The Alchemy of the Right to Life during the Conduct of Hostilities: A Normative Approach to Operationalizing the ‘Supreme Right’

IF 1.8 3区 社会学 Q2 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS European Journal of International Law Pub Date : 2023-08-01 DOI:10.1093/ejil/chad045
Gus Waschefort
{"title":"The Alchemy of the Right to Life during the Conduct of Hostilities: A Normative Approach to Operationalizing the ‘Supreme Right’","authors":"Gus Waschefort","doi":"10.1093/ejil/chad045","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The prevailing approach to the application of the right to life during the conduct of hostilities holds that the arbitrariness of loss of life in terms of international human rights law (IHRL) is determined by compliance with international humanitarian law (IHL). Through application of the interpretive principle of systemic integration, an alternative ‘normative approach’ is advanced. The normative approach is premised on a contextual consideration of the normative content and underlying values of the right to life rather than on the more mechanical approaches to its interpretation. The outcome reached that is based on this approach has two profound distinctions to that of the prevailing approach: (i) not all loss of life where IHL was not strictly complied with is ipso jure arbitrary and, conversely, (ii) at times, compelling factors necessitate a recalibration of arbitrariness along a spectrum between IHRL and IHL, with the result that loss of life may amount to arbitrary deprivation of life even when IHL is fully complied with. In the context of quintessential military operations, a two-pronged normative test is advanced to determine the circumstances in which non-compliance with IHL will result in arbitrary deprivation of life.","PeriodicalId":47727,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of International Law","volume":"40 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of International Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chad045","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract The prevailing approach to the application of the right to life during the conduct of hostilities holds that the arbitrariness of loss of life in terms of international human rights law (IHRL) is determined by compliance with international humanitarian law (IHL). Through application of the interpretive principle of systemic integration, an alternative ‘normative approach’ is advanced. The normative approach is premised on a contextual consideration of the normative content and underlying values of the right to life rather than on the more mechanical approaches to its interpretation. The outcome reached that is based on this approach has two profound distinctions to that of the prevailing approach: (i) not all loss of life where IHL was not strictly complied with is ipso jure arbitrary and, conversely, (ii) at times, compelling factors necessitate a recalibration of arbitrariness along a spectrum between IHRL and IHL, with the result that loss of life may amount to arbitrary deprivation of life even when IHL is fully complied with. In the context of quintessential military operations, a two-pronged normative test is advanced to determine the circumstances in which non-compliance with IHL will result in arbitrary deprivation of life.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
敌对行为期间生命权的炼金术:实施“最高权利”的规范方法
摘要对于在敌对行为中适用生命权的普遍看法是,国际人权法规定的生命损失的任意性取决于对国际人道法的遵守。通过应用系统整合的解释原则,提出了另一种“规范方法”。规范性方法的前提是对生命权的规范性内容和潜在价值的上下文考虑,而不是对其解释的更机械的方法。基于这种方法得出的结果与主流方法有两个深刻的区别:(i)并非所有未严格遵守国际人道法的生命损失都是法律上任意的,相反,(ii)有时,令人信服的因素需要沿着国际人道法和国际人道法之间的范围重新校准任意性,结果是即使完全遵守国际人道法,生命损失也可能构成任意剥夺生命。在典型军事行动的背景下,提出了一种双管齐下的规范检验,以确定不遵守国际人道法将导致任意剥夺生命的情况。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
8.30%
发文量
70
期刊介绍: The European Journal of International Law is firmly established as one of the world"s leading journals in its field. With its distinctive combination of theoretical and practical approaches to the issues of international law, the journal offers readers a unique opportunity to stay in touch with the latest developments in this rapidly evolving area. Each issue of the EJIL provides a forum for the exploration of the conceptual and theoretical dimensions of international law as well as for up-to-date analysis of topical issues. Additionally, it is the only journal to provide systematic coverage of the relationship between international law and the law of the European Union and its Member States.
期刊最新文献
The Progressive Development of International Law on the Return of Stolen Assets: Mapping the Paths Forward A Deeper Understanding of the Constitutional Status of Māori and Their Rights Required: A Reply to Christian Riffel Constitutional Law-making by International Law: The Indigenization of Free Trade Agreements Revisiting Röling and Cassese’s Appraisal of the Tokyo Tribunal Is Imitation Really Flattery? The UK’s Trade Continuity Agreements: A Reply to Joris Larik
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1