156. 156.

    American Convention on Human Rights supra note 114, Article 25.

  157. 157.

    IACtHR Velasquez Rodriguez Case [1988] (ser. C) No. 4, para 155.

  158. 158.

    IACtHR Velasquez Rodriguez Case [1988] (ser. C) No. 4.

  159. 159.

    IACHR, Case 11.137 Abella v. Argentina [1997] Report No. 55/97, 271, OEA/ Ser.L/V/II.98, doc. 6 rev., para 161; see also IACHR Case 10.480 Parada Cea v. El Salvador [1999] Report No. 1/99, OEA/Ser.L./V/II.102 doc. 6 rev. 165.

  160. 160.

    IACHR Case 11.137 Abella v. Argentina [1997] Report No. 55/97, 271, OEA/ Ser.L/V/II.98, doc. 6 rev., para 161.

  161. 161.

    Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. 1115 UNTS 331. http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/1_1_1969.pdf. Accessed 13 July 2013.

  162. 162.

    IACtHR (2000) Las Palmeras Case, Judgment on Preliminary Objections of February 4, 2000, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (Ser. C) No. 67, pp. 60–61, para 32.

  163. 163.

    During the October 2012 Sessions of the IACHR, states gathered to discuss the crisis in the Inter-American system, changes to the system etc. (CITE to press releases from IACHR).

  164. 164.

    Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. 1115 UNTS 331. http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/1_1_1969.pdf. Accessed 13 July 2013.

  165. 165.

    Orakhelashvili 2008, p. 168.

  166. 166.

    Buis 2008, p. 274.

  167. 167.

    Meron 2000, p. 247.

  168. 168.

    Garraway, “To Kill or Not to Kill?” Dilemmas on the Use of Force, referenced in Happold 2010.

  169. 169.

    Provost 2005, pp. 349–350.

  170. 170.

    See IACtHR Annual Report (2002), OEA/Ser.L/ V/III.57, doc. 5 (111)45 (2003), which refers to the “Second Study and Exchange Workshop on International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and Related Issues.”

  171. 171.

    Broad scholarship exists here discussing the establishment of armed conflict or occupation. See generally, Anthony Cullen, Key Developments Affecting the Scope of Internal Armed Conflict in International Humanitarian Law, 183 Mil Law Rev 66, 69–77 (2005) (distinguishing rebellion and insurgency from belligerency and internal armed conflict which is capable of invoking rights and obligations under IHL); John A Cohan, Legal War: When Does it Exist, and When does it End? 27 Hastings Int Comp L Rev 221, 223–224 (2003–2004) (assessing the existence of a war in the legal sense and whether wartime legislation and obligations are triggered); Theodor Meron, Classification of Armed Conflict in the Former Yugoslavia: Nicaragua’s Fallout, 92 Am J Int Law 236, 241 (criticizing the characterization of armed conflict following the ICJ decision in Nicaragua and argues that “the reality, dimensions, scope and duration of a foreign military intervention, the foreign state’s direct involvement in the conflict…the relative involvement of local and foreign forces, and…factual and military considerations” should determine the existence of armed conflict).

  172. 172.

    Provost 2005, p. 161.

  173. 173.

    See generally Zegveld 1998.

  174. 174.

    Martin and Rodríguez-Pinzón 2006, p. 148.

  175. 175.

    Inter-Am. C.H.R., Third Report on the Human Rights Situation in Colombia, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.102 Doc. 9 rev. 1, February 26, 1999, Chap. 1, paras 1–6.

  176. 176.

    Orakhelashvili 2008.

  177. 177.

    Infra Sect. 8.3.2, p. 10 (discussing the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties prohibiting the enforcement of treaty obligations on States who have not consented to be bound, “Noting that the principles of free consent and of good faith and the pacta sunt servanda rule are universally recognized” preamble).

  178. 178.

    IACtHR Judgment [2000] Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala Series C No. 70, para 209.

  179. 179.

    Zegveld 1998, p. 509, makes a similar claim: “it is not obvious that the aim of protection can only be achieved by applying international humanitarian law. Would it not have sufficed for the Commission to apply provisions of the American Convention interpreted in the light of international humanitarian law.”

  180. 180.

    Las Palmeras, Cançado Trindade, Separate opinion para 2.

References

  • Bowring B (2009) Fragmentation, lex specialis and the tensions in the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. Univ Nottm J Confl Secur Law 14:485

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buergenthal T (1975) The revised OAS charter and the protection of human rights. AJIL 69:828

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buis E (2008) The implementation of international humanitarian law by human rights courts: the example of the Inter-American Human Rights System. In: Arnold R, Quenivet N (eds.) International humanitarian law and human rights law: towards a new merger in international law, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Boston, pp 277–302

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgorgue-Larsen L, Ubeda de Torres A (2011) The Inter-American Court of Human Rights, case law and commentary. Oxford University Press, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • Byron C (2006–2007) A blurring of boundaries: the application of international humanitarian law by international human rights bodies. Va J Int Law 47:839, 862

    Google Scholar 

  • Caceres Brun J (2003) Aspectos destacados de la aplicacion del derecho internacional humanitario y de los derechos humanos. Lecciones y Ensayos 78:49

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassese A (2001) International law. Oxford University Press, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • Cerna C (2006) Out of bounds? The approach of the Inter-American system for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights to the extraterritorial application of human rights law, CHRGJ Working Paper No. 6

