Search

In years past, much of the discussion around International Humanitarian Law and International Human Rights Law has been dedicated to considering the convergence of the two regimes; to discover a way to increase respect for the protection of the individual in armed conflict. Meanwhile, egregious violations of individual's human rights continue to occur in armed conflicts – those in Ukraine, Yemen, Ethiopia, Afghanistan, and many others. This paper surveys the relationship between the two international disciplines, and considers that though IHL and IHRL are two regimes that have different aims, both contain norms that strive for the protection of the individual in armed conflict. Ultimately, this paper argues that protection of individuals in armed conflict can be strengthened by importing IHL norms into the IHRL framework. This cross-pollination allows treaty bodies to interpret, and make comments about, State Parties' adherence to IHL that can increase respect for those norms, given IHRL's associated enforcement mechanisms and communications machinery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article examines challenges in seeking justice for Conflict-Related Sexual Violence (CRSV) survivors in Kosovo. It analyses the roles and responsibilities of international missions and how deficiencies impact the prosecution and adjudication of CRSV by Kosovo's justice system. A key question is why two decades after the 1998–1999 war in Kosovo survivors of CRSV cannot find justice? The end of the international mandates, the large number of war crime cases transferred, unfinished files, and the necessity for specific expertise in handling the gender-based violence are some of the existing challenges which undermine the prosecution and adjudication of CRSV in Kosovo. The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) established accountability for sexual violence in armed conflicts. This article seeks to scaffold the ICTY experience by developing an accurate and comprehensive understanding of the nature of CRSV and by examining its impact on survivors and victims' alike. This paper then explores how a contexualist interpretation of international and domestic criminal law provisions can prioritise the prosecution of CRSV amid other pressing needs in Kosovo. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Pre-colonial African communities had a well-established system of human rights protection applicable to armed conflicts, which became lost as a result of the break-up of traditional societies. This paper will show that traditional rules can be revived and integrated into future conflict management efforts. The ancient authentically African roots of international humanitarian law (IHL) could serve as receptors forming the basis for IHL and human rights law dissemination. Listening to local communities and learning about their aspirations and cultural practices should inform the peacebuilding programmes which need to be introduced before the cessation of hostilities. In the long run, engaging the armed non-state actors in the development of norms, could help improve certainty and predictability of IHL. Recent efforts by Geneva Call comprising a study of indigenous cultural norms relating to civilians' protection in Mali underline the growing importance of integrating local approaches in IHL dissemination. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper explores the link between human rights and disaster risk reduction. We revisit the notion of a human rights-based approach in the context of natural disasters, analyzing how this concept may contribute to greater accountability and empowerment of those involved in disaster risk reduction. To better understand the processes of empowering rights holders and holding duty bearers into account we adopt legal analytical lenses. By doing so we review four country case studies and their main regulations on disaster risk reduction, taking into account the extent to which they adopt a human rights-based approach. We argue that countries whose legal frameworks allow for community engagement point towards greater community empowerment. Similarly, countries whose legal provisions make possible for holding States accountable for their underperformance in disaster situations suggest greater levels of accountability. We also consider key international human rights instruments binding the four case studies in order to analyze whether and to what extent international human rights obligations may support advocacy and accountability in disaster risk reduction. Based on the analysis of these case studies we consider that empowerment and accountability processes in DRR can reinforce each other, and that human rights may contribute to progress in these areas. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper will consider prosecution of civilians protected under the Fourth Geneva Convention for war crimes, focusing on applicable legislation and competent courts. It will first focus on occupying forces looking at both the issue of applicable legislation and competent courts then shift its focus to invading forces. The paper will conclude by briefly recapping its findings and commenting on whether the same strike a proper balance between ensuring prosecution of war criminals and protection of protected civilians. