With the global proliferation of armed conflicts, children are among the most vulnerable, facing serious violations of their human rights, most notably the right to education. Although both international humanitarian law (IHL) and international human rights law (IHRL) provide protection, schools continue to be attacked, educational infrastructure is destroyed, and millions of children lose access to learning. Against this backdrop, the present article examines the protection of children’s right to education under IHRL and IHL, and argues for a shift in how these existing norms are interpreted to better reflect the centrality of education to human dignity. Drawing on the established link between the right to education and human dignity under IHRL, the article proposes a novel interpretive lens that reframes the denial of education during armed conflict as a direct assault on the human dignity of the child, rather than merely a legal violation. Through this lens, education shifts from an ancillary social right to a core humanitarian concern grounded in the child’s dignity. The article argues that this human dignity-based understanding of education found in IHRL should inform the interpretation of IHL, as integrating this perspective would strengthen the normative coherence of IHL and offer stronger protection for children’s right to education in armed conflict. Recognizing schools as vital spaces for learning, stability and development, this approach emphasizes that access to education underpins children’s holistic growth, the realization of their rights and the safeguarding of their human dignity.

Tragically, the abuse of children within organizational contexts continues to persist across time and geographies. Various institutions established for children’s care and protection have repeatedly been exposed as epicentres of abuse. The concept and practice of ‘child safeguarding’ has emerged as an approach to address the systemic failures within organizational settings that enable – or fail to prevent – child abuse. Child safeguarding has received minimal academic attention and there is a notable lack of focus on the legal dimensions of child safeguarding, especially from an international human rights law perspective. This article contends that child safeguarding should shift from being viewed primarily as a practice issue to being understood and approached as a matter of children’s rights law. The article connects the concept and practice of child safeguarding with international children’s rights law norms and standards, examines the role of the state vis-à-vis non-state actors, and brings together the various guidance of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child articulating the responsibilities of states in protecting children from violence perpetrated by non-state actors, including a case example of the Committee’s inquiry into Chile’s residential care centres. The article suggests a baseline of child safeguarding responsibilities for NGOs working with children and calls for greater attention to child safeguarding within international children’s rights discourse.

The outsourcing of traditionally military functions in Africa to private military companies (PMCs) such as the Wagner Group and the Africa Corps has been accompanied by violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law. According to the International Law Commission’s Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, state responsibility for these violations can be imputed to the states that employ PMCs to function as their agents, to exercise government authority or to act in the vacuum left by official authorities. States that do not intervene to prevent these abuses fail their obligations of due diligence through persistent non-action and should not be excused from demanding accountability by immunity agreements between the host and hiring states. We explore the possibility of the communitarian invocation of state responsibility by third-party states, on behalf of victims, in order to end impunity, drive accountability and secure effective redress for victims.

This article presents a critical postcolonial analysis of international human rights law’s engagement with human trafficking through the lens of seven UN treaty bodies. Drawing on content analysis of 1,197 documents (33 General Comments/Recommendations, 1,049 Concluding Observations, and 115 Individual Communications), the article reveals how international human rights law is implicated in the status subordination of subaltern people. The article identifies 54 documents containing evidence of colonial legacies, with 76% of relevant Concluding Observations addressing Global South states. It argues that treaty bodies reinscribe colonial patterns through problematic conflation of trafficking with slavery, promotion of repressive migration policies, inconsistent treatment of prostitution and sex tourism, perpetuation of ‘raid and rescue’ approaches, and essentialization of trafficking victims as ‘innocent’. It also exposes limited engagement with intersectionality in individual communications, potentially overlooking complex, multifaceted experiences of trafficking victims. The article concludes by proposing concrete strategies to decolonise anti-trafficking law and practice, including interrogating assumed neutrality in legal instruments, embracing a politics of recognition, integrating the concept of ‘burdened agency’, and meaningfully countenancing intersectionality in legal analyses. This analysis contributes to understanding how international human rights law can better serve its emancipatory potential while avoiding the perpetuation of status subordination.

The dignity owed to every person should not cease with death.1 The processes by which individuals and societies across cultures and religions care for, honour and mourn their dead provide the necessary closure to families and their communities. When this is disrupted through improper protection and/or disrespectful treatment of the dead, it harms individuals and societies and, in the case of unlawful deaths, it undermines or impedes the victims’ rights to truth, justice and reparation. With the increasing complexity of mass fatality incidents, especially as a result of conflict, migration, pandemics and natural disasters (including those caused by climate change), the need to respectfully protect the dead is of growing importance.2

The specific means by which protection of the dead occurs in practice are usually contextually adapted to the beliefs and customs of each community and State. To be universally effective, however, it is recommended that they always be guided by principles of respect, dignity and decency toward the dead and their families. This will ensure the fulfilment of applicable international human rights, humanitarian law and criminal law obligations, and help to ease the pain that families, communities and societies face with the loss of their loved ones.

