Human rights conventions have much more rigorous protections for those victims, and access to accountability mechanisms. They state that the humanitarian law conventions developed to mitigate the deleterious effects of conventional international armed conflict are ineffective in controlling the consequences of contemporary asymmetric warfare. Proponents of international human rights law maintain that it is the only regime capable of adequately protecting the victims of violence in non-international armed conflict. The tension has created divergent standards of interpretation of the two regimes, which has led to the inconsistent application of human rights and humanitarian law norms. The reasons are the changing nature of warfare and its participants and slow modernization of humanitarian law conventions. In the last four decades, international human rights norms have expanded to occupy the field previously dominated by humanitarian law and have become the primary legal regime for governing the use of force in non-international armed conflict.
Currently, the two regimes are in tension.
There are two similar but competing legal regimes in the international domain that protect people: human rights law and humanitarian law.
0 kommentar(er)
