The Competence of the Un Human Rights Council and its Special Procedures in Relation to Armed Conflicts: Extrajudicial Executions in the 'War on Terror'

Abstract

Since 2003, as part of its ' war on terror ' , the United States has taken the position that the UN Commission on Human Rights and its successor, the UN Human Rights Council, as well as the system of ' special procedures ' reporting to both bodies, all lack the competence to examine abuses committed in the context of armed confl icts. The article examines the argu- ments put forward by the US in the specifi c context of the work of the UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions. The authors conclude that the consistent practice of the human rights organs for almost 25 years, often supported and until 2003 never opposed by the US, runs counter to the current US position. Acceptance of the US position would not only undermine efforts to hold the US accountable but would also have a major impact on the international system of accountability as a whole.