BACKGROUND GUIDE

L
​ ETTER FROM THE EXECUTIVE BOARD 
Dear Delegates
It’s our utmost pleasure to serve as your Executive Board for the simulation of
the United Nations Human Rights Council at MAMC MUN 2016.
Through this conference, we wish to provide you with a conducive platform
where you can explore and/or develop your skills such as perspective
building, reading, understanding the issue, analysis, documentation, public
speaking, lobbying, so on and so forth. At the end of the Study Guide, you will
find couple of documents that will help you achieve the above-mentioned goal
and will give you an understanding how to research, deliver speeches and
write chits. We want you to utilise each tool to the best of your abilities in the
committee. Often, we find many delegates looking for guidance regarding how
to go about research or even what or what not to speak. As an Executive
Board, we will be understanding of shortcomings in this aspect and will restrict
ourselves to moderation of debate and maintenance of rules of procedure.
However, we will not turn away delegates seeking help in their performance,
and guide them to the best of our capability without being biased in our
judgment. We urge the experienced delegates to do the same and not view
this activity as solely a platform for argumentation and competition. You must
be hearing news about how the nature of the armed conflicts has changed
with the advancements of technology. People and societies have been
affected immensely because of this. Armed conflict has always been quite
destructive and disruptive. Some of the damages are permanent and it
becomes almost rebuild the society again. People find it difficult to rather
forget the incident and move on. Some individuals do argue that we should
not have armed conflicts since it has so many dangerous repercussions; one
of them being killing and torture of a huge number of people. The debate that
whether we should have armed conflicts or not, or is it bad or not, is not our
concern for this particular committee that we are simulating. You may explore
this question for your knowledge. We shall be addressing what rights we can
preserve of the people who are in an armed conflict. Furthermore, our focus
will be more towards the rights of the civilians.
We trust you upon a task which is much more important than winning a prize.
And that is – to do justice to the responsibility of finding solutions to one of the
most critical and challenging problems which we face as humanity. We want
you to be thorough with your research and foreign policy. But more than that,
we urge you to sensitise yourself with the issue. It is true that we are privileged
to be able to sit and debate issues, whereas our brothers and sisters are
undergoing horrific abuses of human rights in conflicts around the world. Try
understanding and empathising with their plight, and make it the foundation of
your preparation. Do not read this guide or information on the Internet, and
attempt to appear informed. The moment you start feeling for the topics that
you are going to discuss, your preparation will automatically seem more
interesting, and indeed, of paramount importance. Watch videos and see
photo essays to understand how the on-ground situation seems like. Write
about what you see and what you read and give voice to your own opinion. All
this will help you when you stand up to speak in the committee. It will not give
you the words to speak, but will definitely show you aspects of the agenda that
a delegate who views this just as a competition will not see.
With utmost sincerity we have tried to prepare this background guide so that
you can best represent your country’s government, and more importantly your
ideas at the simulation of the UNHRC. Utilise this document as a guide, and
not as an encyclopaedia, as it does not contain all the information, analysis or
concepts related to the agenda. It merely tries to introduce the agenda to you
in a way that you are all at par with your understanding, and that you are
aware of some basics. Do take note of this document, but we definitely
encourage you to go beyond it. Surprise us if you may.
Feel free to contact us if you require any sort of assistance. We shall be more
than happy to help you.
Regards

Shivin Chaudhary Benazeer Hena Sonali Jain

Chairperson Vice Chairperson Rapporteur
shivin.chaudhary@icloud.com ben10lovesrk@gmail.com sonalij1697@gmail.com

SUGGESTED PATTERN OF RESEARCH 

We believe in the ideology of a successful committee which has all the resources, and has a
given direction.
Remember:
Researching and understanding the United Nations and the Committee/Council being
simulated – Its Mandate,
including understanding historical work done on the agenda.
1.Research on the allotted country, understanding its polity, economy, culture, history etc.,
comprehending the
Foreign Policy of the allotted country. It includes understanding the ideology and principles
adopted by the country on
the agenda. It further includes studying past actions taken by the country on the agenda and
other related issues –specifically analysing their causes and consequences.

2.Reading the background guide thoroughly.

3.Researching further upon the agenda using the footnotes and links given in the guide and
from other sources such as academic papers, institutional reports, national reports, news
articles, blogs etc.

4.Understanding policies adopted by different blocs of countries (example: NATO, EU etc.)

and major countries involved
in the agenda. Including their position, ideology and adopted past actions.

5.Characterizing the agenda into sub​topics and preparing speeches and statements on
them. It is the same as preparing topics for the moderated caucuses and their content.

6.Preparing a list of possible solutions and actions the UNSC can adopt on the issue as per
your country’s policies.

7.Assemble proof/evidence for any important piece of information/allegation you are going to
use in committee

8.Keeping your research updated using various news sources, especially news websites
given in the proof/evidence
section. Again, this is not by any means an exhaustive list. It is only indicative of what all can
be done by delegates to
refine their research.

Always remember winners don’t do different things, they do the same thing,
differently.​

RELEVANCE OF THE AGENDA 

In this section, we will explain the scope of debate of the agenda. We request you to read
this section carefully for a better insight regarding the agenda. It encompasses potential
thought provoking statements that will act as a guiding tool for you to understand the debate
better. ​We have restricted our focus only to the rights of the civilians in an armed
conflict.
A huge number of civilians whose lives are being devastated by armed conflict makes it
clear that much more needs to be done in order to fulfill the pledge contained in the Charter
of the United Nations to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war. At the end of
2015, more than 60 million people had been forced to flee their homes as a result of conflict,
violence and persecution. Humanitarian needs are at record levels and more than 80 per
cent of United Nations humanitarian funding is directed at conflict response.
In the majority of today’s armed conflicts, civilians suffer most severely. Every day, they are
deliberately or indiscriminately killed or injured, often with complete impunity. Sexual
violence shatters the lives of women, men, girls and boys. Towns and cities are pummeled
by heavy artillery or air strikes that kill thousands of civilians, destroy vital infrastructure and
trigger mass displacement.
Data collected in 2015 by the organization Action on Armed Violence indicated that, when
explosive weapons had been used in populated areas, an astonishing 92 per cent of those
killed or injured were civilians, including those in playgrounds, hospitals and crowded streets
and queuing for food. Behind those figures are families separated and in mourning, entire
communities devastated, a cultural heritage lost to the world and a generation of children
without an education.
Across conflicts, several issues emerged as priorities: improving compliance with
international humanitarian and human rights law; ensuring accountability for violations;
strengthening the protection of civilians from the use of explosive weapons in populated
areas; improving humanitarian access to people in need; protecting humanitarian and
health-care personnel and objects; and preventing and better responding to forced
displacement.
SCOPE OF DEBATE
During a crisis like armed conflict, it becomes really difficult for the state grant each
stakeholder (Combatants, Civilians, Refugees, etc.) all the rights. For some regions, it is of
utmost importance to prioritise the rights of different stakeholders. For example, if a group of
people who do not have any belongings with them, would require food, water, shelter and
clothing. They might not require right to freedom of speech and expression at that time. On
the contrary, some people prioritise right to freedom of speech and expression more than
right to life.
So we may need to consider the following questions –
Is there a need to prioritise rights?
If yes, what should be the immediate rights to be granted?
How will the rights be safeguarded?
How to create a mechanism where there is a provision to avail the secondary rights after a
while? How should we differentiate between immediate, basic and secondary rights?
Should a state prioritise the need to address the rights of a stakeholder over the other?

A direct consequence of armed conflict is movement of people. Some of the residents are
displaced. These people face social, psychological and financial crisis. Their fundamental
Human Rights are at a standstill. They lose their family, property and assets in an armed
conflict. Sometimes, people who are displaced across the borders of a country, file for the
status of refugees. Some people might not have their official documents with them due to
sudden change in the environment. At such a point when they do not even have a
citizenship, they are deprived of civil and political rights (such as right to vote, right to contest
elections, etc.), social rights (such as right to freedom of religion, right to life, etc.) and
economic rights (such as right to employment, right to adequate housing, etc.).
It is also important to consider who shall fulfil the rights of these displaced people? The
questions to deliberate upon are – which governing body should be held responsible –

the governing body of an area from where the displaced people belong?
or the governing body of an area where the displaced people have migrated to?
or the area (can be a state or country) who initiated the conflict?
or the International community (such as UN agencies)?
or Civil society?

