Skip Navigation

European Journal of International Law 2008 19(1):183-209; doi:10.1093/ejil/chn006
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Alston, P.
Right arrow Articles by Abresch, W.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

The European Journal of International Law Vol. 19 no. 1 © EJIL 2008; all rights reserved

The Competence of the UN Human Rights Council and its Special Procedures in relation to Armed Conflicts: Extrajudicial Executions in the ‘War on Terror’

Philip Alston*, Jason Morgan-Foster** and William Abresch***

* John Norton Pomeroy Professor of Law, New York University School of Law; and United Nations Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions
** Researcher, Project on Extrajudicial Executions, New York University School of Law
*** Director, Project on Extrajudicial Executions, New York University School of Law


   Abstract

Since 2003, as part of its ‘war on terror’, the United States has taken the position that the UN Commission on Human Rights and its successor, the UN Human Rights Council, as well as the system of ‘special procedures’ reporting to both bodies, all lack the competence to examine abuses committed in the context of armed conflicts. The article examines the arguments put forward by the US in the specific context of the work of the UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions. The authors conclude that the consistent practice of the human rights organs for almost 25 years, often supported and until 2003 never opposed by the US, runs counter to the current US position. Acceptance of the US position would not only undermine efforts to hold the US accountable but would also have a major impact on the international system of accountability as a whole.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.