Report on International Humanitarian law

Subject: Arts, Law

Introduction
Ever since the dawn of primitive society, human beings antagonized each other. War is a rot to
humanity and involves most brutal and arbitrary violences. In all ages men have suffered under
the sword and the yoke. Despite this, some norms or rules were developed the hoary past for the
purpose of limiting the consequences of war and to protect men against the evils of war and
arbitrary treatment. Jean Pictet who is recognized as the father of modern international
Humanitarian law aptly saysThe laws of war are as old as war itself and war is as old as life on the earth[1]
The laws of war are to be found in the leading religion, practices of warlords, writings of
philosophers, customary rules of warfare and multilateral treaties concluded mostly in Geneva
and the Hague in the 19th and 20th centuries.
But the stark reality shows that armed conflict still exist and claim an increasing number of
victims in particular those who should remain immune under the law: the civilian population. To
achieve better protection for those victims, IHL must be better known among those who should
apply it: combatants, public officials and especially in the growing number of situations where
structures of authority have disintegrated, the whole population.

Chapter 1.1
International Humanitarian law
International Humanitarian law forms a major part of public International law and comprises the
rules which in times of armed conflict, seek to protect persons who are not or are no longer
taking part in the hostilities, and to restrict the methods and means of warfare employed, It is
also called the law of armed conflict. Its traditional name was the law of war.
International Humanitarian law can be defined as the branch of international law limiting the use
of violence in armed conflicts by:
a) Sparing those who do not or no longer directly participate in hostilities;
b) Limiting the violence to the amount necessary to achieve the aim of the conflict, which can
be independently of the causes fought for only to weaken the military potential of the enemy.
According to Jean Pictet Humanitarian law is that considerable portion of international law
which is inspired by a feeling for humanity and is centred on the protection of the individual in
time of war

International Humanitarian law, which is an emergency law applicable in international or noninternational armed conflict, is a branch of International law. Now-a-days this subject is
receiving keen attention from all epochs. There is an increasing number of writing and analysis
on International Humanitarian law. Recently, several excellent text books on that matter have
been published in different languages. Now the present study is a little attempt to enlighten the
discussion on the development of IHL, and to enhance the international humanitarian assistance
in the continuance of armed conflict or war devastated economy. It is pertinent to mention here
that International Humanitarian law is omnipresent in contemporary conflict. But the provisions
of humanitarian conventions (mainly Geneva) have no relevance in the contemporary crisis,
rather than there is the practice of belligerency in Kosovo, Bosnia, Chechnya, Liberia, Sierra
Leone and glaring example of Afghanistan and Iraq. Their (humanitarian convention)
effectiveness or implementation is a dismal failure. So, the aims of my research and analysis is to
elucidate the framework of International Humanitarian law, to establish the legal relationship
between International Humanitarian law and International; law of Human rights and to point out
the evolution and development of International Humanitarian law and finally to evaluate the role
played by the ICRC in the implementation of International Humanitarian law. So, I would like to
say that prior to any operation in the name of international co-operation it should comply with
International Humanitarian law just to lessen the humanitarian catastrophe and to deliver abrupt
humanitarian assistance.

Chapter 1.2
Basic Principles of International Humanitarian law
International Humanitarian law has in particular universal vocation, since it applies to men and
countries. The humanitarian principles are common to all human communities whenever they
may be. The main object of IHL is to regulate hostilities in order to attenuate their hardships and
protect the civilian from the curse of armed conflict. Humanitarian law has two branches, one
bearing the name of Geneva and the other the name of The Hague. The basic principles of IHL
are as follows:
i)

The distinction between civilians and combatants;

ii)

The prohibition to attack those hors de-combat;

iii)

The prohibition to launch attacks against the civilian;

iv)

The prohibition to inflict unnecessary suffering;

v)

Protections of the prisoners of war;

vi)

The principle of necessity;

vii)

Protection of the wounded, sick and shipwrecked persons;

viii)

The principle of proportionality;

