Humanitarian law, human rights law and the bifurcation of armed conflict

This article offers a fresh examination of the distinction drawn in international humanitarian law (IHL) between international and non-international armed conflicts. In particular, it considers this issue from the under-explored perspective of the influence of international human rights law (IHRL). It is demonstrated how, over time, the effect of IHRL on this distinction in IHL has changed dramatically. Whereas traditionally IHRL encouraged the partial elimination of the distinction between types of armed conflict, more recently it has been invoked in debates in a manner that would preserve what remains of the distinction. By exploring this important issue, it is hoped that the present article will contribute to the ongoing debates regarding the future development of the law of non-international armed conflict.

The standardization of contracts for construction

Contracts are put to a wide variety of uses. Those who draft construction contracts in the UK rarely consider all of the potential uses and therefore may produce documents that are less than ideal. The various uses are considered in their theoretical background before turning to the practical difficulties often encountered in trying to fulfil such diverse aims. The question of standardisation is examined within this context. Existing standard forms of contract in the UK are found to do little to overcome these difficulties, and this encourages either a significant level of amendment to the standards or experienced clients to draft their own forms. The solution is an approach to contract drafting which is designed to offer a compromise; better standard forms, based on the lessons learned from the drafting of non-standard forms and a pooling of experience, including that of lawyers, in the drafting process. Although this paper is based upon the experience of the UK, these conclusions are relevant for contract-drafting practice in general.

Truth commissions: a barrier to the provision of judicial assistance?

Truth commissions and criminal trials have come to be perceived as complementary transitional justice mechanisms. However, where effective prosecutions are dependent on the exchange of information and transfer of suspects between states under existing mutual legal assistance and extradition arrangements, the operation of a truth commission in the state of territoriality may act as an obstacle to international cooperation. At the same time, requests for assistance from a third state pursuing prosecutions may impact negatively on the truth commission process in the requested state by inhibiting those reluctant to become involved in criminal proceedings from offering testimony. This article demonstrates a practical discord between these bodies when they operate in different states and questions whether they can truly be considered “complementary”.