Public Law Studies Quarterly

The Role of the Interpretive Principle of Systemic Integration in the Mutual Development of International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law

Document Type : Article

Authors

Amir Saed Vakil 1
Fatemeh ZarifJalali 2

1 Assistant Prof. Department of Public Law, Faculty of Law and Political Science, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

2 Ph.D. Student in International Law, Faculty of Law and Political Science, Islamic Azad University, South Tehran Branch, Tehran, Iran

https://doi.org/10.22059/jplsq.2022.343055.3117
Abstract
The relationship between human rights and humanitarian law is now understood as a complementary one, insofar as human rights rules are no longer applicable in peacetime but at all times. The International Court of Justice has emphasized this issue in numerous Decisions. In international law literature, the main focus is on the interaction between these two branches of law, while less attention is paid to the complementarity of their rules and the interpretation of one’s rules in light of the other especially in light of the principle of systemic integration. The present paper examines the utility as well as the challenges and potential harms of using this approach in the general context of international law. Finally, it concludes that using systemic integration principle can strengthen application of human rights rules through international humanitarian law, or prevent normative conflict between different norms of the two branches of law, especially in regard to forceful and  arbitrary detention.

Keywords

Principle of systemic integration
human rights
international humanitarian law
treaty law
Subjects

  1. English

    1. A) Articles
    2. Borelli, S. (2015). The (Mis)-Use of General Principles of Law: Lex Specialisand the Relationship Between International Human Rights Law and the Laws of Armed Conflict. In: Pineschi, L. (eds) General Principles of Law - The Role of the Judiciary. Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice, vol 46. 265-293. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19180-5_13 .
    3. Droege, C. (2008). Elective affinities? Human rights and humanitarian law. International Review of the Red Cross,.90. 501-548. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1560775508000084.
    4. Kalderimis, Daniel. Systemic Integration and International Investment Law – Some Practical Reflections (July 6, 2012). Society of International Economic Law (SIEL), 3rd Biennial Global Conference Working Paper No. 2012/46. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2101772.
    5. Kammerhofer, J. (2010). “Systemic Integration, Legal Theory and the International Law Commission”. In J. Klabbers (Ed.). Finnish Yearbook of International Law, (19), 157–182.
    6. Kolb, Robert. (1998). The relationship between international humanitarian law and human rights law: A brief history of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the 1949 Geneva Conventions, International Review of the Red Cross. 38(324), 409-419. https://doi.org/10.1017/S002086040009121X
    7. Kwiecień, R. (2017). General Principles of Law: The Gentle Guardians of Systemic Integration of International. Polish Yearbook of International Law, (37), 235–242. https://doi.org/10.7420/pyil2017k.
    8. Mclachlan, C. (2005). The principle of systemic integration and article 31(3)(c) of the Vienna Convention. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 54(2), 279-320. https://doi.org/1093/iclq/lei001
    9. McLachlan, C. (2008). Investment treaties and general international law. International and Comparative Law Quarterly. 57(2).361-401. https://doi.org/1017/S0020589308000225
    10. Peters, A. (2017). The refinement of international law: From fragmentation to regime interaction and politicization. International Journal of Constitutional Law. 15(3), 671–704. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2823512
    11. Rachovitsa, A. (2017). The principle of systemic integration in human rights law. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 66(3), 557-588. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020589317000185
    12. Simma, Bruno. (2009), Universality of International Law from the Perspective of a Practitioner. European Journal of International Law, 20(2), 265–297. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chp028
    13. Taiwo, Ogunnaike O. (2018). Two is Better than One: Systemic Integration of International Humanitarian Law and International Human Rights Law to Boko Haram Conflict. American University International Law, Review, 33(3), 637-666.
    14. Todeschini, V. (2018). The Impact of International Humanitarian Law on the Principle of Systemic Integration. Journal of Conflict and Security Law. 23(3), 359–382. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcsl/kry028

     

    1. B) Documents
    2. African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (adopted 27 June 1981).
    3. Final Act of the International Conference on Human Rights, UN Doc. A/Conf.32/41, 22 April–13, May 1968
    4. General Comment no 31: Nature of the General Legal Obligation on States Parties to the Covenant HRCtee Doc CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.13 (26 May 2004) 11.
    5. International Law Commission, Conclusions of the Work of the Study Group on the Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law, UN Doc. A/res/61/34, para. 1(1).
    6. Report on Respect for Human Rights in Armed Conflict, UN Doc. A/7720, 20 November 1969, espch 3.
    7. American Convention on Human Rights (adopted 22 November 1969) 1144 UNTS 144
    8. Report on Respect for Human Rights in Armed Conflict, paras. 20–29, annex 1, UN Doc. A/8052, 18 September 1970
    9. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties art. 31(3)(c), opened for signature May 23, 1969, 1155 U.N.T.S. 340.
    10. <http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/CCPR/GCArticle6/GCArticle6_EN.pdf> accessed 8 February 2018.