Civilians face a severe impact due to the drastic change in lifestyle. The immediate impact is
the loss of family members, livelihood and/or property. They find it extremely difficult to cope
with this loss resulting in mental illnesses. They experience psychological disorders such as
Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, Depression and so on.
Their physical health is at a risk of being affected by diseases such as HIV-AIDS, various
epidemics, heat waves, tuberculosis, cancer, etc. What steps should be taken to ensure their
health? What can be a medium through which these affected people can take advantage of
hospital facilities?
Due to lack of documents, some of them may not be able to avail medical help. Secondly,
they may not be able to avail insurance for their lost property and assets on an immediate
basis. What can be an appropriate mechanism through which government and/or banks can
look into this matter?
Most of the civilians are forced to live in refugee camps when they cross the border. They
face a breach of privacy and security at these camps. Mostly, residents of the country do not
want their presence in the country. They discriminate against these refugees through hate
speech, violence and protest. Residents experience xenophobia. The easy targets are
women and children. They are abducted, raped and sold. Often refugees also experience
alienation in a foreign land. They do not have proper homes or decent jobs. They also lack a
citizenship and wish to return to their homeland.

INTERNATIONAL LEGAL FRAMEWORK 

WHAT ARE HUMAN RIGHTS?
Source:​ ​http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Pages/WhatareHumanRights.aspx
Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, whatever our nationality, place of
residence, sex, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, language, or any other status. We
are all equally entitled to our human rights without discrimination. These rights are all
interrelated, interdependent and indivisible.
Universal human rights are often expressed and guaranteed by law, in the forms of treaties,
customary international law, general principles and other sources of international law.
International human rights law lays down obligations of Governments to act in certain ways
or to refrain from certain acts, in order to promote and protect human rights and fundamental
freedoms of individuals or groups.
THE PRINCIPLE OF UNIVERSALITY
The principle of universality of human rights is the cornerstone of international human rights
law. This principle, as first emphasized in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights in
19481, has been reiterated in numerous international human rights conventions,
declarations, and resolutions. The 1993 Vienna World Conference on Human Rights2, for
example, noted that it is the duty of States to promote and protect all human rights and
fundamental freedoms, regardless of their political, economic and cultural systems. All
States have ratified at least one, and 80% of States have ratified four or more, of the core
human rights treaties, reflecting consent of States, which creates legal obligations for them,
and giving concrete expression to universality. Some fundamental human rights norms enjoy
universal protection by customary international law across all boundaries and civilizations.
Human rights are inalienable. They should not be taken away, except in specific situations
and according to due process. For example, the right to liberty may be restricted if a person
is found guilty of a crime by a court of law.

1. http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/
2. http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ABOUTUS/Pages/ViennaWC.aspx
INTERDEPENDENT AND INDIVISIBLE
All human rights are indivisible, whether they are civil and political rights, such as the right to
life, equality before the law and freedom of expression; economic, social and cultural rights,
such as the rights to work, social security and education, or collective rights, such as the
rights to development and self- determination, are indivisible, interrelated and
interdependent. The improvement of one right facilitates advancement of the others.
Likewise, the deprivation of one right adversely affects the others.
EQUAL AND NON-DISCRIMINATORY
Non-discrimination is a cross-cutting principle in international human rights law. The principle
is present in all the major human rights treaties and provides the central theme of some of
international human rights conventions such as the International Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination3 and the Convention on the Elimination of
All Forms of Discrimination against Women4. The principle applies to everyone in relation to
all human rights and freedoms and it prohibits discrimination on the basis of a list of non-
exhaustive categories such as sex, race, colour and so on. The principle of
non-discrimination is complemented by the principle of equality, as stated in Article 1 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights: “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity
and rights.”
BOTH RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS
Human rights entail both rights and obligations. States assume obligations and duties under
international law to respect, to protect and to fulfill human rights. The obligation to respect
means that States must refrain from interfering with or curtailing the enjoyment of human
rights. The obligation to protect requires States to protect individuals and groups against
human rights abuses. The obligation to fulfill means that States must take positive action to
facilitate the enjoyment of basic human rights. At the individual level, while we are entitled
our human rights, we should also respect the human rights of others.
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CERD.aspx 4
http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/

INTERNATIONAL LAW AND HUMAN RIGHTS

WHAT IS INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHT LAW?

Respect for human rights requires the establishment of the rule of law at the national and
international levels. International human rights law lays down obligations that States are
bound to respect.
IHRL is a set of international rules, established by treaty or custom, on the basis of which
individuals and groups can expect and/or claim certain behaviour or benefits from
governments. Human rights are inherent entitlements that belong to every person as a
consequence of being human. Numerous non-treaty based principles and guidelines ("soft
law") also belong to the body of international human rights standards.
A series of international human rights treaties and other instruments adopted since 1945
have conferred legal form on inherent human rights and developed the body of international
human rights. Other instruments have been adopted at the regional level reflecting the
particular human rights concerns of the region and providing for specific mechanisms of
protection. Most States have also adopted constitutions and other laws that formally protect
basic human rights. While international treaties and customary law form the backbone of
international human rights law other instruments, such as declarations, guidelines and
principles adopted at the international level contribute to its understanding, implementation
and development.
IHRL main treaty sources are the International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights and
on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966), as well as Conventions on Genocide
(1948), Racial Discrimination (1965), Discrimination Against Women (1979), Torture (1984)
and Rights of the Child (1989).
The main regional instruments are the European Convention for the Protection of Human
Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (1950), the American Declaration of the Rights and
Duties of Man (1948) and Convention on Human Rights (1969), and the African Charter on
Human and Peoples' Rights (1981).
While IHL and IHRL have historically had a separate development, recent treaties include
provisions from both bodies of law. Examples are the Convention on the Rights of the Child,
its Optional Protocol on the Participation of Children in Armed Conflict, and the Rome
Statute of the International Criminal Court.
Through ratification of international human rights treaties, Governments undertake to put into
place domestic measures and legislation compatible with their treaty obligations and duties.
Where domestic legal proceedings fail to address human rights abuses, mechanisms and
procedures for individual complaints or communications are available at the regional and
international levels to help ensure that international human rights standards are indeed
respected, implemented, and enforced at the local level.

WHAT IS INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW?

IHL is a set of international rules, established by treaty or custom, which are specifically
intended to solve humanitarian problems directly arising from international or
non-international armed conflicts. It protects persons and property that are, or may be,
affected by an armed conflict and limits the rights of the parties to a conflict to use methods
and means of warfare of their choice.
IHL main treaty sources applicable in international armed conflict are the four Geneva
Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocol I of 1977. The main treaty sources
applicable in non-international armed conflict are Article 3 common to the Geneva
Conventions and Additional Protocol II of 1977.
 WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN IHL AND IHRL?
Both international humanitarian law (IHL) and international human rights law (IHRL) strive to
protect the lives, health and dignity of individuals, albeit from a different angle. It is therefore
not surprising that, while very different in formulation, the essence of some of the rules is
similar, if not identical. For example, the two bodies of law aim to protect human life, prohibit
torture or cruel treatment, prescribe basic rights for persons subject to a criminal justice
process, prohibit discrimination, comprise provisions for the protection of women and
children, and regulate aspects of the right to food and health. On the other hand, rules of IHL
deal with many issues that are outside the purview of IHRL, such as the conduct of
hostilities, combatant and prisoner of war status and the protection of the Red Cross and
Red Crescent emblems. Similarly, IHRL deals with aspects of life in peacetime that are not
regulated by IHL, such as freedom of the press, the right to assembly, to vote and to strike.
WHEN ARE THEY APPLICABLE?
IHL is applicable in times of armed conflict, whether international or non- international.
International conflicts are wars involving two or more states, and wars of liberation,
regardless of whether a declaration of war has been made or whether the parties involved
recognize that there is a state of war. Non- international armed conflicts are those in which
government forces are fighting against armed insurgents, or rebel groups are fighting among
themselves. Because IHL deals with an exceptional situation – armed conflict – no
derogations whatsoever from its provisions are permitted.
In principle, IHRL applies at all times, i.e. both in peacetime and in situations of armed
conflict. However, some IHRL treaties permit governments to derogate from certain rights in
situations of public emergency threatening the life of the nation. Derogations5 must,
however, be proportional to the crisis at hand, must not be introduced on a discriminatory
basis and must not contravene other rules of international law – including rules of IHL.
Certain human rights are never derogable. Among them are the right to life, prohibition of
torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, prohibition of slavery and
servitude and the prohibition of retroactive criminal laws.

WHO IS BOUND BY THESE BODIES OF LAW?

IHL binds all actors to an armed conflict: in international conflicts it must be observed by the
states involved, whereas in internal conflict it binds the government, as well the groups
fighting against it or among themselves. Thus, IHL lays down rules that are applicable to
both state and non-state actors. IHRL lays down rules binding governments in their relations
with individuals. While there is a growing body of opinion according to which non- state
actors – particularly if they exercise government-like functions – must also be expected to
respect human rights norms, the issue remains unsettled.
ARE INDIVIDUALS ALSO BOUND?
IHL imposes obligations on individuals and also provides that persons may be held
individually criminally responsible for "grave breaches" of the Geneva Conventions and of
Additional Protocol I, and for other serious violations of the laws and customs of war (war
crimes). IHL establishes universal jurisdiction over persons suspected of having committed
all such acts.
With the entry into force of the International Criminal Court, individuals will also be
accountable for war crimes committed in non-international armed conflict. While individuals
do not have specific duties under IHRL treaties, IHRL also provides for individual criminal
responsibility for violations that may constitute international crimes, such as genocide,
crimes against humanity and torture. These crimes are also subject to universal jurisdiction.
The ad hoc International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, as well
as the International Criminal Court, have jurisdiction over violations of both IHL and IHRL.
WHO IS PROTECTED?
IHL aims to protect persons who do not, or are no longer taking part in hostilities. Applicable
in international armed conflicts, the Geneva Conventions deal with the treatment of the
wounded and sick in the armed forces in the field (Convention I), wounded, sick and
shipwrecked members of the armed forces at sea (Convention II), prisoners of war
(Convention III) and civilian persons (Convention IV). Civilian persons include internally
displaced persons, women, children, refugees, stateless persons, journalists and other
categories of individuals (Convention IV and Protocol I). Similarly, the rules applicable in
non-international armed conflict (article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions and Protocol
II) deal with the treatment of persons not taking, or no longer taking part in the hostilities.
IHL also protects civilians through rules on the conduct of hostilities. For example, parties to
a conflict must at all times distinguish between combatants and non-combatants and
between military and non-military targets. Neither the civilian population as whole, nor
individual civilians may be the object of attack. It is also prohibited to attack military
objectives if that would cause disproportionate harm to civilians or civilian objects. IHRL,
being tailored primarily for peacetime, applies to all persons.

WHAT IS THE SYSTEM OF IMPLEMENTATION?

One of the most important legal obligations arising from violations of international human
rights and humanitarian law is the obligation to ensure accountability for those violations. As
the United Nations Secretary- General has indicated, respect for the rule of law implies that
“all persons, institutions and entities, public and private, including the State itself, are
accountable to laws that are publicly promulgated, equally enforced and independently
adjudicated, and which are consistent with international human rights norms and standards.
It requires, as well, measures to ensure adherence to the principles of supremacy of law,
equality before the law, accountability to the law, fairness in the application of the law,
separation of powers, participation in decision-making, legal certainty, avoidance of
arbitrariness and procedural and legal transparency.”
Furthermore, in the Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and
Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious
Violations of International Humanitarian Law, the General Assembly recognized that the
obligation to respect, ensure respect for and implement international human rights and
humanitarian law implies the duty to “investigate violations effectively, promptly, thoroughly
and impartially and, where appropriate, take action against those allegedly responsible in
accordance with domestic and international law” (para. 3 (b)).
The General Assembly further recognized the customary law character of this obligation and
indicated that the Basic Principles and Guidelines “do not entail new international or
domestic legal obligations but identify mechanisms, modalities, procedures and methods for
the implementation of existing legal obligations under international human rights law and
international humanitarian law which are complementary though different as to their norms”
(preamble).
 AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL
The duty to implement both IHL and IHRL lies first and foremost with states. States have a
duty to take a number of legal and practical measures – both in peacetime and in armed
conflict situations – aimed at ensuring full compliance with IHL, including: translating IHL
treaties; preventing and punishing war crimes, through the enactment of penal legislation;
protecting the red cross and red crescent emblems; applying fundamental and judicial
guarantees; disseminating IHL; training personnel qualified in IHL and appointing legal
advisers to the armed forces.
IHRL also contains provisions obliging states to implement its rules, whether immediately or
progressively. They must adopt a variety of legislative, administrative, judicial and other
measures that may be necessary to give effect to the rights provided for in the treaties. This
may include enacting criminal legislation to outlaw and repress acts prohibited under IHRL
treaties, or providing for a remedy before domestic courts for violations of specific rights and
ensuring that the remedy is effective at the international level.
AT THE INTERNATIONAL LEVEL
As regards international implementation, states have a collective responsibility under article
1 common to the Geneva Conventions to respect and to ensure respect for the Conventions
in all circumstances. The supervisory system also comprises the Protecting Power
mechanism, the enquiry procedure and the International Fact-Finding Commission
envisaged in Article 90 of Protocol I. States parties to Protocol I also undertake to act in
cooperation with the United Nations in situations of serious violations of Protocol I or of the
Geneva Conventions.
The ICRC is a key component of the system, by virtue of the mandate entrusted to it under
the Geneva Conventions, their Additional Protocols and the Statutes of the International Red
Cross and Red Crescent Movement. It ensures protection and assistance to victims of war,
encourages states to implement their IHL obligations and promotes and develops IHL.
ICRC's right of initiative allows it to offer its services or to undertake any action which it
deems necessary to ensure the faithful application of IHL. The IHRL supervisory system
consists of bodies established either by the United Nations Charter or by the main IHRL
treaties. The principal UN Charter-based organ is the UN Human Rights Council and its
Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights. "Special procedures"
have also been developed by the Commission over the last two decades, i.e. thematic or
country specific special rapporteurs, and working groups entrusted with monitoring and
reporting on the human rights situations within their mandates. Six of the main IHRL treaties
also provide for the establishment of committees of independent experts charged with
monitoring their implementation.
A key role is played by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, which has
primary responsibility for the overall protection and promotion of human rights. The Office
aims to enhance the effectiveness of the UN's human rights machinery, to increase UN
system-wide implementation and coordination of human rights, to build national, regional
and international capacity to promote and protect human rights and to disseminate human
rights texts and information at the regional level.
AT THE REGIONAL LEVEL
The work of regional human rights courts and commissions established under the main
regional human rights treaties in Europe, the Americas and Africa is a distinct feature of
IHRL, with no equivalent in IHL. Regional human rights mechanisms are, however,
increasingly examining violations of IHL. The European Court of Human Rights is the
centrepiece of the European system of human rights protection under the 1950 European
Convention. The main regional supervisory bodies in the Americas are the Inter-American
Commission on Human Rights and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. The African
Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights is the supervisory body established under the
1981 African Charter. A treaty establishing an African human rights court has not yet come
into force.

INTERNATIONAL LAW AND ARMED CONFLICT

International humanitarian law distinguishes two types of armed conflicts, namely:
1. International armed conflicts, opposing two or more States, and
2. Non-international armed conflicts, between governmental forces and non-governmental
armed groups, or between such groups only. IHL treaty law also establishes a distinction
between non-international armed conflicts in the meaning of common Article 3 of the Geneva
Conventions of 1949 and non-international armed conflicts falling within the definition
provided in Article 1 of Additional Protocol II.
Legally speaking, no other type of armed conflict exists. It is nevertheless important to
underline that a situation can evolve from one type of armed conflict to another, depending
on the facts prevailing at a certain moment.

