Interaction of International Humanitarian Law and International Human Rights Law in the context of armed conflicts

It is indicated that the problems of the interaction of international humanitarian law and international human rights law lie in the different historical origins, evolution and application of these two branches of law. The complexity of the interaction between the IHL and the ICRC lies in their extraterritorial action and different personal spheres of application. IHL undeniably applies to international and non-international armed conflicts, regulating the conduct of states and armed groups, while the IHL is recognized as the basis of law in peacetime, but also applies in periods of conflict. Finding the points of intersection between international human rights law (IHRL) and international humanitarian law (IHL) in the context of armed conflicts is the main objective of this section. The merger of these two legal fields, traditionally divided into separate areas of responsibility in peacetime and wartime, has gained unprecedented importance in the legal analysis of modern conflicts. The impetus for the development of the new paradigm was the rapid evolution of the nature of war, characterized by the emergence of asymmetric warfare and the blurring of the boundaries between state and non­state actors. Such transformations in the theater of war require a nuanced understanding of the legal instruments used in this context, which emphasizes the need for this analysis. The urgency of the issue is emphasized by the changing dynamics of international practice. The recognition by the International Court of Justice of the continued applicability of IHRL in conflict and the definition of IHL as lex specialis emphasizes that the legal landscape is in constant flux. At the heart of this analysis is the difficulty of determining the applicability of IHL, a task that is complicated by the problems of classifying conflicts as international or non-international. The principle of derogation - whereby states may temporarily suspend certain human rights obligations - creates an additional layer of complexity, affecting the interpretation and application of laws during armed conflict. Many provisions of international human rights conventions define the protected interest and then provide that any restrictions must be justified by reference to a list of aims, which varies from article to article and treaty to treaty, that are necessary for the achievement of the aim in question and are proportionate to its achievement. In this way, the IHRL provides a mechanism for balancing the requirements of individuals with those of others or the community itself.