Chapter 1.3
Development of International Humanitarian Law
The development of IHL is not really a subject of today, if we look back to the ancient period, it
will be evident that the ancient civilization particularly Greek and Roman Civilization played a
very significant role in the development of International Humanitarian Law. In this period
International Humanitarian Law was developed through some stages.
In the ancient period during the continuance of war people maintained various categories of rules
which were similar to modern international rules of war: rules distinguishing types of enemies,
rules defining the circumstances, formalities and authority for beginning, rules describing
limitations of persons, time place, and methods etc[2]. The great Genghis Khan was famous for
his powerful and successful army. Genghis Khan was also famous for his ruthless efficiency in
battle, or quite simply, his ruthlessness.[3] In the ancient period various categories of nations
maintained their respective rules during the war time. It is elaborated below:
Grotius did not abandon the idea of the just war, but considered that the inherent competence of
the state to wage war was a more important element in war than the justice of its causes and
regarded was as one of the means of conserving the state. In his famous treatise De jure belli ac
pacis he wrote, In war we must always have peace in mind He was the first to assert that the
Just cause invoked by a state to resort to war did not negate the duty of the belligerents to
observe the laws of war. Grotius believed that the population of an adverse country was an
enemy, at the mercy of the winner. At the same time he insisted that violence beyond what was
necessary for victory was not justified. Since violence is no longer regarded as the administration
of punishment, it ceases to be an end in itself; it becomes a means, to be used with increasing and
measured moderation.In his major work, De jure belli ac pacis, which the Catholic Church kept
on the index of forbidden books until 1899, Grotius enumerated the Temperament belli which
constitute part of the most solid foundations of the law of war.
Development of scientific Spirit and Humanization of War:
The 17th century opened the age of enlightenment which among other things witnessed the birth
of humanization, an advanced and rational form of charity and justice. The philosophers refused
to consider suffering as a fatality and no longer accepted the doctrine that every man was
responsible for the misery in the world. They held that all men had equal and inalienable rights,
which it was the responsibility of the states to guarantee.
In the 18th century war became a struggle between professional armies with smaller numbers of
soldiers. Civilians were no longer directly involved, because the armies had their own supply
services & pillage was forbidden, war was, in short, under human control. The humanization of
war proceeded rapidly at least in Europe. In 1875s, Treaty of Friendship and Peace was arrived
at by Frederick the Great and Benjamin Franklin.

The recurrence of comparable clauses created a veritable customary law which may be summed
up as follows:
Hospitals shall be immunized and be marked by special flags with identifying colours for each
army.
The wounded and sick shall not be regarded as province of war, they shall be cared for like the
soldiers of the army which captured them and sent home after they are cured.

Doctors & their assistants and Chaplains shall not be taken as captives & shall be
returned to their own side.

The lives of prisoners of war shall be protected and they shall be exchanged without
ransom.

The peaceful civilian population shall not be molested.

Foundation of the Red Cross:

The horrendous situation had hardly improved by the beginning of the second half of the 19th
century. Following the siege of Messina in 1848, Doctor Palasciano, one of the precursors of the
Red Cross, having barely escaped the death penalty, was sentenced to one year in prison for
bandaging the wounds of the defeated garrison. When the Crimean War broke out in 1854, the
medical service of the Franco-British expeditionary corps was virtually non-existent. Of the 3,
00,000 men in this army 83, 00 died of diseases in unspeakable conditions of disaster and
distress, Mortality among the amputees was 72 percent. It took the prodigious energy and
devotion of Florence Nightingale, a 26 year old English woman, the toll of death and misery. In
the concourse of the conflict all the customary principles of humanitarian law had fallen by the
wayside.
From the above it is evident that the International Committee of the Red Cross was established at
the latter part of the 19th century, which was a great milestone in the history of human
civilization. This institution, though national in composition but international in character and
activity, was the product of the endeavour of a great man Henry Dunant to whom the world owes
too much for his services to mankind.
Development of International Humanitarian law at a glance
500 BCE

Customs

Bilateral treaties
Customary law1859Henry Dunant Assists the wounded on the battlefield of
Solferino.1863Lieber Code (Institutions for the government of armies of the United States in the
field).1864First Geneva Convention1868Saint Petersbnur Declaration Renouncing the Use; in
Time of War, of Certain Explosive Projectiles.1880Oxford Manual on the Laws of War on

Land.1899/1907Hague Conventions.1913Oxford Manual on the Laws of Naval

War.1925Geneva Protocol for the prohibition of the Use of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other
Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare.1929First Geneva Convention on Prisoners of
war.
1945/1948

1949

Establishment of the International Military Tribunals in Nuremberg

and Tokyo for the Prosecution and punishment of the major war
criminals.
Four Geneva ConventionsI. on wounded and sick in the field.

ii. On wounded, sick and shipwrecked at sea.