INTERNATIONAL ARMED CONFLICT

I. IHL TREATIES
Common Article 2 to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 states that:
"In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peacetime, the present
Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may
arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not
recognized by one of them.
The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a
High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance".
According to this provision, IACs are those, which oppose "High Contracting Parties",
meaning States. An IAC occurs when one or more States have recourse to armed force
against another State, regardless of the reasons or the intensity of this confrontation.
Relevant rules of IHL may be applicable even in the absence of open hostilities. Moreover,
no formal declaration of war or recognition of the situation is required. The existence of an
IAC, and as a consequence, the possibility to apply International Humanitarian Law to this
situation, depends on what actually happens on the ground. It is based on factual conditions.
For example, there may be an IAC, even though one of the belligerents does not recognize
the government of the adverse party. The Commentary of the Geneva Conventions of 1949
confirms that, "any difference arising between two States and leading to the intervention of
armed forces is an armed conflict within the meaning of Article 2, even if one of the Parties
denies the existence of a state of war. It makes no difference how long the conflict lasts, or
how much slaughter takes place". Apart from regular, inter-state armed conflicts, Additional
Protocol I extends the definition of IAC to include armed conflicts in which peoples are
fighting against colonial domination, alien occupation or racist regimes in the exercise of
their right to self-determination (wars of national liberation).
II. JURISPRUDENCE
The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) proposed a general
definition of international armed conflict. In the Tadic case, the Tribunal stated that, "an
armed conflict exists whenever there is a resort to armed force between States". Other
international bodies have adopted this definition since then.
Suggested read : PRISONERS OF WAR ARE ESCORTED TO POW CAMPS IN THE
IRAN-IRAQ WAR

NON-INTERNATIONAL ARMED CONFLICT

I. IHL TREATIES
Two main legal sources must be examined in order to determine what a NIAC under
international humanitarian law is:
a) common Article 3 to the Geneva Conventions of 1949;
b) Article 1 of Additional Protocol II

A. AS PER COMMON ARTICLE 3 OF THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS

Common Article 3 applies to "armed conflicts not of an international character occurring in
the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties". These include armed conflicts in which
one or more non-governmental armed groups are involved. Depending on the situation,
hostilities may occur between governmental armed forces and non-governmental armed
groups or between such groups only. As the four Geneva Conventions have universally
been ratified now, the requirement that the armed conflict must occur "in the territory of one
of the High Contracting Parties" has lost its importance in practice. Indeed, any armed
conflict between governmental armed forces and armed groups or between such groups
cannot but take place on the territory of one of the Parties to the Convention.
In order to distinguish an armed conflict, in the meaning of common Article 3, from less
serious forms of violence, such as internal disturbances and tensions, riots or acts of
banditry, the situation must reach a certain threshold of confrontation. It has been generally
accepted that the lower threshold found in Article 1(2) of APII, which excludes internal
disturbances and tensions from the definition of NIAC, also applies to common Article 3.
Two criteria are usually used in this regard:
a. First, the hostilities must reach a minimum level of intensity. This may be the case, for
example, when the hostilities are of a collective character or when the government is obliged
to use military force against the insurgents, instead of mere police forces. b. Second,
non-governmental groups involved in the conflict must be considered as "parties to the
conflict", meaning that they possess organized armed forces. This means for example that
these forces have to be under a certain command structure and have the capacity to sustain
military operations.

Common Article 3 to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 states that:

"In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one
of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a
minimum, the following provisions:
(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who
have laid down their arms and those placed ' hors de combat ' by sickness, wounds,
detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any
adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other
similar criteria. To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and
in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment
and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment
pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are
recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.
An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may
offer its services to the Parties to the conflict. The Parties to the conflict should further
endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other
provisions of the present Convention. The application of the preceding provisions shall not
affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict."

B. AS PER ARTICLE I OF ADDITIONAL PROTOCOL II

A more restrictive definition of NIAC was adopted for the specific purpose of Additional
Protocol II. This instrument applies to armed conflicts "which take place in the territory of a
High Contracting Party between its armed forces and dissident armed forces or other
organized armed groups which, under responsible command, exercise such control over a
part of its territory as to enable them to carry out sustained and concerted military operations
and to implement this Protocol". This definition is narrower than the notion of NIAC under
common Article 3 in two aspects. Firstly, it introduces a requirement of territorial control, by
providing that non-governmental parties must exercise such territorial control "as to enable
them to carry out sustained and concerted military operations and to implement this
Protocol".
Secondly, Additional Protocol II expressly applies only to armed conflicts between State
armed forces and dissident armed forces or other organised armed groups. Contrary to
common Article 3, the Protocol does not apply to armed conflicts occurring only between
non-State armed groups.
In this context, it must be reminded that Additional Protocol II "develops and supplements"
common Article 3 "without modifying its existing conditions of application". This means that
this restrictive definition is relevant for the application of Protocol II only, but does not extend
to the law of NIAC in general. The Statute of the International Criminal Court, in its article 8,
paragraph 2 (f), confirms the existence of a definition of a non-international armed conflict
not fulfilling the criteria of Protocol II.

II. JURISPRUDENCE
Case law has brought important elements for a definition of an armed conflict, in particular
regarding the non-international armed conflicts in the meaning of common Article 3 that are
not expressly defined in the Conventions concerned.
Judgments and decisions of the ICTY throw also some light on the definition of NIAC. As
mentioned above, the ICTY went on to determine the existence of a NIAC "whenever there
is […] protracted armed violence between governmental authorities and organised armed
groups or between such groups within a State".
The ICTY thus confirmed that the definition of NIAC in the sense of common Article 3
encompasses situations where "several factions [confront] each other without involvement of
the government's armed forces". Since that first ruling, each judgment of the ICTY has taken
this definition as a starting point.

Note: ​The following is one of the most important sections of this background
guide. Most of your research will be based on the topics mentioned in this
section.
THE NATURE OF ARMED CONFLICTS 
Armed conflicts within States are political conflicts involving citizens fighting for internal
change. Some are secessionist movements, generally spearheaded by a group of people,
more often than not a minority within a community, who take up arms to fight for the
establishment of either an autonomous entity within an existing state or an entirely new and
independent state of their own. Such struggles have taken place recently in the Middle East,
Asia and Europe.
Militia groups, paramilitary groups and armed civilians with little discipline and with ill-defined
chains of command often fight armed conflicts, besides regular armies. Such clashes are in
fact often guerrilla wars without clear front lines. Another important feature in such conflicts
is usually the collapse of the institutions of the state, especially the police and judiciary, with
resulting paralysis of governance, a breakdown of law and order, and general banditry and
chaos. In some cases, not only are the functions of government suspended but also its
assets are destroyed or looted and experienced officials are killed or flee the country.
A larger category of armed conflicts within States often involves a group of people who are
armed and ready to fight for the goal of seizing governmental power. Sometimes conflicts
are matters of organized crime as opposed to politics. Money is the motivator for these
groups. Unlike members of secessionist movements, such groups are generally prepared to
continue to live in the same territory with other groups, regardless of the outcome of the
conflict.
Fighting in most conflicts is usually intermittent, with a wide range in intensity. It usually
occurs not on well-defined battlefields but in and around communities, and is often
characterized by personalized acts of violence, such as atrocities committed by former
neighbours and, in extreme cases, genocide. In some cases, the fighting spills over to
neighbouring countries used by one of the parties in the conflict as supply routes or hideouts
for combatants.
A feature of twentieth century armed conflicts is that civilians have in many instances
become the main combatants, as well as the primary victims. While it is not possible to
estimate civilian casualties in war with precision, authorities agree that the trend is upward.
The massive killings of civilian populations are due, in large part, to the fact that present-day
wars are fought largely within and not between countries. Villages and streets have become
battlefields. Traditional sanctuaries, such as hospitals and churches, have become targets.
Armed conflicts today destroy crops, places of worship and schools. Nothing is spared.
Brief ceasefires characterize most armed conflicts. Armed conflicts may end in many ways,
including through peace agreements entered into by the warring parties to explicitly regulate
or resolve contentious issues. They may also end through outright victory, where one party
has been defeated and/or eliminated by the other. For some experts, conflicts may also be
considered to have ended in situations in which even though there has been no formal
ceasefire fighting has been dormant for two years.

