This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.
I accept this policy
Find out more here
Road to Nowhere? The Future for a Declaration on Fundamental Standards of Humanity
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.
Brill’s MyBook program is exclusively available on BrillOnline Books and Journals. Students and scholars affiliated with an institution that has purchased a Brill E-Book on the BrillOnline platform automatically have access to the MyBook option for the title(s) acquired by the Library. Brill MyBook is a print-on-demand paperback copy which is sold at a favorably uniform low price.
1878-1373
You must be logged in to use this functionality
In the years following the adoption of the Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions in 1977, debate emerged regarding the extant lacunae in the international rules relating to armed conflict. It was argued that there were gaps in international humanitarian law (IHL) and international human rights law with regards to so-called ‘grey-zone conflicts’ – armed conflicts that did not reach the minimum threshold of either Protocol II or Common Article 3. Therefore, it was proposed that a declaration outlining the minimum humanitarian standards applicable in all situations of violence and conflict be adopted. By 1990, this debate had crystallised around the Turku Declaration on Minimum Humanitarian Standards. However, progress on the declaration quickly stalled once discussion was moved to the United Nations. Since 1995, there have been nine reports by the Secretary-General on the question of fundamental standards of humanity to use the current terminology. Over the years, the scope and content the fundamental standards of humanity has become clearer, yet the adoption of a document on these fundamental standards is no more imminent than when the issue first moved to the United Nations. This article will therefore examine why and how this apparently vital piece of international policy has stalled.
Abstract
In the years following the adoption of the Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions in 1977, debate emerged regarding the extant lacunae in the international rules relating to armed conflict. It was argued that there were gaps in international humanitarian law (IHL) and international human rights law with regards to so-called ‘grey-zone conflicts’ – armed conflicts that did not reach the minimum threshold of either Protocol II or Common Article 3. Therefore, it was proposed that a declaration outlining the minimum humanitarian standards applicable in all situations of violence and conflict be adopted. By 1990, this debate had crystallised around the Turku Declaration on Minimum Humanitarian Standards. However, progress on the declaration quickly stalled once discussion was moved to the United Nations. Since 1995, there have been nine reports by the Secretary-General on the question of fundamental standards of humanity to use the current terminology. Over the years, the scope and content the fundamental standards of humanity has become clearer, yet the adoption of a document on these fundamental standards is no more imminent than when the issue first moved to the United Nations. This article will therefore examine why and how this apparently vital piece of international policy has stalled.
Full text loading...
back to top