Iii. on prisoners of war.
iv. on Civilians (in the hand of enemy)
Common Art. 3 on non-international armed conflict.1954Hague Convention for the Protection of
cultural property in the Event of Armed Conflict.1963The Lieber code of the customary law of
war.1977Two protocols additional to the Geneva Conventionsi. applicable in international armed conflicts. (including national liberation wars),
ii. applicable to non-international armed conflicts.1980UN convention on prohibitions or
Restrictions of the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons.1993Paris Convention of the
prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical weapons and on
their Destruction.1993/1994Established of International Criminal Tribunals for the Former
Yugoslavia (in the Hague) and Rwanda (in Aruda)1995/1996Protocols to the 1980 Weapons
Convention protocol IV on Blinding Laser Weapons.1997Ottawa Convention Banning Antipersonnel land mine.1998Adoption of the Statues of the International committee of the Red
Cross by the assembly of the ICRC replacing those of 1973.
Chapter 2
Human Rights
Human rights refer to the basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled. Examples
of rights and freedoms which have come to be commonly thought of as human rights include
civil and political rights, such as the right to life and liberty, freedom of expression, and equality
before the law; and economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to participate in
culture, the right to food, the right to work, and the right to education.
Chapter 2.1
Historical Development of Human Rights

Several ancient documents and later religions and philosophies included a variety of concepts
that may be considered to be human rights. Notable among such documents are the Edicts of
Ashoka issued by Ashoka the Great of India between 272-231 BC; and the Constitution of
Medina of 622 AD, drafted by prophet Muhammad to mark a formal agreement between all of
the significant tribes and families of Yathrib (later known as Medina), including Muslims, Jews
and Pagans. The English Magna Carta of 1215 is particularly significant in the history of English
law, and is hence significant in international law and constitutional law today.
Much of modern human rights law and the basis of most modern interpretations of human rights
can be traced back to relatively recent history. The Twelve Articles of the Black Forest (1525)
are considered to be the first record of human rights in Europe. They were part of the peasants
demands raised towards the Swabian League in the Peasants War in Germany. The British Bill
of Rights (or An Act Declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Settling the
Succession of the Crown) of 1689 made illegal a range of oppressive governmental actions in
the United Kingdom. Two major revolutions occurred during the 18th century, in the United
States (1776) and in France (1789), leading to the adoption of the United States Declaration of
Independence and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen respectively,
both of which established certain legal rights. Additionally, the Virginia Declaration of Rights of
1776 encoded a number of fundamental rights and freedoms into law.
The Charter does not establish any particular of human rights protection and the emphasis is
upon the non-intervention in the affairs of member States of the United Nations.[4] These were
followed by developments in philosophy of human rights by philosophers such as Thomas Paine,
John Stuart Mill and G. W. F. Hegel during the 18th and 19th centuries. The term human rights
probably came into use sometime between Paines The Rights of Man and William Lloyd
Garrisons 1831 writings in The Liberator saying he was trying to enlist his readers in the great
cause of human rights.
Many groups and movements have managed to achieve profound social changes over the course
of the 20th century in the name of human rights. In Western Europe and North America, labour
unions brought about laws granting workers the right to strike, establishing minimum work
conditions and forbidding or regulating child labour. The womens rights movement succeeded
in gaining for many women the right to vote. National liberation movements in many countries
succeeded in driving out colonial powers. One of the most influential was Mahatma Gandhis
movement to free his native India from British rule. Movements by long-oppressed racial and
religious minorities succeeded in many parts of the world, among them the civil rights
movement, and more recent diverse identity politics movements, on behalf of women and
minorities in the United States.
The establishment of the International Committee of the Red Cross, the 1864 Lieber Code and
the first of the Geneva Conventions in 1864 laid the foundations of International humanitarian
law, to be further developed following the two World Wars.
The World Wars, and the huge losses of life and gross abuses of human rights that took place
during them were a driving force behind the development of modern human rights instruments.
The League of Nations was established in 1919 at the negotiations over the Treaty of Versailles

