Human rights and counter-terrorism

The situation in Palestine has influenced the deployment of international human rights law and international humanitarian law. The impact of longterm Israeli occupation and the rule of the Palestinian Authority in the Occupied Territory is multifaceted. Despite the various research on Palestine, human rights, and the rule of law, few studies have been conducted on the enforcement mechanisms of human rights in Palestine. This study examines the applicability of international human rights and humanitarian laws as well as domestic laws to assess the contribution of these directives in protecting the fundamental human rights of Palestinians in the Occupied Territory. It conducts an in-depth case study of three basic rights: the right to movement, the right to property, and the right to equality and non-discrimination in the Occupied Territory. The study further examines the role of the Palestinian High Court of Justice and the Israeli Supreme Court in implementing domestic and international laws. In this regard, the study examines the major laws which are invoked, in certain circumstances, to limit the ability of Palestinians to confiscate, expropriate, and destruct their private property, and to implement discriminatory practices against them. The study further examines whether the available international and domestic mechanisms are effective, and if not, it suggests modifications upon which a functional national and international system could be built. The findings of the research demonstrate that international human rights treaties and international humanitarian law conventions are de facto and de jure applicable in the Occupied Territory. As a result of the aforementioned in-depth study cases, it can be concluded that human rights violations against Palestinians in the Occupied Territory are committed by the Palestinian Authority and the Israeli government. In addition, the Palestinian and the Israeli judiciaries have failed to grant Palestinians reasonable protection or a just remedy, and they are dysfunctional and politically driven. The study concludes with a proposal for new mechanisms for Palestinians to redress human rights violations. The further outcomes of this study argue that neither international human rights nor humanitarian law guarantee full protection for Palestinians. Hence, the implication of the findings indicates that the regulations of international human rights and humanitarian laws, which were made by the powers of the nineteenth century with their colonial provisions, might not fit to the present complications of the current challenges to international law in Palestine. The goal is to promote a re-thinking approach to the employment of human rights to serve all people in an efficient and well-organized system. The scope of this study is not meant to grant Palestinians favorable treatment in the multilateral international system, but to achieve just and successful remedies for victims of human rights violations.

The issue of state accountability for human rights violations remains a central concern within contemporary international law. While the international legal framework has progressively evolved to recognize and protect fundamental human rights, enforcement mechanisms against sovereign states often remain fragmented and politically constrained. This paper critically examines the legal principles, institutional mechanisms, and practical challenges involved in holding states accountable for violations of internationally recognized human rights norms. The study explores the inherent tension between state sovereignty and international human rights obligations, emphasizing how traditional notions of non-intervention have been reshaped by emerging doctrines such as the Responsibility to Protect (R2P). It further analyzes the role of global and regional institutions, including the International Criminal Court and the United Nations Human Rights Council, in promoting accountability and ensuring compliance with international standards. Through doctrinal analysis and case studies—such as allegations of torture linked to the United States and the international response to the Rwandan Genocide—the paper highlights both the progress and limitations of international accountability mechanisms. It also evaluates the concept of state responsibility, the duty to prosecute, and the effectiveness of enforcement tools such as economic sanctions and international adjudication. The research concludes that while significant advancements have been made in codifying human rights norms and establishing accountability frameworks, substantial gaps remain in implementation due to political interests, lack of universal jurisdiction, and enforcement challenges. Strengthening international cooperation, enhancing institutional independence, and reinforcing legal obligations are essential to ensure that states are held accountable for human rights violations in a consistent and effective manner. Keywords: State Accountability; Human Rights Violations; International Law; State Responsibility; Duty to Prosecute; Sovereignty; Responsibility to Protect; International Justice; Genocide; Torture; Economic Sanctions; Universal Jurisdiction; Rule of Law; Global Governance; Human Rights Protection.

Social Rights in Refugee Law and Human Rights Law: The Non-discrimination Principle as a Harmonization Tool

The concept of fundamental human rights is observed in most works of human rights scholars (both Islamic and non-Islamic). This concept and its examples may appear self-evident at first glance; however, upon reviewing the relevant works, it becomes evident that no single definition of this concept and its examples has been provided. This lack of consensus is due to the sensitivity of these rights and their impact on the normative hierarchy of the human rights system. The present study, which has been conducted using a descriptive-analytical method and library-based tools, aims to explain the concept of fundamental human rights and their examples within the framework of the international human rights system and the Islamic approach. The findings of the study indicate that the examples of fundamental human rights, as well as the process of their formation within the framework of the international human rights system, are narrower compared to the Islamic human rights approach. On the other hand, in the Islamic human rights approach, the requirements of political jurisprudence and attention to political and governmental necessities can bring the examples and processes of formation of fundamental human rights in the international and Islamic human rights systems closer together.

