@article{2016:schmalz:normative_,
title = {Normative demarcations of the right to life in a globalized world: Conflicts between Humanitarian Law and Human Rights Law as markers},
year = {2016},
note = {The relationship between international humanitarian law (IHL) and
international human rights law (IHRL) has occupied legal scholarship
extensively over the last decades. It is undisputed today that IHRL
also applies in situations of armed conflict, and that norms of the
two regimes are regularly intertwined. At the same time, the regimes
are characterized by different logics, which become most apparent with
regard to the protection of the right to life, or the permissibility
to kill a person. In this paper, I will argue that the concrete lines
of conflict between IHL and IHRL in that regard can be viewed as
markers for fundamental normative questions arising in a changing
global political framework. IHL draws on the order of states as
decisive entities of rights and liabilities, whereas IHRL takes
humanity as reference point. On that basis, their relationship does
not appear as straightforward convergence but rather as a dialectical
process that highlights their respective limitations. The conflicts
regarding the protection of a right to life in that sense are
indicative of a more general uncertainty about the appropriate
normative grammar today: They point to instances, in which the
state-centric framework has become inadequate. But they equally
underline dangers of the language of universal human rights, the scope
and content of which will depend on particular conceptions about the
boundaries of political community.},
journal = {KritV Kritische Vierteljahresschrift für Gesetzgebung und Rechtswissenschaft},
pages = {234--253},
author = {Schmalz, Dana},
volume = {99},
number = {3}
}