Luis Alfonso De Alba was the first President of the United Nations Human Rights Council and held this mandate from 19 June 2006 to 18 June 2007. During that period, the Council was entrusted by the General Assembly with the task of designing the new institutions of the international human rights system, while at the same time fulfilling its mandate to protect and promote human rights.

The ‘War on Terror’ has led to grave human rights violations and, in response, to a growing volume of human rights litigation. The article provides an overview of litigation that has unfolded in recent years in relation to issues such as arbitrary detention, torture and ill-treatment, extraordinary rendition, extra-territorial application of human rights norms and the creeping reach of the ‘terrorism’ label. These cases provide a prism which displays key characteristics of the war on terror as it affects human rights, and enables us to begin to ask questions regarding the role of the courts and the impact of human rights litigation in this area.

The current legal regime relative to occupation is no longer based solely on customary law and treaty-based law as set forth in the law of The Hague and the law of Geneva. The article explores how this regime has undergone a thorough change with the progressive recognition of the applicability of human rights law to the situations that it governs. The author examines the interrelation of international humanitarian law and human rights at the level of their individual rules, and considers whether the rules of international humanitarian law are confirmed, complemented, relativized or even contradicted by those deriving from human rights.

The article explores the relationship between international humanitarian and human rights law during non-international armed conflict. It seeks to answer two questions: First, according to which branch of law may a member of an armed group be attacked and killed? Second, may a captured member of an armed force or group be detained similarly to a prisoner of war in international armed conflicts or as prescribed by human rights? Through application of the lex specialis principle, this article discusses possible answers to these questions.

Complementarity and mutual influence inform the interaction between international humanitarian law and international human rights law in most cases. In some cases when there is contradiction between the two bodies of law, the more specific norm takes precedence (lex specialis). The author analyses the question of in which situations either body of law is more specific. She also considers the procedural dimension of this interplay, in particular concerning the rules governing investigations into alleged violations, court access for alleged victims and reparations for wrongdoing.

The article sets out States’ obligations in relation to transfers of persons under refugee law, human rights law and international humanitarian law, and revisits the key elements of non-refoulement, including: its application where persons are transferred from one State to another or within the territory of a single State; the range of risks that give rise to application of the principle; important procedural elements; and, its effect on States’ obligations regarding diplomatic assurances.

The article outlines the legal framework that governs transfers of individuals, and in particular the international law principle of non-refoulement and other obstacles to transfers. The author addresses some of the new legal and practical challenges arising in detention and transfers in the context of multinational operations abroad and analyses the contemporary practice of transfer agreements.

This article outlines the debate on the general relationship between the law of armed conflicts and human rights and examines particularly the applicability of human rights during military occupation. Complementarity and compatibility should be evaluated case by case, on the basis of the rules making up each of these regimes and any exceptions that these rules contain. The different interests and values at stake – the interests of the occupying forces and those of the civilian population, the protection of human rights and the derogations necessary to maintain order – reveal many grey areas that still exist in the interaction between human rights law and the law of military occupation.

The debate about the simultaneous applicability of international humanitarian law and human rights affects also human rights treaty bodies. The article firstly considers the difficulty for a human rights body of determining whether international humanitarian law is applicable; second, it examines the problems in practice in applying the lex specialis doctrine and the question of derogation in this particular context. The author finally outlines the impact of the debate as to the extent of extraterritorial applicability of human rights law.

Biannual update on national legislation and case law January–June 2008

Biannual update on national legislation and case law July–December 2007

This policy document begins by defining key notions and describing the framework for action. It then outlines the principles of the ICRC’s protection framework, as well as the operational guidelines based on that framework. The document concludes by describing different types of ICRC protection activity and outlining specific considerations related to the various categories of beneficiary.

Recent acquisitions of the Library & Research Service