Nigeria is facing significant security challenges arising from terrorism, particularly from groups such as Boko Haram and Islamic State West Africa Province (IWAP). In response, Nigerian government has adopted various counterterrorism strategies, such as military operations, emergency security regulations and intelligence gathering. While these measures intend to protect national security and maintain public order, they equally raise concerns in respect of violations of fundamental human rights. The aim of this paper is to examine the relationship between counterterrorism measures and human rights in Nigeria, with particular reference to the implementation of the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022. The paper argues that although combating terrorism is a legitimate state objective, counterterrorism strategies must comply with human rights obligations under domestic and international law. the paper uses doctrinal and analytical methodology, relying on primary and secondary sources of information. The paper finds that despite the existence of legal safeguards, some of the counterterrorism strategies adopted by Nigerian government undermine the rule of law and due process. The paper concludes that although counterterrorism remains important component of Nigeria’s national security, efforts to combat terrorism ought not to undermine the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended). It recommends reforms aimed at ensuring that counterterrorism operations are conducted in strict compliance with national and international human rights obligations.

Background: COVID-19 prevention and mitigation efforts were abrupt and challenging for most countries with the protracted lockdown straining socioeconomic activities. Marginalized groups and individuals are particularly vulnerable to adverse effects of the pandemic such as human rights abuses and violations which can lead to psychological distress. In this review, we focus on mental distress and disturbances that have emanated due to human rights restrictions and violations amidst the pandemic. We underscore how mental health is both directly impacted by the force of pandemic and by prevention and mitigation structures put in place to combat the disease.Methods: We conducted a review of relevant studies examining human rights violations in COVID-19 response, with a focus on vulnerable populations, and its association with mental health and psychological well-being. We searched PubMed and Embase databases for studies between December 2019 to July 2020. Three reviewers evaluated the eligibility criteria and extracted data.Results: Twenty-four studies were included in the systematic inquiry reporting on distress due to human rights violations. Unanimously, the studies found vulnerable populations to be at a high risk for mental distress. Limited mobility rights disproportionately harmed psychiatric patients, low-income individuals, and minorities who were at higher risk for self-harm and worsening mental health. Healthcare workers suffered negative mental health consequences due to stigma and lack of personal protective equipment and stigma. Other vulnerable groups such as the elderly, children, and refugees also experienced negative consequences.Conclusions: This review emphasizes the need to uphold human rights and address long term mental health needs of populations that have suffered disproportionately during the pandemic. Countries can embed a proactive psychosocial response to medical management as well as in existing prevention strategies. International human rights guidelines are useful in this direction but an emphasis should be placed on strengthening rights informed psychosocial response with specific strategies to enhance mental health in the long-term. We underscore that various fundamental human rights are interdependent and therefore undermining one leads to a poor impact on the others. We strongly recommend global efforts toward focusing both on minimizing fatalities, protecting human rights, and promoting long term mental well-being.

The activity of the European Court of Human Rights is investigated and the significance of the relevant practice of the European Court for the judicial practice of Ukraine is determined. It is emphasized, that a constitutional complaint serves as an effective means of protecting fundamental human rights, strengthening the rule of law and building democracy, which has already been tested in many countries around the world. The article notes that the institution of constitutional complaint significantly expands the possibilities of protecting citizens. In general, this institution is a kind of constitutional appeal, which should be understood as a written petition, submitted to the Court to review the constitutionality of the law of Ukraine (its constitutional provisions), which is used in the final court decision in the case of the subject of a constitutional rights complaint. The author also draws attention to the issues of advantages and disadvantages of a constitutional complaint and a constitutional appeal separately. Thus, one of the advantages of having a constitutional complaint is that the grounds for filing a constitutional complaint are a violation of fundamental human and civil rights. The advantages also include the fact that, unlike a constitutional appeal, which is a mechanism solely for interpreting a certain provision of the law, which excludes the possibility for individuals to apply to a constitutional justice body to declare regulations unconstitutional, a complaint directly provides such a right. However, at the same time, the model of the constitutional complaint, introduced in Ukraine on the subject, is an incomplete normative constitutional complaint, which is related to the consideration of a specific case. After all, according to it, only one type of normative legal act is subject to appeal, a law, and only the one that was applied during the trial of the person. It is stated, that ensuring the possibility of a person to take an active part in the control over the activities of higher state authorities, which is implemented in the relevant legal forms, provides grounds for recognizing a constitutional complaint as one of the modern institutions of democracy. In fact, a constitutional complaint is an effective procedural means to protect the fundamental rights and freedoms of citizens

