Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorBorelli, Silviaen
dc.date.accessioned2016-03-24T09:17:46Zen
dc.date.available2016-03-24T09:17:46Zen
dc.date.issued2015-05en
dc.identifier.citationBorelli, S. (2015) 'Jaloud v Netherlands and Hassan v United Kingdom: Time for a principled approach in the application of the ECHR to military action abroad'. Questions of International Law, 25-43en
dc.identifier.issn2284-2969en
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10547/603614en
dc.description.abstractThe aim of the present piece is not to undertake an examination of which of international human rights law (IHRL) and international humanitarian law (IHL) is ‘better’ or more appropriate to regulate the conduct of States in situations of armed conflict. Advocates of IHRL argue that it provides heightened protection for individuals, and that, by its own terms, it applies to, and is perfectly equipped to deal with situations of exception, including armed conflicts.[1] On the other hand, supporters of IHL focus on the need not to place unnecessary fetters upon the freedom of States to pursue their military objectives in situations of armed conflict, and argue that IHL provides an adequate level of protection, whilst being more pragmatic, better suited to the specificities of armed conflict and more likely to be observed by the parties to the conflict.[2] Insofar as they prioritise different values, proponents of the two opposing camps to a large extent talk past each other and the debate is therefore necessarily somewhat sterile.
dc.language.isoenen
dc.relation.urlhttp://www.qil-qdi.org/jaloud-v-netherlands-and-hassan-v-united-kingdom-time-for-a-principled-approach-in-the-application-of-the-echr-to-military-action-abroad/en
dc.subjectM120 European Union Lawen
dc.subjecthuman rightsen
dc.subjectEuropean Court of Human Rightsen
dc.titleJaloud v Netherlands and Hassan v United Kingdom: time for a principled approach in the application of the ECHR to military action abroaden
dc.typeArticleen
dc.identifier.journalQuestions of International Lawen
html.description.abstractThe aim of the present piece is not to undertake an examination of which of international human rights law (IHRL) and international humanitarian law (IHL) is ‘better’ or more appropriate to regulate the conduct of States in situations of armed conflict. Advocates of IHRL argue that it provides heightened protection for individuals, and that, by its own terms, it applies to, and is perfectly equipped to deal with situations of exception, including armed conflicts.[1] On the other hand, supporters of IHL focus on the need not to place unnecessary fetters upon the freedom of States to pursue their military objectives in situations of armed conflict, and argue that IHL provides an adequate level of protection, whilst being more pragmatic, better suited to the specificities of armed conflict and more likely to be observed by the parties to the conflict.[2] Insofar as they prioritise different values, proponents of the two opposing camps to a large extent talk past each other and the debate is therefore necessarily somewhat sterile.


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

  • Centre for Research in Law (CRiL)
    CRiL developing research activities in the areas of Law and Terrorism, Investment Treaty Arbitration, International Commercial Arbitration and Aviation Law.
  • Law

Show simple item record