LCP4807
Assignment 1
Semester 2 2025
Due 20 August 2025
,LCP4807
Assignment 1
Semester 2 2025
DUE 20 August 2025
International Human Rights Law
Overview: Strategic Function of IHRL within the International Legal Architecture
International Human Rights Law (IHRL) is a foundational pillar of post-World War II
international law, developed as a direct response to atrocities committed during the
Holocaust and other wartime abuses. Its purpose is to impose legally binding
obligations on states to respect, protect, and fulfill a range of inalienable rights for
individuals and groups, regardless of nationality or legal status. The formalization of this
framework began with the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
(UDHR) in 1948, followed by two legally binding covenants in 1966—the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR)—together forming the International
Bill of Human Rights.
The post-1945 consensus marked a legal and political shift: state sovereignty would no
longer be an absolute shield against scrutiny. Instead, states would be held accountable
for violations of individual rights through a web of treaty-based obligations, customary
international law, and monitoring mechanisms. IHRL's legal reach has since been
expanded through regional instruments (such as the European Convention on Human
Rights, the American Convention on Human Rights, and the African Charter on Human
and Peoples’ Rights), and interpreted and enforced by specialized courts and treaty
bodies.
, Unlike domestic constitutional protections, IHRL applies across jurisdictions and adapts
to contexts of peacetime, public emergency, and armed conflict, although with
varying limitations and derogation clauses under Article 4 of the ICCPR. It constrains
not only what a state may do (negative obligations) but also requires proactive
measures to ensure rights are effectively realized (positive obligations). In practice, this
includes judicial oversight of detention, due process guarantees, non-discrimination in
access to services, and the protection of economic, social, and cultural rights.
IHRL does not operate in a vacuum. It interacts constantly with other bodies of law that
share the goal of human protection but differ in scope, enforcement, and subjects of
responsibility:
• International Humanitarian Law (IHL) governs conduct during armed conflict. It
focuses on limiting suffering rather than ensuring rights.
• International Criminal Law (ICL) enforces accountability for individuals
responsible for egregious violations, including genocide, war crimes, and crimes
against humanity.
• Refugee Law protects persons forced to flee across borders due to persecution
or generalized violence, addressing gaps in protection for those beyond the
reach of their national legal systems.
Understanding the distinctions between these regimes is not merely academic. The
legal consequences of misapplying IHRL instead of IHL (or vice versa) can lead to
misjudgments on the lawfulness of use of force, detention, or judicial remedies. For
instance, applying IHRL standards to armed conflict scenarios without recognizing IHL’s
specific allowances for combatant status and use of force would lead to flawed legal
conclusions. Conversely, failing to apply IHRL extraterritorially where a state exercises
effective control over territory or persons undermines the universality of human rights
protections, as reaffirmed in Al-Skeini v. United Kingdom (ECtHR, 2011).
Therefore, the function of IHRL today is both normative and operational—it provides
the baseline from which deviations must be justified and the framework through which
legal responsibility is assessed.
Assignment 1
Semester 2 2025
Due 20 August 2025
,LCP4807
Assignment 1
Semester 2 2025
DUE 20 August 2025
International Human Rights Law
Overview: Strategic Function of IHRL within the International Legal Architecture
International Human Rights Law (IHRL) is a foundational pillar of post-World War II
international law, developed as a direct response to atrocities committed during the
Holocaust and other wartime abuses. Its purpose is to impose legally binding
obligations on states to respect, protect, and fulfill a range of inalienable rights for
individuals and groups, regardless of nationality or legal status. The formalization of this
framework began with the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
(UDHR) in 1948, followed by two legally binding covenants in 1966—the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR)—together forming the International
Bill of Human Rights.
The post-1945 consensus marked a legal and political shift: state sovereignty would no
longer be an absolute shield against scrutiny. Instead, states would be held accountable
for violations of individual rights through a web of treaty-based obligations, customary
international law, and monitoring mechanisms. IHRL's legal reach has since been
expanded through regional instruments (such as the European Convention on Human
Rights, the American Convention on Human Rights, and the African Charter on Human
and Peoples’ Rights), and interpreted and enforced by specialized courts and treaty
bodies.
, Unlike domestic constitutional protections, IHRL applies across jurisdictions and adapts
to contexts of peacetime, public emergency, and armed conflict, although with
varying limitations and derogation clauses under Article 4 of the ICCPR. It constrains
not only what a state may do (negative obligations) but also requires proactive
measures to ensure rights are effectively realized (positive obligations). In practice, this
includes judicial oversight of detention, due process guarantees, non-discrimination in
access to services, and the protection of economic, social, and cultural rights.
IHRL does not operate in a vacuum. It interacts constantly with other bodies of law that
share the goal of human protection but differ in scope, enforcement, and subjects of
responsibility:
• International Humanitarian Law (IHL) governs conduct during armed conflict. It
focuses on limiting suffering rather than ensuring rights.
• International Criminal Law (ICL) enforces accountability for individuals
responsible for egregious violations, including genocide, war crimes, and crimes
against humanity.
• Refugee Law protects persons forced to flee across borders due to persecution
or generalized violence, addressing gaps in protection for those beyond the
reach of their national legal systems.
Understanding the distinctions between these regimes is not merely academic. The
legal consequences of misapplying IHRL instead of IHL (or vice versa) can lead to
misjudgments on the lawfulness of use of force, detention, or judicial remedies. For
instance, applying IHRL standards to armed conflict scenarios without recognizing IHL’s
specific allowances for combatant status and use of force would lead to flawed legal
conclusions. Conversely, failing to apply IHRL extraterritorially where a state exercises
effective control over territory or persons undermines the universality of human rights
protections, as reaffirmed in Al-Skeini v. United Kingdom (ECtHR, 2011).
Therefore, the function of IHRL today is both normative and operational—it provides
the baseline from which deviations must be justified and the framework through which
legal responsibility is assessed.