The relationship between violations of fundamental human rights and serious international crimes is obvious because at the very core, both can be persecutory. Those who are victims of serious breaches to their most fundamental human rights, that may constitute a serious international crime, and who flee to seek asylum abroad can claim refugee protection on the basis of a well-founded fear of being persecuted on one or more of the five grounds of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees: race, religion, nationality, political opinion and membership in a particular social group. Those who perpetrate such serious international crimes and/or serious breaches to others' most fundamental human rights; that is, those who are responsible for creating refugees – through the persecution of others – are excluded from receiving refugee protection. Indeed, given the nature of their offence or contribution to serious breaches in other peoples' most fundamental human rights, or for their liability in the commission of serious international crimes, they can be subject to prosecution. This chapter will look at a number of cases where individuals have been excluded from refugee protection and then prosecuted for their serious international crimes and/or serious breaches to other people's most fundamental human rights and/or human dignity. As an instrument of justice, both the 1951 Convention and its system of refugee protection, together with the international criminal justice system, with the International Criminal Court (ICC) now at its head, must work together to ensure that those who are excluded from refugee protection for serious breaches to our most fundamental human rights and/or for the commission of serious international crimes must be brought to justice through their criminal prosecution. This can be done under the principles of territorial jurisdiction, extraterritorial jurisdiction, or international criminal institutions, primarily, the ICC. Hence, there is a direct relationship between those who are responsible for creating refugees, the perpetrators of serious international crimes and for the breaches to fundamental human rights and human dignity, and their victims, those who are forced to flee their States and who seek asylum abroad. But those who are responsible for perpetrating serious international crimes and are responsible for generating forced displacement also attempt to seek asylum abroad. Those are the asylum seekers who ought to be excluded from refugee protection. Those who are responsible for the commission of serious international crimes and, hence, causing the forced displacement, should not only be excluded from refugee protection but also prosecuted for their serious criminality when warranted.

Introduction: The ongoing conflict in Palestine has severely impacted its healthcare system, with hospitals and medical personnel frequently targeted by Israeli forces. This paper examines the unjustifiable targeting of healthcare in Palestine, highlighting violations of human rights and international law. Objective: The study investigates the extent of these attacks, analyzes their legal implications, and proposes recommendations for protecting healthcare in conflict zones. Research problems: It addresses the legal issues of systematic and deliberate targeting of healthcare in Palestine, which constitutes a grave violation of human rights and international law, and seeks to shed light on the magnitude and consequences of this problem. Method: Using a multidimensional approach, this paper analyzes the legal and contextual issues surrounding the targeting of healthcare in Palestine. The analysis employs human rights theory to assess the impact of these attacks on fundamental rights. Results: Findings reveal a systematic pattern of attacks on healthcare facilities and personnel, leading to numerous casualties, infrastructure damage, and disruption of essential medical services. These attacks violate international humanitarian law, including the Geneva Conventions and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Conclusion: targeting of healthcare in Palestine is a serious violation of human rights and international law, calling for immediate action to protect healthcare and hold perpetrators accountable. Recommendations include strengthening international monitoring mechanisms, pursuing legal accountability through international courts, and increasing international pressure on Israel to respect its obligations under international law. Legal professionals must act decisively to address this crisis, aiming for a future where peace, justice, and the right to life and health are respected for all.

