HUMAN RIGHTS IN TIMES OF ARMED CONFLICTS

The present contribution deals with the issue of human rights in armed conflicts versus the concept of war. This distinction was made in Article 2, and the same in all four Geneva Convention of 1949. In this article, the distinction is made between the universal system of human rights and the International Humanitarian Law of Armed Conflicts (IHLAC). The difference of application between these two sets of law relies on the fact, that the universal agreements of human rights always apply, both in armed conflict and peace when the IHLAC applies only in times of armed conflicts. There is a difference between them in the regulation. Human rights regulate the relationship between the state and persons under its jurisdiction, regardless of their nationality and the IHLAC applies to states and individuals or armed groups distinguishing between a civilian or a veteran. About the compliance control, it is a different system too, for the IHLAC, it is the ICRC and criminal tribunals, and for human rights, there are different committees of tribunals like the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The exam of the jurisprudence of the ECtHR shows, that it does not make a distinction between a state of war and peace, which is called the humanization of the law of armed conflicts. Also, the very important question of the fragmentation of international law is examined, based on the jurisprudence of the ICJ.