TRENDS SEEN IN RECENT CONFLICTS 

Most civilian deaths, suffering and displacement that we witness in armed conflict would be
avoidable if parties to conflict respected the fundamental norms of international humanitarian
and human rights law. Across conflicts, many parties are routinely defying those laws with
utter contempt for human life. Civilians are killed or severely injured in deliberate or
indiscriminate attacks. Schools, hospitals and places of worship are deliberately or
indiscriminately bombed or shelled. Humanitarian workers are kidnapped or killed, hospitals
destroyed and ambulances looted. Sexual violence remains widespread, and there are daily
reports of summary executions, arbitrary arrests and detention, abductions, forced
disappearances and torture. Such trends are most striking in ​the Syrian Arab Republic and
Yemen​, where State and non-State parties to the conflicts show complete disregard for
international humanitarian and human rights law. Throughout 2015, indiscriminate air strikes
and use of artillery, mortars and rockets killed, injured and displaced millions of civilians in
both countries. There was evidence of the use of chemical weapons in the Syrian Arab
Republic and reports of the use of cluster munitions in both it and Yemen. Parties to those
conflicts committed serious human rights violations against civilians, including unlawful
killings, arbitrary detention, torture, sexual violence, enforced disappearances and the taking
of hostages. Parties also targeted civilian infrastructure and deliberately disrupted water,
electricity and other essential networks. In the Syrian Arab Republic, for example, deliberate
water cuts affected 7.7 million civilians in Aleppo, Damascus and Dar’a during the second
quarter of 2015.
Similar patterns are evident in other conflicts, to varying degrees. In ​Afghanistan​, for
example, 11,002 civilian casualties (3,545 killed and 7,457 injured) were recorded in 2015,
the highest number since the United Nations began systematically recording casualties, in
2009. Civilian casualties recorded from targeted killings by non-State armed groups
increased by 27 per cent compared with 2014, while women and children casualties
increased by 37 and 14 per cent, respectively. High civilian casualties were also recorded in
Iraq​ (7,515 killed and 14,855 injured), which marked a decrease compared with 2014. In
Iraq, Libya and Nigeria​, government forces and non-State armed groups committed serious
human rights violations against civilians, including unlawful killings, abductions, torture,
enforced disappearances and sexual violence. In Nigeria, Boko Haram increasingly used
women and young children as suicide bombers.
In ​South Sudan​, there were widespread atrocities, including unlawful killings, abductions,
sexual violence and the recruitment and use of children, often targeting civilians along ethnic
lines, in 2015. The Global Protection Cluster recorded more than 1,000 civilians killed in
southern and central Unity State between April and September 2015 alone. Civilian homes
and health and educational facilities were systematically destroyed, livestock looted and
crops and seeds deliberately burned. Attacks targeting civilians and farms were also
reported in the ​Democratic Republic of the Congo​ and the Sudan. In the Central African
Republic, 1,263 documented cases of serious human rights violations, committed by
government forces and armed groups, affected 2,038 victims.
Pakistan ​is currently groping with Human Rights and Military concerns on several fronts,
and has been doing so for a long time.Its current issues are Counterterrorism and Law
Enforcement Abuses, Attacks on Minorities and Sectarian Violence, Religious Minorities,
Freedom of Expression, Women and Girls, Children’s Rights and most pressingly,
Balochistan.
In Balochistan, the security forces continued to unlawfully kill and forcibly disappear
suspected Baloch militants and opposition activists, and the attacks against ethnic Baloch
individuals has only risen meteorically.
The Afghans seeking refuge in Pakistan have faced setbacks, and according to the United
Nations refugee agency (UNHCR), over 50,000 refugees were repatriated to Afghanistan,
most of whom had resided in Pakistan for more than 15 years. UN Secretary-General Ban
Ki-moon noted, and Human Rights Watch research found, that many returnees left because
of police coercion and abuse and stated that returning to Afghanistan was their only viable
option.
The government took inadequate action to protect women and girls from abuses including
rape, murder through so-called honour killings, acid attacks, domestic violence, and forced
marriages. According to local groups, hundreds of honour killings took place in different
regions of the State.The Pakistani government failed to pass the promised legislation
constituting the National Commission on the Rights of the Child, an independent body to
protect and enforce child rights in the country. Attacks on schools and the use of child
suicide bombers by the Taliban and affiliated armed extremist groups continued.Rampant
sexual abuse of children was exposed in, when police uncovered a child pornography racket
by a criminal gang that had produced and sold hundreds of videos of girls and boys being
sexually abused.
The United Nations and the European Union expressed concern over the increasing use of
the death penalty and urged the reinstatement of the moratorium. The UN estimated that the
8,300 people on death row included hundreds who were sentenced for offenses committed
as children. In June, the UN high commissioner for human rights noted that Pakistan was the
world’s “third-most prolific executioner.”
Historically tense relations between Pakistan and its nuclear rival India further deteriorated in
2015, with both countries accusing each other of facilitating unrest and militancy. Scheduled
talks to resolve longstanding disputes over security, territory, and sharing river water
resources were stalled. Further, with the recent attacks among both nations on the border,
the animosity has only escalated meteorically.
India,​ the world’s largest democracy, has a strong civil society, vigorous media, and an
independent judiciary, but also serious human rights concerns. The government did little to
implement promises by newly elected Prime Minister Narendra Modi to improve respect for
religious freedom, protect the rights of women and children, and end abuses against
marginalized communities.
Even as the prime minister celebrated Indian democracy abroad, back home civil society
groups faced increased harassment and government critics faced intimidation and lawsuits.
Officials warned media against making what they called unsubstantiated allegations against
the government, saying it weakened democracy. In several cases, courts reprimanded the
government for restricting free expression.
Religious minorities, especially Muslims and Christians, accused the authorities of not doing
enough to protect their rights. Some leaders of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) made
inflammatory remarks against minorities and right-wing Hindu fringe groups threatened and
harassed them, in some cases even attacking them.
The government failed to repeal laws that provide public officials and security forces
immunity from prosecution for abuses without prior authorization. Lack of progress in
implementing long-overdue police reforms showed the unwillingness among public officials
to make the force more accountable and free from political interference.
The north-eastern state of Tripura revoked the draconian Armed Forces Special Powers Act
(AFSPA), citing a decline in insurgency. However, it remains in force in Jammu and Kashmir
and in other north-eastern states. AFSPA has been widely criticized by rights groups and
numerous independent commissions have recommended repealing or amending the law, but
the government has not done so in the face of stiff army opposition.
A report by the United Nations special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary, or arbitrary
executions noted that “impunity remains a serious problem” and expressed regret that India
had not repealed or at least radically amended AFSPA.
The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women has
expressed concerns over grave discrimination and setbacks faced by the female population
of the State.
KOSOVO
Kosovo, an impoverished land with a mainly Albanian population, unilaterally declared
independence from Serbia in February 2008, after years of strained relations between its
Serb and Albanian inhabitants.
It has been recognised by the United States and major European Union countries, but
Serbia, backed by its powerful ally Russia, refuses to do so, as do most ethnic Serbs inside
Kosovo.
After the break-up of the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s, Serbia responded to separatist
pressure from Kosovo by launching a brutal crackdown on the territory's Albanian
population, which was only brought to an end by NATO military intervention in 1999.
Until 2008 the province was administered by the UN. Reconciliation between the majority
Albanians, most of whom support independence and the Serb minority remains elusive.

Series of Events
1990 ​- Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic strips Kosovo of its autonomy and imposes
Serbian administration on the territory, prompting Albanian protests.
1991 ​- Start of the violent break-up of Yugoslavia. Kosovar Albanians launch a passive
resistance movement but fail to secure independence.
1996 ​- The rebel Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) steps up attacks on Serbian authorities in
Kosovo. Their campaign grows along with a Serbian crackdown.
1999 ​- After international efforts fail to stop the Kosovo conflict, Nato begins aerial
bombardment of Serb targets. Yugoslav and Serbian forces respond with a campaign of
ethnic cleansing against Kosovar Albanians, prompting an exodus.
Following a peace agreement, Yugoslav and Serbian forces withdraw from Kosovo and a
UN sponsored administration takes over.
2008 ​- Kosovo declares independence unilaterally.
2012 ​- Group of countries overseeing Kosovo since 2008 ends its supervisory role. Nato-led
peacekeepers and EU rule-of-law monitors remain.
2013 ​- Kosovo and Serbia reach a landmark agreement on normalising relations that grants
a high degree of autonomy to Serb-majority areas in northern, while both sides agree not to
block each other's efforts to seek EU membership.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-18331273​ (For a more extensive time scale by
BBC.)
Kosovo, currently, is not an official member of the UN, as the requirements of recognition by
the UN are suggestion by the Security Council (all the fifteen members, with no veto by any
Permanent Member), and then the proposal’s adoption by the General Assembly.