Freedom of expression is one of the fundamental human rights guaranteed in various international legal instruments. The development of information and communication technology, especially social media, has opened up new spaces for people to express their opinions. This research aims to analyze the protection of the right to freedom of opinion through social media from a human rights perspective. This research uses normative legal research methods with a qualitative approach. Research data was obtained through literature studies of various statutory regulations, books, scientific journals and other legal sources. The data that has been collected is then analyzed in three stages, namely data reduction, data presentation and drawing conclusions. The research results show that the protection of freedom of expression on social media is regulated in various policies including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR). Meanwhile, in Indonesia it is regulated in the 1945 Law, the Human Rights Law, and Law Number 19 of 2016. The right to freedom of opinion through social media is a fundamental human right that needs to be protected. This right is considered a fundamental right that cannot be reduced or limited by anyone or the state, this emphasizes the need for strong fulfillment and protection of this right. However, this right also needs to be balanced with the responsibility to use it wisely and responsibly.

Private non-natural persons (such as companies) and even public legal entities (such as municipalities) are increasingly being recognized as subjects of criminal liability. Therefore, this contribution deals with three issues. First, can legal entities find protection under international fundamental human rights treaties (ICCPR, ECHR, ACHR, AfChHPR) when criminal law and criminal procedure are applied against them? Second, is it possible for individual stakeholders in these entities to invoke human rights protection, when the violation is in fact directed against the organization in which they have an interest? Yet, human rights are not just relevant as protections for legal persons: there is a growing awareness that they are responsible for human rights violations. So, third: do international human rights obligations require states to provide for the possibility that juristic entities may be held criminally responsible for such violations?

Human rights queryfalse are typically presented in terms of entitlements, correlative duties, claims, “trumps,” and remedies. 1 These framings, which draw principally on law and philosophy, emphasi...

Background: This research paper examines the legality of espionage during peacetime under the rules of international law. To address this issue, the paper focuses on several relevant international law rules, including the obligation to respect the sovereignty of other states and the prohibition on intervention. Although espionage is a longstanding instrument of statecraft essential for safeguarding national security, it occupies an uncertain legal position. International legal frameworks, including the UN Charter and customary international law, establish obligations such as the respect for state sovereignty and the prohibition of intervention, which espionage activities frequently challenge. The growth of modern surveillance capabilities, especially in the cyber domain, further complicates the legal and ethical boundaries of espionage. Methods: The study draws upon relevant international rules, such as the UN Charter and customary international law, as well as recent rulings by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), which can serve as a foundation for developing regulatory frameworks for espionage operations and surveillance activities. The study adopts a doctrinal legal research approach by systematically analysing primary sources of international law, including treaties, customary law principles, and jurisprudence from the ICJ and the ECtHR. It also incorporates a comparative review of state practice and relevant academic commentary to assess whether existing legal norms adequately regulate espionage activities during peacetime. Results and Conclusions: The findings indicate that espionage occupies a legally ambiguous space, particularly concerning the applicability of core principles of non-intervention and state sovereignty—especially in the cyber domain. In parallel, privacy has become enshrined in emerging human rights law, and legal safeguards around state surveillance have been introduced, emphasising proportionality, accountability, and supervision. Still, espionage operates in a highly nuanced legal and ethical territory that is neither wholly abhorrent nor entirely permissible. This contradiction reflects the ongoing tension between the challenges of balancing national security and the protection of individual rights. While espionage is widely acknowledged as vital to state security, international law does not explicitly ban it despite its potential to violate sovereignty and the principle of non-intervention. However, international law—through its emphasis on territorial integrity and sovereign equality—does not impose certain restraints on espionage activities. The study concludes that although espionage remains a multifaceted and indispensable component of state actions, it should not violate the principles and laws of sovereignty, human rights, or the broader framework of international law during peacetime. Legal and ethical ambiguity persists, necessitating the development of clearer regulatory frameworks that strike a balance between legitimate intelligence gathering and respect for sovereignty and individual rights. Ultimately, the research underscores that intelligence activities should not be permitted to undermine the stability of the international legal order or erode fundamental human rights protections.