    Google Scholar 

  • Cleveland S (2010) Embedded international law and the constitution abroad. Colum Law Rev 111:225, 229, 248–270

    Google Scholar 

  • Cryer R (2010) The interplay of human rights and humanitarian law: the approach of the ICTY, referenced in Happold M, introduction: symposium on the relationship between international humanitarian law and international human rights law. J Confl Secur Law 14:441

    Google Scholar 

  • Darcy S (2003) The evolution of the law of belligerent reprisals. Mil Law Rev 175(184):199–216

    Google Scholar 

  • Droege C (2008) Elective affinities? Human rights and humanitarian law. Int Rev Red Cross 871:501

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dulitzky A (2011) The Inter-American Human Rights System fifty years later: time for changes. Quebec J Int Law (Special Edition):127

    Google Scholar 

  • Escorihuela A (2011) Humanitarian law and human rights law the politics of distinction. Mich St U Coll Law J Int Law 19:299

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardam J (2001) The contribution of the International Court of Justice to international humanitarian law. Leiden J Int Law 14:353

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldman R (2013) Extraterritorial application of the human right to life and personal liberty, including habeas corpus, during situations of armed conflict. In: Research handbook on human rights and humanitarian law. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK, p 14

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenwood C (1989) The twilight of the law of belligerent reprisals. Neth Yearb Int Law 20:35–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hampson F (2008) The relationship between international humanitarian law and international human rights law. Int Rev Red Cross 871:559

    Google Scholar 

  • Happold M (2010) Symposium on the relationship between international humanitarian law and international human rights law. J Confl Secur Law 14:441

    Google Scholar 

  • Hathaway Oona A et al (2012) Which law governs during armed conflict? The relationship between international humanitarian law and human rights law. Minn Law Rev 96:1883

    Google Scholar 

  • Heintze H (2004) On the relationship between human rights law protection and international humanitarian law. Int Rev Red Cross 856(789):797

    Google Scholar 

  • Holland E (2011) The qualification framework of international humanitarian law: too rigid to accommodate contemporary conflicts. Suffolk Transnatl Law Rev 34:145

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleffner J, Zegveld L (2000) Establishing an individual complaints procedure for violations of international humanitarian law. Yearb Int Humanitarian Law 3:384

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koh H (1996–1997) Why do nations obey international law? Yale Law J 106:2602

    Google Scholar 

  • Koskenniemi M (2006) Fragmentation of international law: difficulties arising from the diversification and expansion of international law. Report of the study group of the International Law Commission. A/CN.4/L.682, pp 13–14; para 5

    Google Scholar 

  • Le Mon C (2002–2003) Unilateral intervention by invitation in civil wars: the Effective Control Test tested. NYU J Int Law Pol. 35:741

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin F (2001) Application du droit international humanitaire par la Cour interaméricaine des droits de l’homme. Int Rev Red Cross 844:1037

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin C, Rodríguez-Pinzón D (2006) The prohibition of torture in the Inter-American System of Human Rights. A handbook for victims and advocates

    Google Scholar 

  • Meron T (2000) The humanization of humanitarian law. AJIL 94:239

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell A (2001) Does one illegality merit another? the law of belligerent reprisals in international law. Mil Law Rev 170(155):164–170

    Google Scholar 

  • Moir L (2003) Decommissioned? international humanitarian law and the Inter-American Human Rights System. Hum Rights Q 25:182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Donnell D (1998) Trends in the application of international humanitarian law by United Nations human rights mechanisms. Int Rev Red Cross 324(481):485–486

    Google Scholar 

  • Orakhelashvili A (2008) The interaction between human rights and humanitarian law: fragmentation, conflict, parallelism, or convergence? EJIL 19:161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pierce G (1980) Humanitarian protection for the victims of war: the system of protecting powers and the role of the ICRC. Mil Law Rev 90:89

    Google Scholar 

  • Provost R (2005) International human rights and humanitarian law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 349–50

    Google Scholar 

  • Schindler D (1979) The International Committee of the Red Cross and human rights. Int Rev Red Cross 208:3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scobbie I (2009) Principle or pragmatics? the relationship between human rights law and the law of armed conflict. In: Symposium: The Relationship between International Human Rights Law and International Humanitarian Law. J Confl Secur Law 14:449

    Google Scholar 

  • Weissbrodt D (2009–2010) The role of the human rights committee in interpreting and developing humanitarian law. U Pa J Int Law 31:1185

    Google Scholar 

  • Zegveld L (1998) The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and international humanitarian law: a comment on the Tablada case. Int Rev Red Cross 38:505

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Washington College of Law, American University, Washington, USA

    Shana Tabak

Authors
  1. Shana Tabak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shana Tabak .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Law, University of Texas, Austin, Texas, USA

    Derek Jinks

  2. Law, University of Manchester, Manchester, Lancashire, United Kingdom

    Jackson N. Maogoto

  3. Dickson Poon School of Law, King's College London, London, United Kingdom

    Solon Solomon

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 T.M.C. Asser Press and the authors

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Tabak, S. (2014). Armed Conflict and the Inter-American Human Rights System: Application or Interpretation of International Humanitarian Law?. In: Jinks, D., Maogoto, J., Solomon, S. (eds) Applying International Humanitarian Law in Judicial and Quasi-Judicial Bodies. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-008-4_8

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Societies and partnerships

Search

Navigation