The authors of this article believe that the time is ripe for the development of a set of guiding principles, framed under international human rights law (IHRL), for the dignified management and protection of the dead, and they propose seven key areas to build such principles upon. In addition to filling a conspicuous gap in human rights protection, these guiding principles will help fulfil States’ duties to respect and protect the rights of families of the deceased under IHRL. While not exhaustive, the authors believe that these guiding principles, which should be read as lex ferenda, develop a framework for stronger IHRL protections of deceased persons.

This article builds on a recent thematic report on the protection of the dead presented to the United Nations Human Rights Council in June 2024 by one of the co-authors.3

International human rights law (IHRL) provides extensive protections for the living, but little in the way of direct protections for the dead. International humanitarian law (IHL) has more detailed protections for the dead, but is only triggered during armed conflicts. At first glance, this seems to create a protection gap for the dead during peacetime. This article explores how the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) creates a connection between IHL, IHRL and transitional justice to fill in this perceived gap in protections for the dead. While the CRPD does not explicitly address the dead, IHL contains several specific rules to guide how dead bodies are to be handled. When read together with the CRPD framework, these rules provide ample guidance on the treatment of individuals with disabilities after death. Some IHL protections of the dead extend temporally beyond the conflict, when transitional justice mechanisms should be in play, although neither the CRPD nor IHL address with any specificity how the five pillars of transitional justice – truth, justice, reparation, memorialization and guarantees of non-recurrence – might apply in relation to IHL rules regarding dead bodies. Nonetheless, Article 11 of the CRPD forges a bidirectional link to IHL protections and obligations supporting transitional justice. Accordingly, there is a legal framework for examining the interrelationships between rules in the CRPD, IHL and human rights law writ large, and for how we think about dead bodies under the various regimes of international law. Each ought to inform the others if the implications of CRPD Article 11 are to be fully realized and the siloing and fragmentation of international law avoided.

Since Russian President Vladimir Putin announced his support for a plan to recruit fighters from abroad to join the Russian army in early 2022, foreigners have fought in Ukraine as part of Russian forces. Many of these fighters are mercenaries in the commonly understood sense of that term. That is, they are fighters who have gone, intentionally, to fight for Russia in return for significant payment. Although these fighters have often found themselves in Ukraine with little to no training and without their promised salaries, this article is not primarily concerned with them. Instead, it is interested in those fighters who arrived in Russia without knowing that they would be sent to the conflict, or who did not know that they were going to Russia at all. The article argues that such ‘forced fighters’ who are misled or tricked into taking part in an armed conflict should be given protection beyond that given to other combatants, specifically that they should be offered repatriation to their countries of origin. It argues that international humanitarian law is unable to effectively capture the position of these fighters or provide adequate protection to them. It suggests, rather, that the law on modern slavery can provide a way to understand and reconceptualise the position of these fighters—as victims of servitude and human trafficking—and that this body of law can deliver the remedy of repatriation to them.

The application by states of economic principles in education has not produced good results in access to education in low-income and less-developed countries. This prompted UNESCO to designate countries with substantial problems of access to education and illiteracy as the E-9 countries, which include Nigeria. Nigeria’s status as an E-9 country indicates the existence of considerable problems in education, and where necessary, statistical evidence will be used to elucidate Nigeria’s E-9 status. This article argues that the nature of the laws and policy mechanisms that control education in Nigeria suggests that the country seems to be responding to the contemporaneous demands of global programmes of action in education that are predicated on economic principles and driven by the tides of globalization instead of to the requirements of international human rights law.

The circulation of harrowing war images on traditional and social media – beheaded soldiers, mutilated bodies and civilians burned alive by flames – underscores a profound and enduring connection between war, death and photography. While this nexus is not novel, contemporary developments in the speed, scale and permanence of visual media have opened new questions worth examining. This article aims to dig deeper into whether and how the normative landscape for protecting the inherent dignity of the deceased is evolving and the role that new challenges posed by digital media and the pervasive nature of contemporary visual media play in this process. The relevance of this study rests on the premise that ongoing academic and public debates tend to focus on the issue of media censorship, overshadowing critical inquiries into the legitimacy and legality of the display of certain images. Thus, it is argued that, in the context of publishing and disseminating images of the war dead, it is essential to examine not only what is hidden but also what is shown and how. This is especially pertinent given the asymmetric representation of death and conflict in the Western media, which frequently reinforces distant, “othering” perspectives. Finally, by examining the issue through multiple lenses, namely those of international humanitarian law, international human rights law and international criminal law, this study aims to provide a more comprehensive framework for addressing the ethical and legal dilemmas posed by war photography in the digital age.