This scientific article presents a comprehensive doctrinal and legal analysis of the concept of a “victim of armed conflict,” taking into account the provisions of international humanitarian law, international human rights law, Ukrainian national legislation, as well as doctrinal approaches of leading scholars and the practice of implementing humanitarian standards. The relevance of the study is determined by the need for a systematic understanding of the legal status of war victims in the context of the ongoing armed aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine, which has resulted in large-scale violations of human rights, humanitarian crises, and social losses. It is established that the development of a unified approach to interpreting the concept of a “victim of armed conflict” is a necessary prerequisite for forming a coherent state policy in the field of protecting affected persons. The article analyzes the main international treaties – the 1949 Geneva Conventions, the 1977 Additional Protocols, and United Nations acts – as well as the scientific concepts of foreign and Ukrainian scholars, including J. Pictet, A. Cassese, F. Kalshoven, M. Sassòli, Y. Dinstein, T. Meron, V. Butkevych, M. Buromenskyi, O. Zadorozhnyi, M. Hnatyovskyi, T. Korotkyi, N. Khendel, S. Shramko, A. Vozniuk, I. Zhuk, and others. The interrelation between the norms of international humanitarian law and international human rights law is identified, ensuring a universal approach to the protection of persons who have lost the ability to defend themselves. Based on the synthesis of international, national, and doctrinal sources, the author formulates the following definition: a victim of armed conflict is a natural person, regardless of citizenship, procedural status, or affiliation with a party involved in the armed conflict, who has suffered physical, psychological, material, or moral harm or a significant violation of fundamental rights and freedoms as a result of an armed conflict, occupation, or act of aggression, and who is entitled to state protection, assistance, and reparation in accordance with the norms of international humanitarian law, international human rights law, and Ukrainian legislation. The results obtained have scientific and practical significance for improving Ukrainian legislation, harmonizing legal terminology, developing administrative and legal mechanisms, and shaping state policy in the field of protecting victims of armed conflict.

This paper focused on the analysis of enforcement of state responsibility for breaches of some international obligations of an essential nature. These obligations relate to non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the fight against international terrorism, and the protection of fundamental human rights. Ali such obligations are considered to be essential and relate to new security challenges; there are, however, certain differences among them when considering the structure of primary obligations and legal consequences of their breach. Treaties on disarmament and non-proliferation of weapons, by their nature, encompass obligations erga omnes partes which are interlinked. A breach by one state changes the position of the other State Parties (all-or-nothing obligations). Although classic legal responsibility consequences of unlawful conduct may, due to their erga omnes partes nature, apply only with limitations, the respective regimes established by the treaties rely on special control mechanisms. Erga omnes partes obligations of an integral nature apply primarily in the area of human rights. Such obligations were adopted to protect collective interests. Unlike obligations resulting from disarmament treaties, they represent a different type of obligation. A state may not stop observing human rights due to another state’s violation (i.e. not use symmetric countermeasures). Other parties to such an obligation may, on the other hand, require the responsible state to cease unlawful conduct. This mostly applies only within control mechanisms of a judicial or other nature established by treaties. Obligations arising out of responsibility can be of an erga omnes nature only in the case of violation of human rights obligations created by peremptory norms of general international law. Where multilateral treaties on terrorism are at issue, obligations have a partly bilateral, partly integral obligation character (resembling human rights treaties in this respect). Should a breach occur this gives rise primarily to responsibility of a state inter partes. However, the respective treaties do not provide for a special institutionalised control regime, and in this they differ from the two above-mentioned groups. The gap has recently been filled by resolutions of the UN Security Council establishing obligations erga omnes the breach of which may give rise to responsibility under general international law of a similar nature. Enforcement of obligations relating to the prohibition and non-proliferation of WMD and the fight against terrorism does not require new individual coercive means. First, states may use countermeasures without the use of farce. Second, collective coercive measures may be sometimes used instead of individual means upon the recommendation or decision of a body of the respective international organisation. Third, the use of farce may serve as an extreme means of coercion if it has been so decided by the UN Security Council according to Chapter VII of the Charter. Fourth, should a serious and imminent threat occur states may not be deprived of the right to individua] or collective self-defence. The situation seems to be much more complicated in the case of extremely serious violations of erga omnes obligations to protect human rights. However, individual or collective countermeasures free from force may not be excluded although their efficiency is usually disputable. The Security Council has proven that such cases can be designated as a threat to peace under Chapter VII of the Charter. Its permission is required for states to intervene using force. However, the right to self-defence may not be invoked due to the substance of the issue. If force were used for humanitarian reasons to stop genocide or mass violation of basic human rights, or to enforce responsibility erga omnes, the existing international law does not permit the use of individua) armed countermeasures. Considering the issue from the point of view of international legal rules de lege lata, humanitarian intervention cannot yet be regarded as legal no matter what criteria for its legitimacy may exist. Instead, it is necessary to seek a strengthening of collective coercive mechanisms. Therefore the latest proposals of institutional reform of the UN, which result, among other things, from a newly defined responsibility to protect, could be very important.