following the end of World War I. The Leagues goals included disarmament, preventing war
through collective security, settling disputes between countries through negotiation, diplomacy
and improving global welfare. Enshrined in its Charter was a mandate to promote many of the
rights which were later included in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
At the 1945 Yalta Conference, the Allied Powers agreed to create a new body to supplant the
Leagues role. This body was to be the United Nations. The United Nations has played an
important role in international human rights law since its creation. Following the World Wars the
United Nations and its members developed much of the discourse and the bodies of law which
now make up international humanitarian law and international human rights law.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is a non-binding declaration adopted by
the United Nations General Assembly in 1948, partly in response to the atrocities of World War
II. Although the UDHR is a non-binding resolution, it is now considered to be a central
component of international customary law which may be invoked under appropriate
circumstances by national and other judiciaries. The UDHR urges member nations to promote a
number of human, civil, economic and social rights, asserting these rights are part of the
foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world. The declaration was the first
international legal effort to limit the behaviour of states and press upon them duties to their
citizens following the model of the rights-duty duality.
The UDHR was framed by members of the Human Rights Commission, with former First Lady
Eleanor Roosevelt as Chair, who began to discuss an International Bill of Rights in 1947. The
members of the Commission did not immediately agree on the form of such a bill of rights, and
whether, or how, it should be enforced. The Commission proceeded to frame the UDHR and
accompanying treaties, but the UDHR quickly became the priority.[9] Canadian law professor
John Humprey and French lawyer Ren Cassin were responsible for much of the cross-national
research and the structure of the document respectively, where the articles of the declaration
were interpretative of the general principle of the preamble. The document was structured by
Cassin to include the basic principles of dignity, liberty, equality and brotherhood in the first two
articles, followed successively by rights pertaining to individuals; rights of individuals in relation
to each other and to groups; spiritual, public and political rights; and economic, social and
cultural rights. The final three articles place, according to Cassin, rights in the context of limits,
duties and the social and political order in which they are to be realized. Humphrey and Cassin
intended the rights in the UDHR to be legally enforceable through some means, as is reflected in
the third clause of the preamble:
Chapter 2.2
Treaties
In 1966, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) were adopted by the United

Nations, between them making the rights contained in the UDHR binding on all states that have
signed this treaty, creating human rights law.
Since then numerous other treaties (pieces of legislation) have been offered at the international
level. They are generally known as human rights instruments. Some of the most significant are:

Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) (adopted

1966, entry into force: 1969) [1]
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women
(CEDAW) (entry into force: 1981) [2]
United Nations Convention Against Torture (CAT) (adopted 1984, entry into force:
1984) [3]
Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) (adopted 1989, entry into force: 1989) [4]
International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and
Members of their Families (ICRMW) (adopted 1990, entry into force: 2003)

Chapter 3
Comparative Studies
Both international humanitarian law (IHL) and international human rights law (IHRL) strive to
protect the lives, health and dignity of individuals, albeit from a different angle. It is therefore
not surprising that, while very different in formulation, the essence of some of the rules is
similar, if not identical. For example, the two bodies of law aim to protect human life, prohibit
torture or cruel treatment, prescribe basic rights for persons subject to a criminal justice process,
prohibit discrimination, comprise provisions for the protection of women and children, and
regulate aspects of the right to food and health. On the other hand, rules of IHL deal with many
issues those are outside the purview of IHRL, such as the conduct of hostilities, combatant and
prisoner of war status and the protection of the Red Cross and Red Crescent emblems. Similarly,
IHRL deals with aspects of life in peacetime that are not regulated by IHL, such as freedom of
the press, the right to assembly, to vote and to strike.
Today there can no longer be any dubiety; international humanitarian law and international
human rights law are near relation. This off-repeated observation must now be accepted by al1l.
Many believe that the close relationship between those two existed and was perceived from the
outset. The relationship between humanitarian law and human rights are elaborated.
The term IHL is a relatively new term of international law which applied to those rules of intl
law with an aim to protect persons suffering from the evils of armed conflicts.
In the early 1950s the ICRC first used the term to denote the law of Geneva Convention which
previously had been considered simply a part of the law.
The term humanitarian law was first proposed by Jean Pictet who is recognized as the father of
Modern International Humanitarian Law.

