Difference Between International Human Rights Law and International Humanitarian Law: A Philippine Context

International Human Rights Law (IHRL) and International Humanitarian Law (IHL) are two pillars of public international law. While both aim to protect human dignity and preserve human life, they operate in different contexts and according to different legal frameworks. In the Philippines—where peace and conflict, domestic legislation, and international obligations all intersect—understanding these differences is essential for legal practitioners, scholars, policy makers, and the general public. Below is a comprehensive examination of IHRL and IHL, their legal sources, scope, application, enforcement, and relevance within Philippine law.

1. Overview and Definitions

1.1 International Human Rights Law (IHRL)

Definition and Purpose
International Human Rights Law is the body of international norms and principles designed to recognize and protect the intrinsic rights and freedoms of all human beings. These rights apply universally in peacetime and, with limited adjustments, continue to apply during armed conflicts.
Key Features
- Universality: Human rights belong to every person, regardless of nationality, race, religion, or other status.
- States’ Obligations: States must respect, protect, promote, and fulfill human rights; these duties include refraining from violations, preventing violations by third parties, and taking positive measures to ensure rights are enjoyed.
Primary Sources
- Treaty Law: The Philippines is a party to major international human rights instruments, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW).
- Customary International Law: Certain human rights obligations (e.g., the prohibition of torture, genocide, and slavery) have attained customary international law status and bind states regardless of specific treaty ratification.
Application in the Philippines
The Philippine Constitution explicitly adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land (Article II, Section 2). The Bill of Rights (Article III of the Constitution) also reflects internationally recognized human rights. Philippine courts often invoke international human rights standards in jurisprudence, particularly on the right to life, due process, and freedom from cruel and degrading punishment.

1.2 International Humanitarian Law (IHL)

Definition and Purpose
International Humanitarian Law, often referred to as the “law of armed conflict” or the “law of war,” governs the conduct of parties during armed conflict. Its primary objective is to protect persons not or no longer participating in hostilities (e.g., civilians, wounded soldiers, prisoners of war) and to regulate the means and methods of warfare.
Key Features
- Context-Specific: IHL applies only during times of armed conflict, whether international (between states) or non-international (between a state and non-state armed groups or between such groups themselves).
- Balancing Necessity and Humanity: IHL seeks to limit unnecessary suffering and maintain some humanity within the context of warfare.
Primary Sources
- Treaties: The Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocols (the Philippines is a party to the Geneva Conventions and has ratified Additional Protocols I and II).
- Customary International Humanitarian Law: Many rules of IHL have become custom, binding on all states and parties to conflicts, including non-state actors in certain situations.
Application in the Philippines
In cases of armed conflict—whether between government forces and rebel groups or in other contexts involving organized armed violence—IHL provisions apply. The Philippines has enacted Republic Act No. 9851, also known as the “Philippine Act on Crimes Against International Humanitarian Law, Genocide, and Other Crimes Against Humanity,” which domestically incorporates key obligations under IHL and punishes grave breaches.

2. Distinctions Between IHRL and IHL

2.1 Temporal Scope

IHRL: Applicable at all times—both in peace and during armed conflicts (though certain rights may be subject to lawful derogations in emergencies).
IHL: Applicable strictly during armed conflicts (international or non-international). Once hostilities have ceased, IHL ceases to apply (except for certain lingering obligations such as treatment of detainees).

2.2 Target Beneficiaries

IHRL: Protects everyone within a state’s jurisdiction, with specific instruments addressing particular groups (e.g., children, women, migrant workers, etc.).
IHL: Primarily protects those who are not or are no longer participating in hostilities (civilians, wounded combatants, prisoners of war), and restricts methods and means of warfare for combatants.

2.3 Permitted Limitations and Derogations

IHRL: Some human rights are absolute (e.g., freedom from torture, genocide, slavery). Others may be subject to limitations (e.g., freedom of expression) or derogations (e.g., the right to liberty) during public emergencies, provided the principles of necessity, proportionality, and non-discrimination are respected.
IHL: The rules are largely non-derogable because they are specifically tailored for armed conflict. Instead of derogations, IHL is the set of specialized rules for conflict situations.

2.4 Enforcement Mechanisms

IHRL: Enforcement can occur via:
- International Mechanisms: Treaty bodies (e.g., UN Human Rights Committee), regional human rights courts (not applicable to the Philippines, as it does not belong to any regional human rights court system), and the UN Human Rights Council’s Universal Periodic Review.
- Domestic Mechanisms: National courts, the Commission on Human Rights (CHR), legislative oversight, and administrative agencies.
IHL: Enforcement primarily through:
- International: The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) ensures compliance and monitors activities during conflicts; other tribunals (e.g., International Criminal Court) can assert jurisdiction over grave breaches like war crimes.
- Domestic: Local criminal laws implementing IHL principles (e.g., R.A. 9851 in the Philippines). Military justice systems also handle offenses by military personnel.

2.5 Breach and Accountability

IHRL: Violations can lead to state responsibility under international law, possible sanctions from international bodies, “naming and shaming” by UN mechanisms, and domestic legal consequences for violators.
IHL: Serious violations (war crimes) can result in individual criminal responsibility. Both states and non-state actors can be held accountable. Grave breaches are recognized as crimes under international law, subject to universal jurisdiction in some cases.

3. Intersection and Complementarity

Even though IHRL and IHL differ in scope and application, they overlap in armed conflicts. In many modern conflicts, especially non-international armed conflicts (e.g., internal insurgencies), both bodies of law can apply simultaneously. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has affirmed that human rights obligations continue during armed conflicts, except where specific derogations are lawfully invoked. IHL’s more specific rules prevail as the lex specialis in matters directly related to the conduct of hostilities.