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Responsibility to Protect is almost fifteen years old and yet opinions diverge widely about its utility as a tool of international humanitarian law. Scholars and diplomats continue to debate its most discussed feature - the secondary responsibility of the international community to aid suffering populations of internal disputes when the host State or United Nations Charter system fails to do the same. This paper argues that much of the current debate is out of focus and at cross purpose and is due to disconnected strands of a plenitudinal mindset in law, found elsewhere as well in humanitarian law, which tend to view humanitarian law either from structural or substantive perspectives, but not from both perspectives. A unified understanding of the plenitudinal mindset re-focuses the discussion around an important common denominator, the need to bridge legal gaps and avoid the appearance of non liquet in the development of international humanitarian law. Disconnected discussions on the Responsibility to Protect are not as disconnected as they appear because opposing views regard as equally odious the silences and gaps of the United Nations Charter system. Borrowing somewhat from social process theory, this paper highlights the need and ability of international humanitarian law to re-forge the broken chain that can strengthen the Responsibility to Protect. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While modem international humanitarian law is most directly linked to 19th and 20th century Europe and The Hague and Geneva Conventions, cultures throughout history have developed rules of warfare for the protection of non-combatants and civilian populations. This paper provides an overview of the Dharma-based Hindu and Buddhist norms for conflict in Ancient India, and then proceeds to a detailed examination of the practices of Ankam and Mamamkam on the medieval Malabar Coast from the Sangam period through the rule of the Zamorins of Calicut. Ankams were ad hoc proxy duels between professional fighters conducted to resolve inter-state disputes, while Mamamkam was a periodic contest designed to allow relatively bloodless transfer of power. Both demonstrate an understanding of modern concepts of proportionality, distinction and victims' protection. The paper concludes by enumerating the humanitarian values carried by Ankams and Mamamkam. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper seeks to clarify the confusions regarding the relationships between international human rights law and international humanitarian law, the principle of equality of belligerents, and the use of the term "should" in treaties. For this purpose, it examines, as a case study, the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict, on which doctrine is divided whether Article 4(1) thereof is binding on armed non-State actors. First, this paper reconceptualizes international humanitarian law as a subset of international human rights law, which share the same purpose, mutually reinforce, and depend on each other. Second, drawing on the customary rules of treaty interpretation under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and through a comprehensive analysis of the authentic texts in other languages and the travaux preparatoires, it argues that the term "should" in the operative part of treaties always creates legally binding obligations and that the equality principle does not strictly apply to norms applicable during peacetime. As such, despite its use of "should" and differential treatment between States and armed non-State actors, Article 4(1) of the Protocol creates a direct human rights obligation on armed non-State actors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper presents the key international legal instrument relevant for education, their use and links with policy frameworks and tools being developed by the humanitarian community to address education rights of children in conflict and emergencies. It describes the current thinking around the right to education in emergencies and why education is a central right to uphold from the onset of a crisis. It gives a brief introduction to how education can meet the international legal standards, as well as the international policy frameworks, such the Millennium Development Goals and Education for All. A continuous case study focuses on Cote d'Ivoire and how the right to education fared in the conflict of that country between 2000 and 2010. The paper looks at issues of enforceability and applicability of the right to education in emergencies, highlighting challenges and mechanisms at national, regional and international levels. The role of the InterAgency Network for Education in Emergencies' (INEE) Minimum Standards for Education as well as the Inter-Agency Standing Committee's (IASC) Education Cluster is discussed, again with specific reference to Cote d'Ivoire, and the centrality of existing monitoring and reporting mechanisms for child rights violations are highlighted. Bringing together all of these elements in one place and making a strong case for the use of both humanitarian and human rights law in securing the right to education in emergencies is what this article brings to the discussion, arguing that the Convention of the Rights of the Child must be seen as the most central instrument. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper discusses the legal consequences following the transfer of settlers into occupied territories more precisely the dichotomy between the rights of settlers the rights of protected persons victims. At the heart of the matter are the questions: What to do with settlers transferred into occupied territories in the post-conflict period? Should settlers be removed from the territory where they were transferred to allow victims to access restitution? In the alternative, should settlers be considered to have acquired a de facto 'right to stay' or a right not to be expelled under international human rights law the principle of humanity? Do settlers have rights? Do all settlers have the same rights? There is no consensual answer to these sensitive questions where proposed solutions vary on a spectrum from collective expulsion to the unconditional integration of settlers. Emerging from a case analysis is an international response to settler transfer that is complaisant of fait accompli resulting in a balance tilting in favor of the status quo to the not infrequent detriment of protected victims' rights. This article attempts