According to him Humanitarian law is that considerable portion of international law which is
inspired by a feeling for humanity and is centered on the protection of the individual in time of
war.
International Humanitarian Law is based on the norms of international laws rather than national
constitutions and municipal laws. It refers to intl rules, whether of conventional or customary
origin, that are specifically designed to resolve humanitarian problems resulting from armed
conflicts international or otherwise. The historical development of International Humanitarian
Law shows that it is consisted of convention, declarations, regulations etc. adopted mainly in
Geneva and The Hague. Modern International Humanitarian Law is embodied primarily in the
four Geneva Convention of 1949 and two Protocols of 1977 and in rules of customary law.
In contrast, Human rights, which were typically called the rights of man or natural rights, are
those rights which are universally inherent inviolable and inalienable rights of all members of
human family which primarily the state are to ensure to their citizen by providing a well defined
procedure.
Thomas Paine may have been the first to use the term human rights, in his English translation of
the French Declaration of the Rights of Man adopted by the national Assembly of France in 1789
which prefaced the constitution of 1791.
The idea of human rights to a great extent evolved as a result of political absolutism since rights
of man became a slogan against the injustices and indignities committed by tyrannical or
despotic governments. It was developed as a part of the constitutional law of the individual
states. The classic doctrine of international law had no place for human rights at all.
According to Oppenheim, the so-called rights of man cannot enjoy any protection under
international law, because that law is concerned solely with the relations between states and
cannot confer rights on individuals.
Human rights primarily concerned relation between states and their own nations, an area
traditionally regarded as a domestic matter. Human rights, in fact, did not enter the field of
international law until the end of World War II. The atrocities committed during that war served
as the catalyst for international concern for human rights and radically changed the theory and
practice of the law of nations.Thus, international concern with human rights is a contemporary
development, dating largely from the Second World War.
Official link between Human Rights and Humanitarian Law:
Despite the keen interest in international guarantee of human rights in the years following World
War II, no connection between human rights and humanitarian law was recognized for many
years. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 or the European Convention for the
protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, 1950 does not refer to the rights of
enemy nationals in time of war. The UN intl law commission in 1949 decided not to include the
law war among the subject of its concern.

Not until 1981 was a link officially established between human rights and humanitarian law the
international conference on human right, convened by the United Nations at Teheran adopted a
resolution that called for meaningful application of further agreements.Under the title human
rights in Armed conflict the resolution initiated UN action on humanitarian law. Although the
United Nations spoke of human rights, it meant humanitarian law. It is thus, seen that
humanitarian law is coming to be recognized as the particular branch of human rights law
which relates to human rights in times of armed conflict.
The relationship between these two branches of international law became particularly obvious in
the war of national liberation. People encased in such was fought for self- determination, which
is recognized as a human right in the international conversions, and for recognition as a party to
an international armed conflict to which humanitarian law is applicable. Thus attempts at selfdetermination trigger both human rights and humanitarian law questions .
Impact of Human Rights on Humanitarian law:
Human rights conventions have influenced humanitarian law, but the converse has not been true.
The influence of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, the four Genera Conventions
of 1949 is apparent. The strongest impact of human rights conventions on humanitarian law
however may be seen in the two protocols of 1977, which supplemented the conventions of
1949. Several provisions in the two Protocols of 1977 are dirty derived from the ICCPR, 1966
particularly article 75 of Protocol I and article 4& 6 of Protocol II.
The convergence of humanitarian law and human rights those that war and peace, civil war and
international war as well as international law and domestic law are increasingly intertwined.
Consequently, the law of war and the law of peace, as well as humanitarian law and human
rights, which were originally clearly distinct in scope, are now often applicable
simultaneously.[5]
Respective fields of application:
The humanitarian conventions are applicable in armed conflicts. The conventions protect persons
of enemy nationality, or in the case of internal armed conflict, members of the opposition parties
within the country. The object of International Humanitarian Law is to regulate hostilities in
order to attenuate their hardships.
International Humanitarian Law includes international legal settlement of armed conflicts and
protection of their victims, because in all cases when armed conflicts break out, the object of the
international law community should be their utmost humanization, termination and provision of
assistance to the victims. In pursuing this policy the international law community has worked out
the Geneva Convention for the protections of war victims and Protocols Additional to these
conventions. (1977).
On the other hand, human rights conventions however, in principal apply during peacetime as
well as in armed conflicts and persons within the Jurisdiction of a state. In actual practice the
Human Rights conventions have a very limited application to armed conflicts. Human Rights

