This is the basis for the propos framework regulating how human rights obligations can be appli to arm groups in practice, which attempts to ensure that State sovereignty is respect to the extent possible. See the ‘respect, protect, fulfil’ framework discuss in the introductory post, and for more detail, chapters 7 and 8.
Interestingly States’ reluctance to address issues
Relat to the regulation of arm groups when they themselves are fac with an arm group highlights the ne for international regulation. This was the approach adopt in the IHL context, noting the move away from a State-bas approach to the classification of a situation (through a declaration of war or recognition of belligerency) to the objective standard codifi in Articles 2 and 3 common to the 1949 Geneva Conventions.
Both Droege and Sassoli rais questions regarding the legal basis for the application of human rights obligations to arm groups, as non-State actors. The wording of the principal international human rights law treaties is clear: their obligations apply to States. However, in exceptional circumstances involving the displacement of State authority, the question arises as to whether job seekers data international law provides a basis for extending these obligations to arm groups. My approach to this question is motivat by the principle of effectiveness (ensuring that international law remains relevant to the situations it is intend to address) and the necessity of ensuring continu human rights protection to the extent possible in exceptional circumstances.
Although this argument is present in greater
detail in the book, simply put it holds that when an arm group displaces State authority it substitutes its. Authority for that of the State. As such, the arm group establishes itself as a ‘vertical authority’ and so the normal authority relationship envisag. By international human rights law remains intact (horizontal human rights obligations are not at issue). The legal rationale customer-orient text underpinning this conclusion is bas on the de facto control theory and the impli mandate (longstanding principles which hold that certain acts of a de facto authority. Should be recognis in the interests of the affect population), and an evolutionary approach to treaty interpretation as adopt by mobile lead the International. Court of Justice. For example, ‘…interpretation cannot remain unaffect by the subsequent development of law.