Battling for Human Rights?

Tom Hadden

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

The achievement of the objectives of international security, peacekeeping operations and peace enforcement, like the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan after the initial invasions, and of unilateral security operations, like those in Chechnya, Lebanon and Gaza, is often threatened by high levels of civilian casualties and physical destruction. Much of this is legitimized under the laws of armed conflict, notably the principles of legitimate military objectives and collateral damage, but would be contrary to human rights standards. This article argues that the claim that the laws of armed conflict and human rights are complementary is misleading and that international and national security, peacekeeping and peace-enforcement operations designed to protect and promote human rights should in principle be conducted under human rights standards. It explains how this could be achieved for international operations conducted under the auspices of United Nations Security Council Resolutions and/or status-of-forces agreements.
LanguageEnglish
Pages309-326
JournalInternational Peacekeeping
Volume17
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 22 Sep 2010

Fingerprint

human rights
international security
peacekeeping
peace
Chechnya
Law
Lebanon
national security
invasion
Afghanistan
Iraq
UNO
damages
Military

Keywords

  • human rights

Cite this

Hadden, Tom. / Battling for Human Rights?. In: International Peacekeeping. 2010 ; Vol. 17, No. 3. pp. 309-326.
@article{a0bcbdc5757c4ec0b3bf3ae8daa575a7,
title = "Battling for Human Rights?",
abstract = "The achievement of the objectives of international security, peacekeeping operations and peace enforcement, like the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan after the initial invasions, and of unilateral security operations, like those in Chechnya, Lebanon and Gaza, is often threatened by high levels of civilian casualties and physical destruction. Much of this is legitimized under the laws of armed conflict, notably the principles of legitimate military objectives and collateral damage, but would be contrary to human rights standards. This article argues that the claim that the laws of armed conflict and human rights are complementary is misleading and that international and national security, peacekeeping and peace-enforcement operations designed to protect and promote human rights should in principle be conducted under human rights standards. It explains how this could be achieved for international operations conducted under the auspices of United Nations Security Council Resolutions and/or status-of-forces agreements.",
keywords = "human rights",
author = "Tom Hadden",
year = "2010",
month = "9",
day = "22",
doi = "10.1080/13533312.2010.500141",
language = "English",
volume = "17",
pages = "309--326",
journal = "International Peacekeeping",
issn = "1353-3312",
number = "3",

}

Battling for Human Rights? / Hadden, Tom.

In: International Peacekeeping, Vol. 17, No. 3, 22.09.2010, p. 309-326.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Battling for Human Rights?

AU - Hadden, Tom

PY - 2010/9/22

Y1 - 2010/9/22

N2 - The achievement of the objectives of international security, peacekeeping operations and peace enforcement, like the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan after the initial invasions, and of unilateral security operations, like those in Chechnya, Lebanon and Gaza, is often threatened by high levels of civilian casualties and physical destruction. Much of this is legitimized under the laws of armed conflict, notably the principles of legitimate military objectives and collateral damage, but would be contrary to human rights standards. This article argues that the claim that the laws of armed conflict and human rights are complementary is misleading and that international and national security, peacekeeping and peace-enforcement operations designed to protect and promote human rights should in principle be conducted under human rights standards. It explains how this could be achieved for international operations conducted under the auspices of United Nations Security Council Resolutions and/or status-of-forces agreements.

AB - The achievement of the objectives of international security, peacekeeping operations and peace enforcement, like the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan after the initial invasions, and of unilateral security operations, like those in Chechnya, Lebanon and Gaza, is often threatened by high levels of civilian casualties and physical destruction. Much of this is legitimized under the laws of armed conflict, notably the principles of legitimate military objectives and collateral damage, but would be contrary to human rights standards. This article argues that the claim that the laws of armed conflict and human rights are complementary is misleading and that international and national security, peacekeeping and peace-enforcement operations designed to protect and promote human rights should in principle be conducted under human rights standards. It explains how this could be achieved for international operations conducted under the auspices of United Nations Security Council Resolutions and/or status-of-forces agreements.

KW - human rights

U2 - 10.1080/13533312.2010.500141

DO - 10.1080/13533312.2010.500141

M3 - Article

VL - 17

SP - 309

EP - 326

JO - International Peacekeeping

T2 - International Peacekeeping

JF - International Peacekeeping

SN - 1353-3312

IS - 3

ER -