English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Open

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Insights

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

How have the Inter-American human rights bodies dealt with the notion of war, which has been transformed over time into the notion of (internal and international) “armed conflicts”? This question has guided the first part of this study, which sets out the various types of conflicts that have occurred in the American continent. These situations (armed conflicts, internal strife, State terrorism) have produced a wide range of legal qualifications, used by both the Inter-American Commission and Court of human rights in their case-law. This conceptual delimitation carried out by these two bodies is all the more important as it affects the law that applies to armed conflicts. Indeed, by analyzing this question, the everlasting debate on the relationship between International Law on Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law reappears. The second part of this study therefore focuses on the issue of discovering whether and in which way jus in bello has found its place in the Inter-American Human Rights bodies’ case-law. As the active political life of Latin American societies has shown, the study of the different applicable legal regimes also requires looking into the “state of emergency” Law, an issue which has been shaped by the Inter-American Court and Commission’s work.

“War” in the Jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights