They can derogate from their obligations to human rights in these times of public emergency and i think an example of an occupied territory a case of a belligerent occupation would probably constitute a public emergency and as such the most convincing thing to argue here is if we have a situation where there is a contradiction between the laws of occupation and h an rights and we have to ask which one will prevail at least in this example we would say that the convention prevails the fourth geneva convention would prevail the law of occupation would prevail but even i've already mentioned that even in this situation they don't have to have we don't have to have one prevailing over the other because they are actually compatible and even so even if there are contradictions between the law of belligerent occupation,
And the law of h an rights what's to say that we can't just pick and choose all the h an rights provisions that are applicable and apply them if there is a contradiction we can just say that okay well then this h an rights provision doesn't apply in this situation we will just apply the ones that we can and then we have at least somewhat of a protection when it comes to h an rights so it means that we could say that they don't necessarily they don't necessarily have to be a situation where one supplements the other they could just be one where they or at least supplant the other there could be one where they work together in in tandem and this is something that the international committee for the red cross believes they view h an rights as something that can be applied along with the law of belligerent occupation and not something that users occupation law,
And other scholars seem to agree as well there'll be links in the description below but what does that mean for some h an rights like the freedom of assembly or the freedom of expression it seems to be the case that there are fundamentally h an rights that cannot apply to cases of beligent occupation we've already talked about the example of self-determination but what about the freedom of assembly in the freedom of expression ultimately the universal declaration of h an rights extends broadly the right to freedom of expression this is outlined in article 20. as so too do other prominent h an rights treaties and conventions so the international covenant for sorry the international covenant on civil and political rights specifically article 21 the american declaration of the rights and duties of man that is article 21 as well and also the african charter that believe is article 11 of the article of the african charter these all provide the right for,
So the freedom of assembly and the freedom of expression now despite this neither history nor relevant legal argentation lends much credence to the suggestion that there should be no restriction in cases of belligerent occupation there should be maybe some restriction on the right to assembly and expression in these cases historically there seems to be no regard at all for the provisions of the right of assembly and expression in belligerent occupation one example one pertinent case is the israeli occupation of the gaza strip the west bank and the golan heights since 1967. this is an ongoing situation and an ongoing issue that will not be resolved anytime soon by the looks of it questions surrounding the freedom of expression and assembly inevitably center around this example since it appears that according to it appears that is the israelis approach is to follow the law of beligent occupation,
And not the law of h an rights so when there are examples of as when we're talking about questions relating to assembly and expression within areas like the gaza strip the west bank or the golan heights it seems that israel's approach is to apply occupation law and to not recognize h an rights law now this isn't me to say that this is a necessarily wrong or immoral way of operating this example it's a matter of law not necessarily a matter of ethics israeli case law also makes clear that there is a restriction on the freedom of assembly and expression in cases that are occupied territories such as the gaza strip west bank and the golan heights the israeli supreme court has made clear that there is indeed quote a capacity of the military administering authority to restrict or even totally prohibit political activities in administered territory in a further piece of case law justification was granted the duty to ensure safety and public order vests is vested in the military government,
So they uphold the duty to ensure public order and safety and in doing so that justifies the complete or at least restriction of political activities in occupied territories which would be a violation of the rights as it relates to freedom of assembly and freedom of expression okay now the justification here is one that is presented by a number of scholars as well that ultimately the freedom of assembly and expression and at least restrictions on freedom of assembly and expression must be justified to ensure public order and safety when we're talking about cases of belligerent occupation the scholar von gallon argued that a restriction would lessen the quote spirit of opposition in the population of the occupied territory the argument against restricting the right of assembly and expression seems to be at least somewhat convincing so ultimately we have a situation here,
There are some to be had relating to certain h an rights and that certain h an rights probably aren't compatible with the concept of belligerent occupation occupied territory you can reference things like the freedom of assembly and freedom of expression but in my opinion the most pertinent example the best example is that of self-determination it seems to be fundamentally incompatible with the law as it relates to belligerent occupation now at the end of the day this kind of question this kind of legal debate that we've been talking about for the last nearly 40 minutes on 40 minutes now seems to be one that is not going to go away and it seems to be one that is going to be a very pertinent question especially within the next few weeks and months as we are going into the i believe fifth or sixth day of conflict in ukraine and russia now this wasn't supposed to be a lesson or at least a podcast episode talking specifically about the russian ukraine situation,
But ultimately all the things that have been mentioned here that i've that i've talked about here will also apply to this situation so it's very difficult to separate the two things here and it's very difficult to talk about anything other than what has been one of the most significant aspects of international law that we've seen in a very long time so ultimately we will continue to talk about this topic we will continue to talk about things that are sort of tangentially related to the russia ukraine situation i want to talk about the potential international court of justice decision on legality of war i want to talk about potential war crimes that have been committed at least so far and then we can talk about other things as well as it relates to law there are so many other suggestions that we have there are so many other things in law that i want to talk about as well it just seems to be the case that all of those things have been put on the back burner,
If you will because of the ongoing situation in russia ukraine now i hope you've enjoyed listening to this i hope you've learned something from this if you have any questions or if you have any comments or any suggestions for future topics or future videos that we can do let us know in the comments below share this video also follow us on twitter that's quite a good thing as well follow us on twitter because we've been posting some really good stuff whether or not be whether it be things that might make you laugh as well as things that are actually quite potentially interesting so do that as well all the links will be in the description and i hope you've enjoyed it and i'll see you back for another episode in the future.
Post a Comment