to reconcile conflicting rights by proposing a response framework cognizant of all relevant branches of international law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the last ten years or so, the international community has seen an increase in the suppression of revolutionaries or insurrectionists by authoritarian regimes. There has also been a growing urbanisation of violence, in which gangs infiltrate urban societies due to a lack of provision of State services. This landscape of violence continually morphs from one dominated by armed conflicts (to which international humanitarian law (IHL) applies) to one that increasingly involves 'other situations of violence' which fall short of the threshold of armed conflict (and which are not regulated by (IHL). These 'other situations of violence', whilst wildly disparate in many ways, share the tragedy (also shared with armed conflict) of the impediments they place on access to health care by those left vulnerable as a result of the breakdown of domestic legal order. This paper reviews existing laws and principles, which could apply to 'other situations of violence' such as those found in IHL and human rights law. It makes the case that an international framework could have a stronger presence in the regulation of 'other situations of violence', in order to ensure the protection of those who need it most. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The right to intervene under Article 4(h) of the African Union (AU) Constitutive Act and the third pillar of responsibility to protect (R2P) provides for the possibility of using military force to protect civilians from mass atrocities. However, both Article 4(h) and R2P do not specify how the military can or should use force to protect civilians. The omission to define how the military should use force to protect populations at risk was brought to the fore by the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1973, through which NATO has been criticized to have overstepped the Security Council mandate. The doctrinal deficit on protecting civilians is worsened by legalistic thinking on the normative separation of human rights and humanitarian law, a division driven by their historical roots. Nonetheless, human rights violations occur during warfare and humanitarian law violations may also be human rights violations. Both spheres of law are complimentary and mutually reinforcing and victims do not distinguish whether they have suffered human rights or humanitarian law violations. What they need is protection. This paper presents a 'humanitarian rights' approach as the symbiotic methodology for civilian protection that recognizes the inherent dignity and worth of every human being. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This report highlights several contributions to a recent ICRC sponsored IHL conference on compliance and enforcement. Conference papers addressed a range of contemporary issues including: whether the Human Rights Council has a mandate to examine alleged breaches of IHL; the complementarity debate (IHL/IHRL); the problem of human shields; UN Security Council practice with regard to violations of IHL; and whether IHL should be reformed to provide non-State organised armed groups with greater incentives to comply with IHL during non-international armed conflict. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 2006 the UN General Assembly established the Human Rights Council and its Universal Periodic Review (UPR). The functions and procedures of the UPR were mainly elaborated in Human Rights Council Resolution 5/1, adopted on 18 June 2007. The section of the latter resolution describing the basis upon which States' compliance with human rights obligations and commitments is to be assessed includes a reference to international humanitarian law (IHL). However, IHL is mentioned separately from other bases of review in paragraph 2, and there is debate about whether or not IHL constitutes a basis of review, properly speaking. Nevertheless, the inclusion itself is a positive contribution to IHL in that it incorporated IHL among the standards of reference for the UPR mechanism. An empirical survey of reviews carried out to date shows that States' compliance with their respective IHL obligations have been reviewed in this mechanism, and that those States which were actively opposed to the reference to IHL as basis of review before the adoption of Resolution 5/1 have been shifting to actively make recommendations to other States on the observance of IHL obligations. This demonstrates that IHL has been widely accepted as a basis of review, and that the UPR mechanism has become the only State reporting system in the implementation of IHL. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In February zoia, the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic found that opposition groups fighting against the Assad regime are bound by human rights obligations constituting peremptoly norms of international law. This finding is innovative for two reasons. First, human rights obligations apply generally to the vertical relation between States and their subjects. Second, whereas is seems accepted that non-state armed groups can have human rights obligations when they control territoly, the Commission of Inquiry was unable to confirm that Syrian opposition forces exercised such control over territory. This article examines whether the finding that non-state armed groups are bound by peremptory human rights norms is supported by contemporary international law. Moreover, recent trends in the practice of the United Nations with regard to human rights obligations of non-state actors will be analysed. Even though this article argues that non-state armed groups can have human rights obligations in other situations of violence, it points out particular challenges to their practical application. