THE NEXUS BETWEEN INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW AND INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW: A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF THE ISRAEL, UNITED STATES, AND IRAN CONFLICT

Abstract

International Human Rights Law (IHRL) seeks to protect the fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals at all times, while International Humanitarian Law (IHL) specifically regulates the conduct of parties during armed conflict and seeks to minimise human suffering. The changing dynamics of modern warfare have increasingly blurred the traditional distinction between peace and armed conflict, thereby necessitating the concurrent application of both legal regimes. This study adopts a doctrinal methodology to examine the relationship between IHRL and IHL, using the ongoing hostilities involving Israel, the United States, and Iran as a case study. It investigates the operation of the principle of lex specialis and the extent to which IHL and IHRL complement or conflict with one another in regulating the conduct of hostilities and protecting individuals. The study argues that a complementary and harmonised application of IHL and IHRL provides the most effective legal framework for safeguarding human dignity and ensuring accountability during armed conflict. It concludes that although significant legal, political, and enforcement challenges persist, the convergence of these two legal regimes is essential to addressing the complexities of modern warfare and strengthening the international legal order.