Conflict of Laws Cross to Public International Laws: The Conflicting Models in the Conceptualisation of Disability Rights Under International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights Law

Abstract

Several scholars of legal jurisprudence contend human rights law (HRL) and international humanitarian law (IHL) share same school origin. In fact postmodern scholars of the law school such as Hugo Grotius are classical example of proponents subscribing to the above view. Therefore the two branches of public international law are both founded on the protection of humane, humanity and humanitarian principles thus accounting for the similarities in their major attributes. Contrarily the discussion unveils some research findings exposing the wide differences in conceptualisation the rights of persons with disabilities under IHL and HRL in times of armed conflicts and times of peace respectively. In this case IHL/ LOAC and HRL possess two varied models that are completely irreconcilable on to each other. In this IHL is one branch of public international law according to which the rights of persons with disabilities are framed upon a medical model instead of the social rights based model provided for and promoted under the CRPD for HRL. The paper shall advance this argument by demonstrating the potential of a legal battle between these two sister branches of public international law. This raises the question of sufficiency, coherence in objectivity and adequacy of the two branches of law in reaching the same aims and goals as far as the best interests of disabled people are concerned. Such as autonomy, equal recognition and independent living and adequate protection in the post armed conflict period. This generated a reported made the contradictory models embedded in the theoretical frameworks from the two evident and visible. It is upon this that observations and conclusions on the different characteristics from the two categories of pubic laws reached.