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper investigates the implementation of the norms of international humanitarian and human rights law in the Russian courts. It may be viewed as a specific feature that these two categories are considered close in part of the Russian doctrine and, as we will see below, in some judicial cases. Since the adoption of the Constitution of the Russian Federation in 1993 international law has been granted a specific status and significance in the Russian legal system. According to the Constitution and legislation, Russian courts have had the opportunity to play a special role in the implementation of international humanitarian and human rights law. That being said, judicial practice relating to the implementation and the application of these norms is different from that of other international law norms. It is, however, explained, in particular, by the fact, that there are not many cases which either mention directly or use humanitarian law. Often, courts make abstract or general references to international treaties or make decisions only on the basis of the national law, though the considered cases fall directly under the regulation of international humanitarian or human rights law. In conclusion, at present the practice of Russian courts is rather diverse and needs further unification. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In three cases, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has held that States must apply their human rights treaty obligations extraterritorially during times of occupation. International human rights law and international humanitarian law (IHL), under which occupation law exists, were not constructed in formal consultation with one another. But their ability to co-exist is logical enough, with human rights law emerging from, and IHL expanding after, World War II with the similar aim of committing governments to protect the most basic notions of humanity. Tensions between the two regimes do, however, exist. Occupation law largely works to restrict Occupying Powers from tampering with the laws and institutions of the occupied territory, whereas significant portions of human rights law press States to amend or change laws and develop infrastructure to accommodate the welfare of the population under their control. With a focus on the positive human rights obligations contained within the right to education, this article looks at the compatibility of these two regimes, points out tensions, and proposes ways for easing their co-existence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

States have duties under Article 12(2)(c) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to prevent, control and treat COVID-19. Implementation of these three obligations is analysed, taking account of countervailing human rights considerations. Regarding prevention , lockdowns designed to stop the spread of the virus are examined. Control measures are then discussed, namely transparency measures, quarantine, testing and tracing. The human rights compatibility of treatment measures, namely the provision of adequate medical and hospital care (or the failure to do so), are then examined. Finally, derogations from human rights treaties in times of pubic emergency are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although the regime applicable to the return of remains of combatants in international armed conflict is well known, the regime applicable in non-international armed conflicts is less clear. This is particularly the case when the members of armed groups are deemed to be 'terrorists' by the State which then refuses to return them to their families. The article examines how a Russian law to that effect has been examined and found wanting by the European Court of Human Rights. It suggests that the return of remains following non-international armed conflicts raises characteristic issues for the debate on the simultaneous and competing applicability of international humanitarian and international human rights law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Transitional justice’s normative foundations, orientation, and methodology favour a backward-looking focus in dealing with the legacy of violence in societies. This article suggests that transitional justice (tj) can be more effective if it broadens its scope to include processes and measures to engage with present day conflict, and human rights and humanitarian crises. The article examines the extent of the crises that exist in the world and how there have been increases in such crises particularly over the last decade. The article inspects the development of tj, its evolution and its focus on dealing with the past in order to determine whether a focus on dealing with the present, or the immediate past, is outside of what is envisaged as possible within a tj framework. The article studies the notion of transition to determine whether a transition is in fact necessary for tj to be applied. It argues that there is a need for tj to become broader in its orientation, and for it to become more relevant and more applicable in other circumstances. It is suggested that in order for tj to be criticized less, it should play a more enhanced role in conflicted places to reduce violence and human rights abuse and play a role in peacemaking and peacebuilding. It is contended that in conflict situations tj has, in the past, focused on justice and allied issues such as amnesty, but that there ought to be a more holistic approach to tj in conflict situations. The article also examines how tj can play an increased role in preventing atrocities, its role in justice and reducing impunity, in truth recovery processes, and in guaranteeing non-repetition of violations in the context of ongoing emergencies. It is argued that there are numerous feasible steps that can be taken during human rights disasters that help prepare for the future even if these steps are limited and cannot achieve that