RUSSAI UKRAINE CONFLICT

The conflict in Ukraine arose in 2013, when the Armed Conflict in Eastern Ukraine had made
the region vulnerable and volatile, in spite of domestic and international actors’ efforts to
stabilise the region. Parts of Donetsk and Luhansk regions remain under de facto control of
Russia-backed fighters. All sides in the conflict violated international humanitarian law.
U.N. estimates point to over 1.7 million internally displaced people (IDP), and others who
have been unable to leave, are facing egregious conditions that have been exacerbated over
time. Massive human rights’ violations have scarred the area, from both the Russia backed
rebel and the Army’s sides, with fresh reports of secret detentions in August 2016. These
has been a marked deterioration of the situation, with 66 percent increase in conflict related
civilian causalities.
By 15 September 2016, OHCHR recorded 9,640 conflict-related deaths and 22,431 injuries
among Ukrainian armed forces, civilians and members of the armed groups since the conflict
began in mid-April 2014.
The report describes how the close proximity of Government forces and armed groups at the
contact line has contributed to rising tensions. In addition, the proliferation of arms and the
positioning of their fighters and weapons in populated residential areas by both sides have
heightened risks and harm to civilians.
While more than half of all civilian casualties recorded in June and July resulted from
shelling across the contact line, considerable number of civilians were also killed and injured
by mines, explosive remnants of war and booby traps. The number of civilians, who died as
a result of the secondary effects of violence, including lack of food, water, medicine or
healthcare, remains unknown.
The report shows that civilians living in the conflict-affected area are deprived of protection,
access to basic services and humanitarian aid, and that their freedom of movement is
severely hampered.
UN human rights monitors also found that about 70 per cent of the alleged human rights
abuses and violations they documented involved allegations of torture, ill-treatment and
incommunicado detention. The grave matter of Freedom of Expression being repressed,
with journalists being targeted has to be born in mind, too.
The gradual deterioration of the human rights situation and regression of fundamental
freedoms in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (the status of which is prescribed by UN
GA res 68/262), should also be taken into account in the discussion. With the increasing
integration into the Russian Federation, there is a lack of accountability and redress for
victims of human rights abuses, in particular detainees. The right to peaceful assembly has
also been further curtailed by the de facto authorities and people continue to be interrogated
and harassed by law enforcement agents for expressing views that are considered to be
extremist.
Further read
http://www.ohchr.org/FR/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=20496&LangID=E
#sthash.ibPNEYt1.dpuf
ISRAEL PALESTINE ARMED CONFLICT
Although Palestine is not a recognised state, we shall consider the armed conflict between
Israel and Palestine as an urgent Human Rights’ issue that deserves explicit discussion.
There has been a long history of the conflict between Israel and Palestine that has only
intensified in the recent times. Israel, with the diplomatic support of the USA, has been
gaining strength in the region. Certain groups like Hamas and political groups that took to
arms have been making peace efforts difficult in the area, even with many Security Council
resolutions pertaining to the issue. Crimes against minors have been specially marked in the
conflict.
“I am also deeply alarmed at the suffering of so many children as a result of Israeli military
operations in Gaza last year. I urge Israel to take concrete and immediate steps, including
by reviewing existing policies and practices, to protect and prevent the killing and maiming of
children, and to respect the special protections afforded to schools and hospitals.” were the
words used by U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki Moon on 18​th​ June, 2015, which reflects upon
the atrocities that plague the region.
For Children and Armed Conflict recent report:
https://childrenandarmedconflict.un.org/countries-caac/occupied-palestinian-territory-and-isr
ael/
For UNHRC’s recent reports on Israel:
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/countries/MENARegion/Pages/ILIndex.aspx
YEMEN
The civil war erupted mainly due to fight between forces loyal to the beleaguered President,
Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi, and those allied to Zaidi Shia rebels known as Houthis, who
forced Mr Hadi to flee the capital Sanaa in February 2015 (an ethnic war, due to disputes
between Shia and Sunni divisions of Islam. The Shia are one third population.) Yemen has
been plagued by years of instability, poor governance, lack of rule of law and widespread
poverty before the civil war, with about 62 percent in need of humanitarian asistance.
Between 26 March, when the Saudi-led coalition began bombing rebel forces, and 16
October, the UN recorded 7,655 civilian casualties, including 2,577 killed and 5,078
wounded. Just under half of Yemen's population is under 18 and at least 505 children are
among those killed. The UN children's fund (Unicef) warned in October that the "the situation
for children is deteriorating every single day, and it is horrific".
On 18 November, the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) said
it had verified 8,875 reports of human rights violations - an average of 43 every day.
A report published by Amnesty International in August said all parties might have committed
war crimes. It accused the Saudi-led coalition of carrying out unlawful air strikes on
heavily-populated sites with no military targets nearby, and the Houthis of using heavy
weapons indiscriminately.
Also, recently, Saudi Arabia has struck $1.15 Billion deal in arms with the US, as revealed by
the Pentagon, and in 2015, they had been involved in a $20 billion deal in armaments, which
is being used to fuel the civil conflict in Yemen.

Between March 2015 and 23 August 2016, an estimated 3,799 civilians have been killed and
6,711 injured as result of the war in Yemen.* At least 7.6 million people, including three
million women and children are currently suffering from malnutrition and at least three million
people have been forced to flee their homes, according to UNHRC Office of High
Commissioner.
There have been innumerable examples of the kinds of possible violations of International
Humanitarian Law and International Human Rights Law that have occurred between 1 July
2015 and 30 June 2016, including attacks on residential areas, marketplaces, medical and
educational facilities, and public and private infrastructure; the use of landmines and cluster
bombs; sniper attacks against civilians; deprivation of liberty; targeted killings; the
recruitment and use of children in hostilities; and forced evictions and displacement.
For further details
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=20411&LangID=E
#sthash.vT1kKqcc.dpuf

DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF KOREA

There had been a long standing history of conflict between North Korea and South Korea,
which has witnessed interventions by the U.N. and the USA.
In present day history, it fares no better, according to the U.N. reports and other sources
such as Human Rights’ Watch. The Commission of Inquiry set up in 2014 by Human Rights’
Council has found grave human rights violations in North Korea, including violations of the
freedoms of expression; discrimination; freedom of movement; right to food and right to life;
arbitrary detention, torture, and execution; abductions and enforced disappearances from
other countries. The Commission also found crimes against humanity that entail
extermination, murder, enslavement, torture, imprisonment, rape, forced abortions and other
sexual violence, persecution on political, religious, racial and gender grounds, the forcible
transfer of populations, the enforced disappearance of persons, and the inhumane act of
knowingly causing prolonged starvation, in its report presented in HRC’s 25​th​ Session in
Geneva.
Darusman presented his report on the DPRK to the 31st session of the Human Rights
Council this week, highlighting the continuing “horrendous” human rights situation for people
living there. Political prison camps, incarceration of whole families because of the allegation
against one member, torture and other violations continue with impunity which is a matter of
political and legal accountability of those responsible for these serious crimes, including the
Supreme Leader, Mr Kim Jong-Un. Along with the Commission of Inquiry into the DPRK, the
country’s human rights situation has now become the focus of international attention. In
addition, the commission of inquiry’s report on human rights violations is now with the UN
Security Council. This could lead to a possible referral of DPRK to the International Criminal
Court.
Also, in addition to the case law regarding the application of IHL during armed conflict in
Korean context, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) states that incitement
to commit genocide does not have to be public or even successful, and that the heads of the
government enjoy no immunity from any criminal liability. There has been rising tension
among the population, and the current image portrays a grave picture where the population
is unable to enjoy even the most basic of Human Rights.

SYRIA
The Syrian Civil War is a grave multi sided armed conflict, which grew out of the Arab Spring
unrest in 2011, with many international interventions. The war is now being fought among
several factions: the Syrian Government, a loose alliance of Syrian Arab rebel groups, the
Syrian Democratic Forces, Salafi jihadist groups (including al-Nusra Front) who often
co-operate with the rebels, and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL).
According to Human Rights’ Council, the conflict has led to a humanitarian crisis with an
estimated 7.6 million internally displaced and 4.2 million refugees in neighbouring countries,
along with mass deaths and torture in detention. One local group estimated that by February
22, 2015 aerial barrel bomb attacks had killed 6,163 civilians in Syria, including 1,892
children, since the passage of the UN Security Council Resolution 2139. Despite its
accession to the Chemical Weapons Convention in 2014, the Syrian government used toxic
chemicals (the Sarin gas, according to the U.N Inspectors) in several barrel bomb attacks in
Idlib governorate in March, April, and May 2013. The Security Council adopted Resolution
2235 to establish an independent panel charged with determining who is responsible for
chemical attacks in Syria.
Humanitarian aid agencies experienced significant challenges in getting assistance to the
displaced civilian population and others badly affected by the conflict because of sieges
imposed by government and non-state armed groups, the government’s continuing
obstacles to allow assistance to come in across the border, and a general failure to
guarantee security for humanitarian workers, in spite of the fact that in July 2014, a Security
Council Resolution authorized deliveries of cross border humanitarian aid even without
government permission.
The state has witnessed severe grave Human Rights’ violations and has been scarred with
multiple massacres.