In the Philippine context, situations of internal armed conflict—such as confrontations with communist insurgent groups (e.g., New People’s Army) and various armed groups in Mindanao—bring both IHRL and IHL into play. Civilians continue to enjoy human rights protections, while IHL imposes additional obligations on government forces and insurgents alike regarding the treatment of civilians and persons hors de combat (out of the fight).

4. Philippine Legal Framework and Implementation

4.1 Constitutional Provisions

Article II, Section 2: Adopts generally accepted principles of international law as part of Philippine law.
Article III (Bill of Rights): Reflects key human rights guarantees, such as the right to life, liberty, and property; freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; freedom of speech, etc.

4.2 Republic Act No. 9851 (The Philippine Act on Crimes Against International Humanitarian Law, Genocide, and Other Crimes Against Humanity)

Purpose: Domestically implements key IHL obligations and establishes mechanisms to penalize individuals for war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity.
Key Provisions:
- Defines war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity in accordance with international law.
- Establishes criminal responsibility for commanders and superiors who fail to prevent or punish subordinates committing IHL violations.

4.3 Commission on Human Rights (CHR)

Mandate: Investigates alleged human rights violations, monitors the government’s compliance with human rights obligations, and can recommend prosecutorial action.
Limitations: Primarily focuses on acts of state agents and may have limited direct jurisdiction over non-state armed groups; however, in practice, the CHR can still document and report abuses in any situation affecting human rights.

4.4 Military and Police Rules of Engagement

The Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) and the Philippine National Police (PNP) have their respective manuals and codes of conduct that integrate IHL and human rights considerations. These include:
- Instructions on the humane treatment of detainees and civilians.
- Protocols to minimize harm to civilians during military or police operations.
- Systems to investigate and discipline personnel for violations.

4.5 Role of the Judiciary

Philippine courts adjudicate cases that involve questions of international law, including those raising IHRL and IHL issues. The Supreme Court has recognized the direct applicability of international law norms (where specific and self-executing) and has cited them to interpret constitutional rights and obligations.

5. Contemporary Challenges and Issues in the Philippines

5.1 Internal Armed Conflicts

Ongoing skirmishes with communist insurgencies and various armed groups in Mindanao pose complex challenges. Civilians can be displaced, and allegations of extrajudicial killings and use of excessive force arise, invoking both IHL and IHRL safeguards.

5.2 Counterterrorism Measures

The government’s counterterrorism operations, including legislative frameworks such as the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 (R.A. 11479), must align with both IHRL (to protect fundamental freedoms and due process) and IHL (when operations rise to the level of an armed conflict).

5.3 Human Rights Concerns

Allegations of extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances, and torture continue to garner international attention. The Philippines is obliged under IHRL to investigate and prosecute perpetrators and prevent future violations.

5.4 Implementation and Awareness

Despite progressive laws like R.A. 9851, operationalization can be challenging due to gaps in awareness, capacity, and political will. Continuous training for police, military, and judicial personnel in both IHRL and IHL is essential.

5.5 Transitional Justice and Peace Processes

Ongoing efforts at peace negotiations with various armed groups necessitate bridging IHRL and IHL frameworks. Effective transitional justice mechanisms—truth-seeking, reparations, accountability—must respect IHL principles of protection and IHRL standards of due process.

6. Looking Ahead: Strengthening Compliance and Protection

6.1 Education and Capacity-Building

Integration in Curricula: Ensuring that law schools and police/military academies incorporate robust courses on IHRL and IHL is crucial.
Specialized Training: Regular training for judges, prosecutors, law enforcement, and the armed forces on the intricacies of IHRL and IHL.

6.2 Legislative Reforms and Oversight

Continuing to review and harmonize Philippine legislation with evolving international standards, ensuring strong oversight mechanisms (e.g., legislative committees, CHR, and civil society) to monitor compliance.

6.3 Strengthening Institutions

Augment the resources and independence of the Commission on Human Rights.
Enhance investigative and prosecutorial mechanisms for IHL and IHRL violations, including witness protection programs and specialized investigative bodies.

6.4 Public Awareness and Civil Society Involvement

Civil society organizations play an instrumental role in educating communities, monitoring potential abuses, and advocating for victims. Government institutions can partner with these organizations for more effective outreach and accountability.

7. Conclusion

In the Philippine context, both International Human Rights Law (IHRL) and International Humanitarian Law (IHL) are pivotal in safeguarding human dignity. IHRL provides protections applicable at all times, securing the fundamental rights of individuals against abuses. IHL, meanwhile, operates specifically during armed conflict, imposing limits on how hostilities may be conducted and offering crucial protections to civilians and other vulnerable groups.

The Philippines has taken significant steps to incorporate both sets of international obligations into domestic law—through constitutional provisions, legislation such as R.A. 9851, and the establishment of institutions like the Commission on Human Rights. However, challenges remain in effectively implementing these protections on the ground, particularly in regions affected by conflict, and in ensuring accountability for violations. Continued education, legal reform, institutional strengthening, and public engagement are essential to uphold the rule of law and fully realize the protective aims of both IHRL and IHL in the Philippines.

Ultimately, understanding the nuanced differences and complementary nature of IHRL and IHL is key to fostering a robust culture of human rights and humanitarian principles. By striving toward this goal, the Philippines can more effectively protect all persons under its jurisdiction—whether in times of peace or amidst conflict—and fulfill its international commitments to preserve human dignity and ensure justice.