CYIL 2012

VERONIKA BÍLKOVÁ CYIL 3 ȍ2012Ȏ has witnessed the emergence of several new individual-centred concepts, including that of human security. Though not fully clear in its content, scope, and mission, human security is usually seen as seeking to “protect the vital core of all human lives in ways that enhance human freedoms and human fulfilment”. 30 It applies both in times of peace and of war. The application in the latter type of situation brings it into contact with IHL. Human security looks at the world from an individual-centred perspective, defining individuals “qua persons”, not members of a collective entity or holders of a specific status. It postulates that individuals have to be protected from threats hampering their freedoms from fear and from want. This has to be done by various means and with the participation of various actors. IHL is compatible with many of these premises. Yet, it remains based on a delicate compromise between the principles of humanity and of military necessity, perceiving consequently individuals not only as “qua persons” but also “qua citizens” or “qua holders of a particular status“. In other words, while human security is guided by the “individual first” premise, IHL sticks to the “individuals as well” assumption. This assertion does not mean that there is no space for further humanization in some areas of IHL. Indeed, time has probably come to strengthen the position of individuals still further, for instance by granting them an individual right to reparation for harm suffered in armed conflicts, and by getting rid of some of the institutions still based on reciprocity, such as belligerent reprisals. Yet, some areas of incompatibility between IHL and human security are most probably to remain. Seeking to modify the areas of IHL dealing for instance with the distinction between combatants and civilians or with collateral damage would risk rendering IHL unrealistic and, hence, unnecessary and irrelevant. Since such a move would most likely make wars less rather than more humane, one may be finally tempted to ask whether the current system of IHL, with the potential of improvement that it still includes, is not in the end a rather successful translation of the concept of human security into the system of legal rules applicable in the extreme situation of armed conflicts.

120

30 Commission on Human Security, Human Security Now, New York, 2003, p. 4.