The increasing use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)-based surveillance technologies such as facial recognition for national and public security purposes in the area of law enforcement raises serious concerns regarding the potential risks of abuse and arbitrariness it might entail, in the absence of adequate safeguards. At an international level, the impact of biometric identification systems on the protection and promotion of human rights and fundamental freedoms has been consistently emphasised by international organisations, human rights monitoring mechanisms and the civil society, particularly with regards to the risk of mass surveillance possibly resulting in the infringement upon the right of privacy and freedom of assembly. This contribution will assess the international human rights and standards applicable to the use of these technologies for national security purposes especially in the context of peaceful protest by assessing the position of the European Court of Human Rights in Glukhin v Russia (11519/20) and recent regulatory attempts.

Data has become central in various activities during armed conflict, including the identification of deceased persons. While the use of data-based methods can significantly improve the efficiency of efforts to identify the dead and inform their families about their fate, data can equally enable harm. This article analyzes the obligations that arise for States regarding the processing of data related to the identification of deceased persons. Despite being drafted long before the “age of data”, several international humanitarian law (IHL) provisions can be considered to give rise to obligations which protect those whose data is used to identify the dead from certain data-based harms. However, some of these protections are based on a data protection-friendly interpretation of more general obligations, and many only apply in international armed conflict. Against this background, it is suggested that further analysis on how international human rights law and domestic or regional data protection law could help to strengthen the case for data protection where IHL does not contain specific duties to protect data would be desirable.

Communities and individuals globally continue to suffer the violent impacts of colonialism and racism, in a global system of governance that remains rooted in unequal and hierarchical power imbalances. The interpersonal, societal, and structural violence that persists around the world exists in violation of human rights, and is evidence of a persistent lack of political will to effectively invest in human rights, including the right to health, as a true priority.

The demand on States and non-State actors to fulfil the human right to health is imperative. Attacks on civilians during times of conflict and catastrophe, as seen in the latest escalation and display of imperial aggression by Israel in the occupied Palestinian territory, demonstrate the consistent uneven application of human rights and commitment to fulfilling them.

Protecting human rights, and specifically the realization of the right to health, is fundamental as it has significant consequences for the realisation of other human rights. Eliminating discrimination requires paying sufficient attention to groups of individuals that suffer historical or persistent prejudice. Fulfilling a commitment to health equity and justice demands creating opportunity and conducive conditions for the dignity for all people.

This article uses the theoretical framework of “performative sovereignty” to analyze the role of sovereignty in the Palestinian Authority’s interactions with human rights treaty bodies and to the judicial decisions of the Palestine Supreme Constitutional Court. We argue that, in contrast to dominant views of sovereignty as a threshold, sovereignty is performed through a series of discrete (yet related) interactions and practices that—when accepted by their designated audience—result in rights and privileges being granted, accompanied by sovereign status. Analyzing both Palestinian communications with human rights treaty bodies and cases brought before the Palestinian Supreme Constitutional Court, we argue that the drive to perform sovereignty helps explain states’ actions in joining and reporting to human rights treaty bodies and the responses those actions have elicited. We also find that sovereignty operates as an iron cage—an almost ubiquitous framework—that structures (both constrains and enables) the possible actions of different actors in the field of human rights. The inquiry deepens our understanding of the development and operation of human rights and the role of statehood in shaping the global legal order.

Data tax (DT) could re-establish states’ legitimacy by governing economic actors and promoting social solidarity and welfare through benefits. However, the overall impact of DT will depend on decisions about what social benefits DT funds (universal basic income or less expensive public goods) and whether benefits will entrench or challenge harmful business models and practices. Focusing on the right to science (RtS), the paper argues that DT could realise the RtS in the digital age through taxation that exacted not only data rent but also rent on the scientific heritage. Finally, the paper emphasises the need for international coordination to ensure that DT is equitably shared among developed and less developed countries.

In the quest for “identity dominance” over the enemy, armed forces are increasingly leveraging biometrics for a variety of purposes. This paper focuses on the combat employment of one of them – facial recognition, which, unlike other biometrics, does not appear to have been widely utilized for targeting purposes yet. With the purchasing patterns of advanced militaries suggesting that such a development is around the corner, this paper assesses the compliance with international humanitarian law (IHL) of the use of facial recognition technologies for targeting purposes. It peruses the applicable legal framework to demonstrate that IHL is neutral towards the use of new technologies and that the right to privacy under international human rights law does not preclude the use of biometrics in hostilities. The analysis zooms in on two specific use cases in which facial recognition is likely to be employed on the battlefield, namely (1) targeted killings against combatants and (2) targeted killings against civilians directly participating in hostilities. The paper closes with an acknowledgment that while facial recognition does have obvious operational benefits, it also has the potential to exacerbate targeting practices that stretch the limits of IHL.