Rethinking the permissive function of military necessity in internal non-international armed conflict
Host item entries:
Israel law review, Vol. 51, issue 2, July 2018, p. 235-259
This article advocates limiting the permissive impact of military necessity on the right to life. It has been argued that military necessity justifies deviations from international human rights law (IHRL) because this body of law is inadequate to deal with the necessities arising out of armed conflict. The article argues that while this rationale is convincing, it should not mean that conduct that is lawful under humanitarian law is necessarily also lawful under human rights law. The article concludes by exploring the potential for IHRL to play a role in tempering superfluous violence in NIAC that is similar to that which jus ad bellum plays in international conflict.
By entering this website, you consent to the use of technologies, such as cookies and analytics, to customise content, advertising and provide social media features. This will be used to analyse traffic to the website, allowing us to understand visitor preferences and improving our services. Learn more