I was just at a Lecture on International Humanitarian Law and International Human Rights Law: Distinction and Compatibility given by the Director of the Qatar Red Crescent. It was somewhat interesting.
But I couldn't help but wonder, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the Palestinian Wall Case (or hey, Israeli Wall Case if that's your P.O.V.) had stated that International Humanitarian Law (IHL) is the lex specialis during times of armed conflict and that International Human Rights Law (the general law applicable during times of peace) is to be interpreted in light of IHL.
It got me thinking. International Human Rights Law (IHRL) is constantly evolving and developing where as IHL is constantly staying at the bare minimum. How can IHRL still be interpreted in the future in light of IHL if one maintains the minimum and another is ever developing?
What is the next step of evolution for IHL? History shows that it would actually take a disaster of epic proportions for IHL to developed. Heck it took World War II for the Geneva Conventions to be properly codified.
So what do you think? Voice your thoughts and ideas please.