International human rights law in the context of "Karim Ahmad Khan"

Play Trivia Questions online!

or

Skip to study material about International human rights law in the context of "Karim Ahmad Khan"

Ad spacer

⭐ Core Definition: International human rights law

International human rights law (IHRL) is the body of international law designed to promote human rights on social, regional, and domestic levels. As a form of international law, international human rights law is primarily made up of treaties, agreements between sovereign states intended to have binding legal effect between the parties that have agreed to them; and customary international law. Other international human rights instruments, while not legally binding, contribute to the implementation, understanding and development of international human rights law and have been recognized as a source of political obligation.

International human rights law, which governs the conduct of a state towards its people in peacetime is traditionally seen as distinct from international humanitarian law which governs the conduct of states and non-state armed groups during conflict, although the two branches of law are complementary and in some ways overlap.

↓ Menu

>>>PUT SHARE BUTTONS HERE<<<
In this Dossier

International human rights law in the context of Freedom of speech

Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction. The right to freedom of expression has been recognised as a human right in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and international human rights law. Many countries have constitutional laws that protect freedom of speech. Terms such as free speech, freedom of speech, and freedom of expression are often used interchangeably in political discourse. However, in legal contexts, freedom of expression more broadly encompasses the right to seek, receive, and impart information or ideas, regardless of the medium used.

Article 19 of the UDHR states that "everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference" and "everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice". The version of Article 19 in the ICCPR later amends this by stating that the exercise of these rights carries "special duties and responsibilities" and may "therefore be subject to certain restrictions" when necessary "[f]or respect of the rights or reputation of others" or "[f]or the protection of national security or public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals".

↑ Return to Menu

International human rights law in the context of Egalitarianism

Egalitarianism (from French égal 'equal'; also equalitarianism) is a school of thought within political philosophy that builds on the concept of social equality, prioritizing it for all people. Egalitarian doctrines are generally characterized by the idea that all humans are equal in fundamental worth or moral status. As such, all people should be accorded equal rights and treatment under the law. Egalitarian doctrines have been important in many modern political philosophies and social movements, including the Enlightenment, classical liberalism, libertarianism, feminism, civil rights, and international human rights. Egalitarianism is a major principle of both classical liberalism with its equality of rights, and redistributive left-wing politics with its stress on equality of outcome.

One key aspect of egalitarianism is its emphasis on equal opportunities for all individuals, regardless of their background or circumstances. This means ensuring that everyone has access to the same resources, education, and opportunities to succeed in life. By promoting equal opportunities, egalitarianism aims to level the playing field and reduce disparities that result from social inequalities.

↑ Return to Menu

International human rights law in the context of Legality of the Israeli occupation of Palestine

Israel's occupation of Palestine, which has continued since 1967 and is the longest military occupation in modern history, has become illegal under international law. This illegality encompasses the West Bank, including Israeli-annexed East Jerusalem, as well as the blockaded Gaza Strip, which remains to be considered occupied under international law despite the 2005 Israeli disengagement. Israel's policies and practices in the occupied West Bank, including the construction and expansion of Israeli settlements, have amounted to de facto annexation that is illegal under international law.

It is a subject that has received much less attention than violations of international humanitarian law (IHL) and international human rights law (IHRL) that have occurred during the occupation. Multiple United Nations General Assembly resolutions have described the continuing occupation as illegal. The general thrust of international law scholarship addressing this question has concluded that, regardless of whether it was initially legal, the occupation has become illegal over time. Reasons cited for its illegality include use of force for impermissible purposes such as annexation, violation of the Palestinian right to self-determination, that the occupation itself is an illegal regime "of alien subjugation, domination and exploitation", or some combination of these factors. Eyal Benvenisti suggested that refusal by an occupier to engage in good faith with efforts to reach a peaceful solution should not only be considered illegal but as outright annexation. International law scholar Ralph Wilde states that "The common way of understanding the extended duration of the occupation... is a prolonged violation of international law". Israel denies occupying Palestine and maintains its presence is legal.

↑ Return to Menu

International human rights law in the context of Guantanamo Bay detention camp

The Guantanamo Bay detention camp, also known as GTMO (/ˈɡɪtm/ GIT-moh), GITMO (/ˈɡɪtm/ GIT-moh), or simply Guantanamo Bay, is a United States military prison within Naval Station Guantanamo Bay (NSGB), on the coast of Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. It was established in 2002 by President George W. Bush to hold terrorism suspects and "illegal enemy combatants" during the "war on terror" following the September 11 attacks. As of January 2025, at least 780 people from 48 countries have been detained at the camp since its creation, of whom 756 had been released or transferred to other detention facilities, 9 died in custody, and 15 remain.

Following the September 11 attacks, the U.S. led a multinational military operation against Taliban-ruled Afghanistan to dismantle al-Qaeda and capture its leader, Osama bin Laden. During the invasion, in November 2001, Bush issued a military order allowing the indefinite detention of foreign nationals without charge and preventing them from legally challenging their detention. The U.S. Department of Justice claimed that habeas corpus—a legal recourse against unlawful detention—did not apply to Guantanamo because it was outside U.S. territory. In January 2002, a temporary detention facility dubbed "Camp X-Ray" was created to house suspected Al-Qaeda members and Taliban fighters. By May 2003, the Guantanamo Bay detention camp had grown into a larger and permanent facility that housed over 680 prisoners, most without formal charges. The Bush administration maintained it was not obliged to grant prisoners protections under the U.S. Constitution or the Geneva Conventions, since the former did not extend to foreign soil and the latter did not apply to "unlawful enemy combatants". Humanitarian and legal advocacy groups claimed these policies were unconstitutional and violated international human rights law; several landmark U.S. Supreme Court decisions found that detainees had rights to due process and habeas corpus but were still subject to military tribunals.

↑ Return to Menu

International human rights law in the context of International human rights instruments

International human rights instruments are the treaties and other international texts that serve as legal sources for international human rights law and the protection of human rights in general. There are many varying types, but most can be classified into two broad categories: declarations, adopted by bodies such as the United Nations General Assembly, which are by nature declaratory, so not legally-binding although they may be politically authoritative and very well-respected soft law, and often express guiding principles; and conventions that are multi-party treaties that are designed to become legally binding, usually include prescriptive and very specific language, and usually are concluded by a long procedure that frequently requires ratification by each states' legislature. Less well known are certain "recommendations" which, while similar to conventions in that they are multilaterally agreed, cannot be ratified and instead serve to establish common standards. There may also be administrative guidelines that are agreed multilaterally by states, as well as the statutes of tribunals or other institutions. A specific prescription or principle from any of these various international instruments can, over time, attain the status of customary international law whether it is specifically accepted by a state or not, just because it is well-recognized and followed over a sufficiently long time.

International human rights instruments can be divided further into global instruments, to which any state in the world can be a party, and regional instruments, which are restricted to states in a particular region of the world.

↑ Return to Menu