     

    Cases

    1. Dispute Regarding Navigational and Related Rights (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), Judgment, I.C.J., Reports 2009.
    2. Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v United States of America) (Merits), ICJ Rep. 2003.
    3. Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion ICJ Rep. 1996.
    4. Aegean Sea Continental Shelf case, Judgment, ICJ Reports 1978.
    5. Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970), Advisory Opinion of 21 June 1971.
    6. South West Africa (Ethiopia v. South Africa; Liberia v. South Africa), Second Phase, Judgment of 18 July 1966, (Judge Jessup, Dissenting Opinion).
    7. Prosecutor v. Katanga (Judgment), ICC-01/04-01/07 [7 March 2014].
    8. Rodríguez Vera et al (The Disappeared from the Palace of Justice) v. Colombia, IACtHR, Series C no. 287 (14 November 2014).
    9. Anto Domingo Massacre v. Colombia, IACtHR Series C, no 259 (30 November 2012).
    10. Mapiripán Massacre v. Colombia (Merits, Reparations, and Costs), IACtHR Series C. no. 134 (15 September 2005).
    11. Serrano-Cruz Sisters v. El Salvador (Preliminary Objections), IACtHR, Series C no. 118 (23 November 2004).
    12. Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala (Merits), IACtHR, Series C no 70 (25 November 2000) 209.
    13. Palmeras v. Colombia (Preliminary Objections), IACtHR, Series C no. 67 (4 February 2000).
    14. Hassan v. United Kingdom, ECtHR, App. no 29750/09 (16 September 2014)
    15. Massacres of El Mozote and Nearby Places v. El Salvador (Merits, Reparations and Costs), IACtHR, Series C no. 252 (25 October 2012).
    16. Molina (Ecuador-Colombia) (Admissibility), IAComHR Report no. 112/10 (21 October 2010).
    17. Avilan v. Colombia, IAComHR Report no 26/97 (30 September 1997).
    18. Saavedra v. Peru, IAComHR Report no 38/97 (16 October 1997) 59.
    19. Abella v. Argentina, IAComHR Report no 55/97 (18 November 1997
    20. General Comment no 35: Article 9 (Liberty and security of person), HRCtee, Doc. CCPR/C/GC/35 (16 Dec Comment no 36 on article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, on the right to life, Revised Draft Prepared by the Rapporteur (August 2017).
    21. Draft General Comment no 36: Article 6 (Right to Life), HRCtee, Doc. CCPR/C/GC/R.36/Rev.2 (2 September 2015).

     

    References In Persian:

    1. A) Books
    2. Amirarajmand, A. (2007). The Relationship between Humanitarian Rights and Human Rights. Proceedings of the Conference on Islam and International Humanitarian Law, Writers Group, First Edition, Tehran: Helal Ahmar (In Persian).

     

    1. B) Articles
    2. Alborzi Varki, P. (2007). Human Rights and Humanitarian Rights. Constitutional Rights Quarterly. (8), 41-17. (in Persian)
    3. Mohebbi, Mohsen and Rezadoost, Vahid (2015). The Evolutionary Interpretation of Treaties in International Law in the Light of the Dispute over Shipping and Related Rights (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), International Journal of Law, (53), 9-30 (In Persian).
    4. Raminnia, M. (2014). The position of the time factor in the interpretation of the international treaty. Quarterly Journal of Legal Research, 26(13), 196-159 (In Persian).
Public Law Studies Quarterly
Volume 54, Issue 1
Spring 2024
Spring 2024
Pages 183-202

  • Receive Date 12 July 2022
  • Revise Date 03 October 2022
  • Accept Date 24 October 2022

Home

Journal Process Ethics

Peer Review Process

Submission

Indexing and Abstracting

Contact Us