The Competence of the Un Human Rights Council and its Special Procedures in Relation to Armed Conflicts: Extrajudicial Executions in the 'War on Terror'

26 Pages Posted: 22 Jun 2008 Last revised: 19 Mar 2011

See all articles by Philip Alston

Philip Alston

New York University School of Law

Jason Morgan-Foster

University of Michigan Law School

Date Written: February 1, 2008

Abstract

Since 2003, as part of its war on terror, the United States has taken the position that the UN Commission on Human Rights and its successor, the UN Human Rights Council, as well as the system of special procedures reporting to both bodies, all lack the competence to examine abuses committed in the context of armed conflicts. The article examines the arguments put forward by the US in the specific context of the work of the UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions. The authors conclude that the consistent practice of the human rights organs for almost 25 years, often supported and until 2003 never opposed by the US, runs counter to the current US position. Acceptance of the US position would not only undermine efforts to hold the US accountable but would also have a major impact on the international system of accountability as a whole.

Suggested Citation

Alston, Philip and Morgan-Foster, Jason, The Competence of the Un Human Rights Council and its Special Procedures in Relation to Armed Conflicts: Extrajudicial Executions in the 'War on Terror' (February 1, 2008). European Journal of International Law, Vol. 19, No.1, pp. 183-209, 2008, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1149061 or http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chn006

Philip Alston (Contact Author)

New York University School of Law ( email )

40 Washington Square South
New York, NY 10012-1099
United States

Jason Morgan-Foster

University of Michigan Law School ( email )

625 South State Street
Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1215
United States

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Downloads
103
Abstract Views
992
Rank
469,563
PlumX Metrics