much during the existence of a crisis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In June 2015, a commission of inquiry, mandated by the United Nations (un), published the most critical report of its kind on the situation of human rights in Eritrea. One year later, the commission said there are reasonable grounds to believe that crimes against humanity have been committed in Eritrea since 1991. The findings of the commission follow in the footsteps of other ground-breaking reports that were produced by the un Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Eritrea, appointed in July 2012. Over the next four years, the Human Rights Council has also adopted a number of resolutions in which it strongly condemns the continued widespread and systematic violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms committed by the Eritrean authorities. With a focus on the commission of inquiry, this article will assess an assortment of reports and official documents produced by the designated un human rights entities. Based on the assessment, assertions will be made that the conclusion made by the inquiry commission with respect to crimes against humanity in June 2016 should in fact have been made in its first report of June 2015, thus avoiding an unnecessary delay of one year. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

State behaviour during armed conflict is increasingly exposed to judicial scrutiny. It may also be subjected to standards developed in human rights law which, at times, are inconsistent with the law of armed conflict. This article draws attention to States' worry over this process, and to their effort to limit the application of human rights law to military operations. The article discusses this effort, as well as the extent to which it was successful in court, focusing on three operational matters: the use of force, the detention of enemy nationals for security reasons, and the investigation of deaths caused by the armed forces. It concludes that courts tend to be more attentive to States' concerns than often perceived, and that the latter should remain patient during this ongoing process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

United States (us) counter-terrorism measures - including the us Code on material support, sanction regimes and donor restrictions - have the unintentional affect of constraining humanitarian action. Under current us law, incidental financial transactions with designated entities, even when necessary for the provision of purely humanitarian aid, are prohibited. Engagement to ensure the protection of civilians, gain access to vulnerable populations, ensure staff security or coordinate the implementation of humanitarian programmes that could be considered "training [...] or expert advise" would similarly be subject to individual criminal liability under us jurisdiction. In contexts where designated entities are present, humanitarian actors are potentially faced with undermining their impartiality and neutrality by choosing beneficiaries on criteria other than needs alone, or compromising the principle of humanity by choosing not to provide assistance in certain areas despite potential greater needs there. Passage of the House Resolution 3526, otherwise known as the Humanitarian Assistance Facilitation Action, would decriminalize incidental financial transactions with designated entities, but it would do little to change the legal challenges to a range of other types of humanitarian engagement for the provision of assistance and protection to civilians. It would also not change us donor restrictions that often prevent any direct engagement with designated entities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since the end of the Cold War, the world has experienced a decrease in international conflict and a significant increase in non-international armed conflict (NIAC ). Despite this change, however, international law has been very slow in adapting its laws that initially were crafted with international armed conflict in mind to the new NIAC environment. There is a growing recognition that international humanitarian law ( IHL ) is not well equipped to deal with issues of human rights violations committed during NIAC. New efforts to make international human rights law (IHRL ) applicable in such conflicts have, however, raised more questions than answers. There is still no consensus on whether international human rights law applies to NIAC. Furthermore, the question on whether non-international armed groups are bound by international human rights obligations remains controversial. This article tries to analyze where international law stands now of these questions. It proposes steps international law could follow to move from its current rhetoric to a more practical solution on these questions. The three solutions proposed are: individual agreements to respect human rights during armed conflict, the possibility of an ICJ advisory opinion and the option of a protocol additional to international human rights treaties relating to their application in NIAC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