AFGHANISTAN
Afghanistan has been a region of armed conflict for decades, with the current scenario being
no improvement in context of humanitarian conditions.
Fighting between the Taliban and government forces in Afghanistan escalated in 2015, with
the Taliban seizing control of Kunduz and holding the city for nearly two weeks before
Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF), with United States air and ground support,
regained control. The Taliban also seized a number of district centers and threatened other
provincial capitals.
The United Nations deemed nearly half of the country’s provinces as being at high or
extreme risk.
IEDs planted by insurgents remained a leading cause of civilian casualties. Such weapons
function as anti-personnel landmines, and their indiscriminate use violates international
humanitarian law.
Although President Ghani has signed into law a decree criminalizing recruitment by Afghan
security forces of soldiers less than 18 years old, Afghan Local Police (ALP) and
pro-government militias in some provinces continue to recruit children. The Taliban recruited
boys as young as 14 to fight and carry out suicide bombings. UN also reported a significant
increase in attacks against schools, although Afghanistan endorsed the global Safe Schools
Declaration, thus committing to do more to protect students, teachers, and schools during
times of armed conflict, including through implementing the ​Guidelines on Protecting
Schools from Military Use.​
Also, the government has failed to take steps to improve enforcement of the Elimination of
Violence against Women Law (EVAW) and to stop prosecutions of so-called moral crimes,
which lead to imprisonment of women fleeing domestic violence and forced marriages.
There has been a lack on the part of accountability for torture by Security Forces. According
to a United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan report in February 2015, one-third of
detainees in Afghan detention facilities are tortured and unofficial detention centres continue
to function, with four such centres in Kandahar alone.
Human Rights’ violations have to be addressed with careful scrutiny in this conflicted region.

IRAQ
Armed conflict between the armed extremist group Islamic State (also known as ISIS) and
an array of Kurdish and central Iraqi government forces, pro-government militias, and a
United States-led international air campaign dominated the human rights situation in 2015.
According to the United Nations, summary executions, car bombs, assassinations, artillery
shelling, and aerial bombardment killed and injured over 20,000 civilians. Pro-government
militias carried out assassinations, property destruction, and enforced disappearances.
Since June 2014, the conflict has displaced close to 3.2 million Iraqis, and interrupted school
for over 3 million children as well as access to medical care, food, and clean water.
Government forces recaptured the area around Tikrit in March and Beiji in October, and
Kurdish forces took Sinjar in November, while ISIS took Ramadi on May 17. Ongoing battles
for Ramadi, areas north of Tikrit, and in Diyala, Kirkuk, and Niniveh continue to inflict heavy
casualties on both sides.
The region has witnessed abuses by the Islamic State and the Government’s forces
simultaneously. ISIS often executed persons by extremely cruel and painful methods such
as burning, drowning, electrocution, and stoning.
In 2015, ISIS recruited children for suicide missions and to carry out executions, and they do
so by abducting them.
Iraqi courts continue to impose the death penalty. In October 2014, the United Nations
Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI) and the Office of the United Nations High
Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) reported with regard to the death penalty that
“persistent and serious flaws remain in the … criminal justice system, notably … violations of
due process and fair trial rights.” Accountability for grievous crimes remain weak.
ISIS continued to sexually enslave and abuse Yezidi women and girls. Human Rights Watch
documented a system of organized rape and sexual assault, sexual slavery, and forced
marriage by ISIS forces. Yezidi women and girls told Human Rights Watch how ISIS
members forced them into marriage; sold, in some cases a number of times; or given as
“gifts” to ISIS fighters.
The United States and Iran supported Baghdad’s military campaign against ISIS with
equipment, training, intelligence, and advisors. Lebanon’s Hezbollah group and Iran’s
Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Al-Quds Force sent forces into combat in Iraq.
The US-led coalition bombing ISIS positions included France, the United Kingdom, the
Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Canada, and Australia. Denmark and the US reviewed
several airstrikes following allegations of civilian casualties. Germany, Hungary, Italy, and
the Czech Republic, among others, also provided military equipment, including to
Peshmerga forces. The US remained the largest provider of military equipment to Iraq.
Iraqi militias implicated in human rights abuses used US and Iranian weapons in their
operations. The US State Department’s 2014 annual report on end-use monitoring provides
only cursory information on withheld military export licenses. Washington has not made
available any further information, despite legal requirements that the government make
information about suspended units public, to “the maximum extent practical.” In its annual
report on export controls for 2014, the European Union noted three denials of licenses to
Iraq based on human rights and international humanitarian law concerns.
The US FY16 National Defence Authorization Act tightens obligations on the Defence
Department to report on its security aid to the Iraqi government—including on end-user
monitoring, suspending support for certain Shia militias, and addressing grievances related
to the illicit arrest, detention, and unfair trials.

IRAN
Iran has been actively involved in interventions in Syrian Civil War and in Iraq.
Iran faces Human Rights’ setbacks on a few issues, including Women’s Rights, Freedom of
Expression and Information, Freedom of Assembly and Association, Political Prisoners and
Human Rights Defenders, and treatment of Minorities, although it has done a commendable
job in providing for the Afghan refugees.
The Convention on the Rights of Child has suggested the following for the scenario of
inequality in Iran:
“The Committee urges the State party to urgently repeal its laws and policies that are
discriminatory against girls and religious and ethnic minorities and ensure that all children,
irrespective of their gender, ethnicity or religious beliefs, enjoy equal rights and freedoms as
guaranteed under the Convention. In particular, the Committee urges the State party to
ensure that the State party’s legislation does not leave the interpretation and implementation
of its legislation to the wide discretion of the judiciary without providing them with the
necessary training and interpretative guidelines.”

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 2011 came up with the following
suggestion:
“The State party should take steps to increase the number of women in decision-making and
judicial bodies at all levels and in all areas. It should also organize special training
programmes for women and regular awareness campaigns in this regard.”
Currently, women are prevented from actively participating in the Judiciary’s affairs.
For More Information, please go through the Report of the Secretary-General on the
protection of civilians in armed conflict of 13 May 2016 (S/2016/447).
 INVOLVEMENT OF CHILDREN IN ARMED 
CONFLICT 
While there has been substantial progress in the last two decades, serious challenges for
the protection of children affected by armed conflict continued in the second half of 2015 and
in early 2016. The intensity of grave violations increased in a number of situations of armed
conflict. The proliferation of actors involved in armed conflicts was a particular concern.
Cross border aerial operations conducted by international coalitions or individual Member
States, especially in populated areas, resulted in highly complex environments for the
protection of children. The impact on children of the collective failure to prevent and end
conflict is severe, with regions in turmoil and violations against children intensifying in a
number of conflicts. The violations are directly related to the denigration of respect for
international humanitarian and human rights law by parties to conflict.
Protracted conflicts have had a substantial impact on children. In the Syrian Arab Republic,
according to the Special Envoy for Syria, the conflict has caused the deaths of more than
400,000 people, including thousands of children. In Afghanistan in 2015, the highest number
of child casualties was recorded since the United Nations began systematically documenting
civilian casualties in 2009. In Somalia, the situation continued to be perilous for children: the
number of recorded violations showed no signs of abating in 2016, with many hundreds
abducted, recruited, used, brutally killed and maimed. In a most troubling example, in South
Sudan, children were victims of all six grave violations, in particular during brutal military
offensives against opposition forces. The deterioration of the situation in July 2016 is of
particular concern for the plight of children. In Iraq, intensive armed clashes and attacks
targeting civilians by Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant have led to the death of thousands
of civilians, including many children. In Yemen, the escalation of conflict has continued, with
alarming levels of child recruitment, killing and maiming of children and attacks on schools
and hospitals.
Attacks on schools and hospitals were prevalent in 2015, linked to the increasing use of air
strikes and explosive weapons in populated areas. Armed groups particularly targeted girls’
access to education, although government forces also carried out attacks on schools and
hospitals. Member States should consider, where necessary, changes in policies, military
procedures and legislation to protect schools and hospitals.
In its resolution 2225 (2015), the Security Council expressed grave concern regarding the
abduction of children in situations of armed conflict and requested those parties to armed
conflict that engaged in patterns of abduction of children to be listed in the present report.
Abductions continued to be perpetrated on a wide scale by Al-Shabaab, Boko Haram,
Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA), with the
number significantly increasing in Afghanistan and South Sudan.
The reporting period was marked by most disturbing cases of sexual exploitation and abuse
committed by United Nations peacekeepers and civilians and non- United Nations
international forces. Sexual exploitation and abuse by those entrusted to protect civilians is
particularly egregious. The Secretary-General has initiated a robust response to allegations
against United Nations personnel, following the recommendations of the external
independent review panel on sexual exploitation and abuse by international peacekeeping
forces in the Central African Republic. The Security Council, through its resolution 2272
(2016), endorsed repatriation of military or police units when there is credible evidence of
widespread or systemic sexual exploitation or abuse by those units and asked the United
Nations to gather and preserve evidence of incidents in peacekeeping operations. The
measures represent important steps in ensuring that there is accountability for those who
commit these atrocious acts.
FORCED DISPLACEMENT 
Displacement has a critical impact on children, since parties to conflict take advantage of the
vulnerability and concentration of displaced populations to recruit children in camps and
commit other violations, such as abduction, sexual violence, forced marriage and human
trafficking. In line with other United Nations partners, the Special Representative emphasizes
that the fundamental principles of the best interests of the child and non-discrimination
should be given primary consideration at the meeting and in the development of all relevant
policies on internally displaced and refugee children. In particular, the institution of asylum
needs more than ever to be respected, preserved and reinforced, particularly in relation to
children.
In regard to education, as the Secretary-General noted in his report on addressing large
movements of refugees and migrants (A/70/59), with millions
of children currently out of school, the promise made by the General Assembly one year ago
to leave no one behind in implementing the Sustainable Development Goals risks becoming
a meaningless cliché. Primary education should be compulsory and available to all refugee
children, and that educational opportunities should be expanded. While protecting displaced
children and providing for health care and education are important steps, it is clear that
strong leadership is needed by Member States to end conflict and create conditions
conducive to sustainable return. Increased efforts should be made to identify long-term
solutions that will mitigate the root causes and structural factors of displacement, provide
support to displaced children and ensure family reunification, keeping in mind the best
interests of the child. Only when children are reunited with their families, in a safe
environment and with access to basic services, will they be able to flourish and fully
contribute to the future of their society.

