Skip to search boxSkip to navigationSkip to main content

Jaloud v Netherlands and Hassan v United Kingdom: time for a principled approach in the application of the ECHR to military action abroad

Research Output: Contribution to journal Article Peer-review

Open access

Sustainable Development Goals

  • SDG 16 - Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
    SDG 16 Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

Abstract

The 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.

Publication Information

Output type

Research Output: Contribution to journal Article Peer-review

Original language

English

Pages from-to (Number of pages)

Pages 25-44

Journal (Volume, Issue Number)

Questions of International Law (Volume 2)

Publication milestones

  • Published - 01/05/2015

Publication status

Published - 01/05/2015

ISSN

2284-2969

External Publication IDs

  • handle.net: 10547/603614

Access to documents

Publication metrics

Metrics

Download statistics
Download count
4