First of all, I would like to extend my sincere thanks to Jonathan Horowitz, Cordula Droege, and Marco Sassoli for taking the time to read my book and to engage with its arguments. All three discussants rais a number of interesting questions and although I cannot address them all here due to space limitations, they rais a number of issues that I will continue to think through and develop further. For topics: the challenge to State sovereignty pos by the regulation of arm group activity; the question of how human rights law obligations can be appli to non-State arm groups; the consideration of arm groups not party to a non-international arm conflict; and the question of compliance.
Before proceing however
I would like to flag a few issues. Although I argue that engineer data human rights law obligations can, and should, be appli to arm groups in certain situations, the State remains the original duty bearer. The fact that the State’s obligations are the starting point act as a safeguard to ensure that the State cannot rely upon the application of human rights obligations to arm groups to circumvent its own responsibilities (see the ‘respect, protect, fulfil’ framework discuss in the introductory post).
I should also note that
I regard the application of human rights obligations to arm groups as which social mia platforms are best for my business? necessary but not ideal. In normal situations the State remains the appropriate guarantor of human rights. It is only in exceptional circumstances that efforts should be made to ensure that human rights are protect to the extent possible by extending obligations to arm groups. Finally, Sassoli The purposes mobile lead of this post makes an interesting point regarding the gradat context-dependent application of customary international human rights law. This appears sensible, and is in keeping with the approach to treaty law present in the book; it requires further consideration.