CHALLENGES FACED IN PROTECTION AGAINST VIOLENT EXTREMISM 

In 2015-16, children continued to be severely affected by violent extremism and were often
the direct targets of acts intended to cause maximum civilian casualties and terrorize
communities. The recruitment and use of children was a prevalent concern, with armed
groups controlling large swaths of territory, leaving many civilians without Government
protection and resulting in children being abducted and forcibly recruited. The conduct of
Government forces and their allies when retaking territory can also be a significant factor in
the recruitment and use of children, since abuses and human rights violations can create or
add to real or perceived grievances in the affected population as well as forcing civilians,
including children, to seek protection from other parties to conflict. Social media also
continues to be used for purposes of propaganda and to encourage recruitment of children,
particularly outside areas affected by conflict.
In addition to recruitment, security responses by Member States, in particular during military
operations, have also directly and indirectly affected children. The increased proliferation of
airstrikes is of particular concern for the protection of children owing to the high number of
civilian casualties. When responding to extreme violence, Member States should ensure that
their rules of engagement take into account that a large number of children are associated
with those groups and may have been placed on the front line, either in combat or as human
shields.
As noted in the Special Representative’s previous report to the General Assembly
(A/70/162), children encountered in security operations are often treated systematically as
security threats rather than victims. Increasingly, large numbers of children are being
systematically arrested and detained in counter- terrorism operations for their alleged
association with parties to conflict. Detention has also been employed as a tactic to recruit
and use children as spies and for intelligence - gathering purposes, which puts them at
serious risk. The detention of children should always be a last resort, for the shortest time
possible and guided by the best interests of the child. If they are accused of a crime during
their association with armed groups, children should be processed by the juvenile justice
system rather than military courts, which frequently fail to apply the relevant juvenile justice
standards and due process. Of greatest concern are reports that children allegedly
associated with non-State armed groups have been sentenced to death, notwithstanding the
stipulation under the Convention on the Rights of the Child that capital punishment or life
imprisonment without the possibility of release may not be imposed on juvenile offenders. All
too often counter-terrorism strategies are implemented without regard for the long-term
effects the policies may have. Prolonged detention is not only detrimental to the
development of the child, who misses out on crucial years of education, but also for society
as a whole. The effective reintegration of children who are allegedly associated with
non-State armed groups must be the primary response since it is essential for their
well-being and to ensure long-term peace and security. These children should be primarily
treated as victims, as the majority have suffered ill treatment and violations. The Special
Representative calls upon Member States to develop operating procedures to expeditiously
hand over children who are captured or who surrender in the course of military operations to
child protection actors to reintegrate them into their communities. Upon return, such children
are often stigmatized, and sufficient resources should be allocated for their reintegration.
Resources and assistance should also be given to the receiving communities to support
reintegration efforts.

APPENDIX-
BASIC POINTS THAT A RESOLUTION SHOULD 
COVER 
1. The general stance of the UNHRC on the agenda
2. Recommendations of the Committee to the related organs of the United Nations and to
other international/supranational bodies.
3. The setting up of bodies/ task forces (if any) to combat the problem at hand. The
resolution must contain details of :
1. constituent members of such body
2. mandate of the body
 3. a plan of action for the body

4. Suggestions to UNGA or other relevant UN organs to alter the clauses laid forward in the
existing treaties/conventions
Region specific solutions, to enhance the human rights and the accessibility of civilians in
conflict regions

NATURE OF PROOF AND EVIDENCE 

Evidence or proof is acceptable from sources​:
1. News Sources​:
➢​REUTERS – Any Reuters article which clearly makes mention of the fact or is in
contradiction of the fact being
stated by a delegate in council. (​http://www.reuters.com/​)

➢​State operated News Agencies – These reports can be used in the support of or against
the State that owns the
News Agency. These reports, if credible or substantial enough, can be used in support of or
against any Country as
such but in that situation, they can be denied by any other country in the council. Some
examples are,
● RIA Novosti (Russia) ​http://en.rian.ru/
● IRNA (Iran) ​http://www.irna.ir/ENIndex.htm
● BBC (United Kingdom) ​http://www.bbc.co.uk/
●Xinhua News Agency and CCTV (P.R. China) ​http://cctvnews.cntv.cn/

2. Government Reports: These reports can be used in a similar way as the State Operated
News Agencies reports and can, in all circumstances, be denied by another country.
However, a nuance is that a report that is being denied by a
certain country can still be accepted by the Executive Board as credible information.
Examples are,
➢​Government Websites like
the Ministry of Defense of the Russian (Federation http://www.eng.mil.ru/en/index.htm)
​➢​Ministry of Foreign Affairs of various nations like India (​http://www.mea.gov.in/​),
People’s Republic of China (​http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/​)
France (​http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/en/​)
Russian Federation (​http://www.mid.ru/brp_4.nsf/main_eng​ )
➢​Permanent Representatives to the United Nations Reports
(​http://www.un.org/en/members​(Click on any country to get the website of the Office of its
Permanent Representative)
➢​Multilateral Organizations like the NATO (​http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/index.htm​ ),
ASEAN
(​http://www.aseansec.org/​ ), OPEC (​http://www.opec.org/opec_web/en/​ ), etc.

3. UN Reports: All UN Reports are considered credible information or evidence by the

Executive Board.
UN Bodies: Like
1. The SC (​http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/​),
2. GA (​http://www.un.org/en/ga/​ ),
3.HRC (​http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/Pages/HRCIndex.aspx​), etc.

UN Affiliated bodies like

1. the International Atomic Energy Agency (​http://www.iaea.org/​) ,
2. World Bank (​http://www.worldbank.org/​),
3. International Monetary Fund (​http://www.imf.org/external/index.htm​),
4. International Committee of the Red Cross (​http://www.icrc.org/eng/index.jsp​), etc.
5. Treaty Based Bodies like the Antarctic Treaty System (​http://www.ats.aq/e/ats.htm​),
6. the International Criminal Court (​http://www.icccpi.int/Menus/ICC​)

Under no circumstances will sources like Wikipedia (​​http://www.wikipedia.org/​​), Amnesty

International
(​http://www.amnesty.org/​),Human Rights Watch(​http://www.hrw.org/​) or newspapers like the
Guardian
(​http://www.guardian.co.uk/​),Times of India (​http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/​), etc. be
accepted as credible proof though they might be used for general information.