International humanitarian law and international human rights law have much in common. Both fields of law emphasise the basic values of humanity. Both also assume a cosmopolitan moral outlook of the type discussed in Chapter 1 in relation to limits on armed conflict. However, there are also some important distinctions between the two fields. First, international humanitarian law only operates in the context of an armed conflict, whereas international human rights law is more general in scope. Second, international humanitarian law is much older than international human rights law. The former can be traced to Ancient Greek and Roman times and was first formalised during the Middle Ages. The latter, by contrast, has largely arisen only since 1945. A third difference is that international human rights law tends to be significantly more aspirational than international humanitarian law. We saw in Chapter 1 that humanitarianism is primarily concerned with curbing the slide into absolute warfare. International humanitarian law therefore focuses on only the most basic components of human welfare, rather than aiming at a fuller conception of human flourishing.
You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.
Elgaronline requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals. Please login through your library system or with your personal username and password on the homepage.
Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/ extracts and download selected front matter and introductory chapters for personal use.
Your library may not have purchased all subject areas. If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.