During armed conflicts healthcare workers or medical personnel often work under extremely difficult and dangerous circumstances. In such situations doctors and nurses, hospitals and medical units are at a serious risk of being attacked. Medical personnel also face complex ethical dilemmas when it comes to the treatment of patients from all sides of a conflict. This concerns military medical personnel in particular: as members of the armed forces, they face dilemmas of 'dual loyalty' where they may have to choose between the interests of their employer (the military) and the interests of their patients. This contribution looks at these issues from the perspectives of medical ethics, international humanitarian law (IHL ), and human rights law (HRL). The article argues that the standards of medical ethics continue to apply during armed conflicts, and that during such situations medical ethics, IHL and HRL are mutually reinforcing. The principle of 'medical neutrality' and the human 'right to health' are positioned as key norms in this field. The article presents a normative framework for the delivery of health care on the battlefield in the form of a set of commitments for actors involved in the conflict, including the belligerent parties and (military) medical personnel. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The debate concerning the interrelation of international human rights law and international humanitarian law is certainly notnew within the relevant academic circles. Nevertheless, a comprehensive study of recent State practice in the UN political bodies, that puts the opposition to the applicability ofhuman rights to a real test, adds a new and rather intriguing twist to the matter. It appears that the statements of governments arguing for the exclusive application of international humanitarian law in armed conflicts are not always supported by their own practice within the UN political bodies. The present article explores the potential influence and importance of this observation for bridging the possible gaps between these two bodies of international law. It further identifies a number of interesting trends in the application of specific human rights norms in armed conflicts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Arbitrary deprivation of liberty is prohibited by international law; hence even during armed conflict internment of adversaries must have a legal basis in international humanitarian law or national law. The law of non-international armed conflict contains an inherent power to intern. Nevertheless, a further legal source is needed to ensure detention is not arbitrary, outlining grounds and procedure of detention. Such legal grounds do notexist for internment by organised armed groups. This article will outline the possible consequences for members of armed groups when interning without a further legal basis, thus in violation of the prohibition of arbitrary detention, and will subsequently suggest solutions to overcome the imbalance between obligations imposed upon and instruments granted to these actors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article evaluates the protection that the Government of Kenya off ered to those who fled to camps in the wake of the post-election violence that gripped the country in 2007. It focuses on basic needs, social economic entitlements and the right to return one's pre-conflict home. The article contends that, overall, the Government failed to meet its obligations as required by national and international standards on the protection of internally displaced persons. To conclude, specific recommendations, which would ameliorate the suff ering that IDPs continue to face in transitional states such as Kenya, are made. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Natural disasters, particularly those related to climate change, are fast becoming a leading cause of forced displacement although conceptual, normative and institutional frameworks to provide human rights protection to the environmentally displaced are not yet in place. This article discusses the human rights and protection dimensions of disaster-induced displacement, identifies the major challenges to protecting disaster victims, and proposes ways forward. The authors argue that while most environmentally displaced persons are expected to remain within their own countries, there is a lack of clarity about the status and protection needs of those uprooted by environmental degradation and other 'slow-onset' disasters as opposed to those displaced by 'sudden-onset' disasters. By far the biggest protection gap exists for those who cross borders. These individuals do not generally qualify as refugees under the 1951 Refugee Convention, there is no normative framework to address their specific needs and vulnerabilities and States have not been willing to commit to more than temporary protection on an ad hoc basis. The need is now critical for new approaches to be developed for the environmentally displaced, including expanded normative and institutional frameworks, comprehensive national policies, national and international monitoring, rights training, and more effective ways of dealing with governments that fail to protect their populations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

One of the most complex contemporary debates related to the regulation of armed conflict is the relationship between international humanitarian law (or the law of armed conflict) and international human rights law. Since human rights experts first began advocating for the complementary application of these two bodies of law, there has been a steady march of human rights application into an area formerly subject to the exclusive regulation of the law of armed conflict (LOAC). While the legal aspects of this debate are both complex and fascinating, like all areas of conflict regulation the outcome must ultimately produce guidelines that can be translated into an effective operational framework for war-fighters. In an era of an already complex and often confused battle space, there can be little tolerance for adding complexity and confusion to the rules that war-fighters must apply in the execution of their missions. Instead, clarity is essential to aid them in navigating this complexity. This article will explore this debate from a military operational perspective. It asserts the invalidity of extreme views in this complementarity debate, and that the inevitable invocation of human rights obligations in the context of armed conflict necessitates a careful assessment of where symmetry between these two sources of law is operationally logical and where that logic dissipates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]