Conventions contain clauses permitting the ratifying states to derogate their obligations in times
of public emergency on war. In most armed conflicts, therefore, the majority of human rights
may be suspended.
Substantive Rights:
A comparison of the substantive rights guaranteed by humanitarian law and by human rights
conventions results in three categories of rights.
Firstly, some rights are common to both human rights and humanitarian law. Among these rights
are the prohibitions of violence to the life, health or physical or mental well being of persons,
torture and other inhuman treatment and the guarantees of a fair judicial procedure in the case of
penal prosecution.
Secondly, there are some rights which are specific to the human rights conventions but that have
no relevance to armed conflicts. Among these rights are the economic, social and cultural
guarantees of the International Covenant on Economic social liberties such as the freedom of
expression and association, the right to marry etc.
Thirdly, there are some rights which are specific to the humanitarian Law (Conventions) but
applicable in armed conflict, these rights are intended to protect the wounded and a sick member
of the armed forces, prisoners of wars, civilian internees and other persons.
Thus, the substantive rights guaranteed by humanitarian law and human rights conventions
demonstrate similarities and dissimilarities between humanitarian law and human rights law.
Enforcement mechanism:
The enforcement mechanism of human rights and humanitarian law are different in nature.
Human rights may be enforced by the international Law tribunal provided the domestic remedies
have been exhausted. For this complaints to be made by a contracting party or by the individuals
whose rights have been infringed.
On the other hand, humanitarian law may be protected through the protecting power and / or the
ICRC. Only in few cases it can be enforced by the judicial authority.
Status under international legal system:
The relationship between international Humanitarian Law and Human Rights in International
Law are obscure and will probably remain a matter of controversy for some time. Several jurists
have offered proposals to alleviate this problem. There are three views in this regardAccording to Pictet International Humanitarian Law should comprise both human rights and
humanitarian Law, But his agreements can not be accepted on the ground that International
Humanitarian Law is used for Law of armed conflict and not for human rights.

According to A.H. Robertson, Humanitarian Law is one branch of the Law of Human Rights,
and human rights afford the basis for humanitarian Law Similarly G.I.A.D. Draper considered
humanitarian Law as a regime of human rights adapted to the particular needs of armed conflicts.
There is another view which is opposite to that mentioned above. According to this view,
humanitarian Law and human rights regulate different subjects and are of a different nature. In
Henry Meyrowitzs opinion, the ideological controversies existing with regard to human rights
confusing humanitarian law with human rights is dangerous for humanitarian law.
The Philosophy of Humanitarian law and human rights:
International Humanitarian Law is increasingly perceived as part of human rights applicable in
armed conflict. It was developed at a time when recourse to force was not illegal as an
instrument of national policy. Although it is true that one of the influences on the development of
the law in Europe was the church just war doctrine, which also encompassed the
justice resorting to force the foundations of international Humanitarian Law were laid at a time
when there was no disgrace in beginning a war. The law was therefore, in large part based on the
appropriate respect that was due to another professional army. We will here as a good illustration
of the philosophy underlying the
customary law of the war the Lieber Code of as this Code
was used as the principal basis for development of the Hague Conventions of 1899 an 1907
which in turn influenced later development.
The relevance of war being a lawful activity at the time is reflected in Art.67 of the Lieber Code:
The law of nations allows every sovereign govt. to make war upon another sovereign state, and
there are admits of no rules or laws different from those of regular warfare, regarding the
treatment of prisoners of war, although they may belong to the army of a govt. which the captor
army consider as a wanton and unjust assailant.
The Lieber Code was regarded at the time as generally reflecting customary law although in
places it particularly stressed the importance of respecting humanitarian treatment which, in
practice was not always accorded.
Unlike human rights law, however, there is no concept of derogation in humanitarian law.
Derogation in human rights is allowed in most general treaties in times of war or other
emergency threatening the life of the nation. Humanitarian law is precisely for those situations,
and he rules are fashioned in a manner that will not undermine the ability of the army in
questions win the war.
International Humanitarian Law indicates how a party to a conflict is to behave in relation to
people at its mercy, where human rights law are concentrates on the rights of the recipients of a
certain treatment. In the appearance of the treaty International Humanitarian law seems long and
complies where as human rights treaties one comparatively short and simple.
Conceptual similarities are present day between humanitarian rights law:

Having looked at the origins and formulation of these two areas of law, we can now turn to their
present method o inter perdition and implementation. The most important change as far as
humanitarian law is concerned is the fact that recourse to war is not longer a legal means of
regulating conflict. In general humanitarian law is how less perceived as a code of honour for
combatants than as a means of sparing non- combatants as much as possible from the horrors of
war. From a purist human rights point o view, based as it is on respect for human life and well
being the use of force is in itself a violation of human rights. This was indeed stated at the 1968
Human rights conference in Tehran as follows:
Peace is the underlying condition the full observance of human rights and war is their
negation.
The most important general observation to be made is thud like human rights law, humanitarian
law is based on the premise that the protection accorded to victims of war must be without any
discrimination. This is such a fundamental rule of human rights that it is specified not only in the
UN charter but also in all human rights treaties. One of many examples is humanitarian law is
Art. 97 of the fourth Geneva Convention of 1949:
all protected persons shall be treated with the same consideration by the party to the conflict in
whose power they are, without any adverse distinctions based, in particular or race, religion on
political opinion.
The mutual influence of human rights and Humanitarian Law:
There are two kinds of reasons for the almost total independence of International Humanitarian
Law rights law immediately after the World War II. The first relate to the genesis and
development of the branches concerned. However, their present convergence, as described
earlier, makes the establishment of certain closer links between two legal domains conceivable.
In the connection, Art. 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions is revealing. Miniature treaty
within the Conventions Common Art.3 lays down the basic rules which states are required to
respect when confronted with armed groups on their own territory. It thus humanitarian law
which in principle, did not between itself with the relations between a state and its nationally.
The true turning point when International Humanitarian Law and human rights gradually began
to draw closer came in 1968 during the International conference on Human Rights in Teheran, at
which the UN for the first time considered the application of human rights in armed conflict. The
interlinking of human rights and humanitarian law can also be seen in the work of bodies
responsible for monitoring and implementation international law.
In the connection it is interesting to not that in recent years the Security Council has been citing
humanitarian law more and more frequently in support of its resolutions. The latest example of
this tendency can be found in Resolution (1993) on the conflict in the former Yugoslavia, in
international tribunal for the prosecution of persons responsible for serious violations of
International Humanitarian Law committed in the territory of the former Yugoslavia since
1991.

A body more specifically concerned with the implementation of human rights the commission an
Human Rights, likewise no longer hesitates to invoke humanitarian law to back up its
recommendations. The report on the situation of human rights in Kuwait under Iraqi Occupation
at its 48th session is a clear example.
Conclusion:
Eventually, before concluding our discussion we can say that International Humanitarian law
was conceived and developed gradually through ancient period, middle period and a greater
extent during modern period. Although Human rights and humanitarian law have totally different
historical origins, it is resultantly coincided and has influenced each other in recent
developments. Both the human rights and humanitarian law now have a much greater
international profile and are regularly being used together in the work of both international and
non governmental organizations. There can be no doubt that the growing prominence of human
rights law in recent decades is largely due to the activism of non-governmental human rights
organizations. Several have now begun to use humanitarian law in their work and may well exert
a considerable influence in the future, and it is to be hoped that continued recognition of the
specific nature of humanitarian law, together with the various energies devoted to
implementation of human right law, will have the effect of enhancing the protection of the
person in situations of violence. Despite some justifications between humanitarian law and
human rights, it is not entirely satisfactory, Human rights and humanitarian law are satisfactorily
described as independent parts of international law, with common aims, some common
principles and overlapping areas of concern and effect. This is the prudent approach which
demarcates the status of human rights and humanitarian law under the international legal system