1. Both international law subjects. All IHL treaties are international in scope, HR treaties can be international or regional.

Human rights organisations need to take into account regional variations, in particular the fact the European and Latin American HR treaties provide for international Courts with binding decisions, which is not found in the UN system. 2. IHL applies during armed conflict situations and those of occupation. Applicability outside such situations concerns teaching, training, and legislative implementation and follow-up of violations (after the conflict). Human rights law applies at all times, but certain derogations are possible, subject to a number of conditions, during times of emergency. 3. Both sets of law protect persons against arbitrary and unnecessary cruel treatment. IHL = balance between military necessity and humanity. Developed through practice and then through treaty law; contains a very large number of detailed rules that reflect the balance. HR = articulated as rights, and then balance between individuals and State created through limitation clauses and derogation possibilities. Treaty rules brief: detail developed through case-law and interpretation by treaty implementation bodies. Human Rights: According to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, 'Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, whatever our nationality, place of residence, sex, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, language, or any other status. We are all equally entitled to our human rights without discrimination. These rights are all interrelated, interdependent and indivisible. On principle, Human Rights are universal. 'Universal' means that UN Member-States have the duty to promote and protect these rights regardless of their political, economic and cultural systems. Futhermore, Human Rights are inalienable, in the sense that they can not be taken away. States take on obligations and duties under International Law to respect, to protect and to fulfil Human Rights. When a State ratifies international treaties, it commits itself to take all necessary actions to implement Human Rights as well as to adopt national rules in compliance with international agreements. There are four mechanisms to strengthen and implement Human Rights: legal, political, diplomatic and civil society instruments. However, the implementation of Human Rights comes primarily under the responsibility of legal and administrative institutions of the State. In addition, Human Rights treaties each contain a specific mechanism for implementation. Humanitarian Law: According to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), International Humanitarian Law ' protects persons who are not or are no longer participating in the hostilities and restricts the means and methods of warfare. Its fonctions are two fold: first, to regulate the conduct of hostilities, and secondly, to protect the victims of armed conflict. International Humanitarian Law is also known as the 'law of war' or 'the law of armed conflict. Moreover, it is proper to distinguish jus ad bellum (that is the set of rules of International Law relating to the conditions in which a subject of International Law is permitted to resort to armed force) from jus in bello (that is, the set of rules of International Law applicable to the mutual relations of parties to an international armed conflict, or more briefly the laws and customs of war) '. However, International Humanitarian Law does not include jus ad bellum but only jus in bello. In 1945, the Charter of the United Nations established that Member States shall abstain, in their international relations, from resorting to the threat or use of force. Thus, the Charter of the United Nations introduces the notion of Jus contra bellum that is the law on prohibition of war. Today, many regulations are accepted by the majority of States and are, therefore, regarded as an integral part of customary law. International Humanitarian Law applies only to international and non-international armed conflicts. A distinction is made between international armed conflicts in which at least two States are engaged and

non-international armed conflicts which refers to conflict on a single national territory between regular armed forces and identifiable armed groups, or between armed groups fighting one another. International Humanitarian Law protects the people who do not take part actively in the fighting, such as civilians, wounded, medical and religious military personnel. In addition, it also protects those who have ceased to take part in the hostilities, such as prisoners of war, sick combatants and soldiers. In this instance, International Humanitarian Law prescribes that ' these categories of person are entitled to respect for their lives and for their physical and mental integrity. They also enjoy legal guarantees '. In addition, specific regulations prescibes decent conditions of detention for prisoners of war. States must teach humanitarian rules to their armed forces as well as to the general public. Futhermore, they have to implement preventive measures against International Humanitarian Law violations. To this end, governments must sanctions in case of the most serious violations such as war crimes. States must also pass laws to protect the red cross emblems. Conclusion: Although, some of their rules are complementary, Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law constitute two distinct parts of International Public Law. International Humanitarian Law applies only in situations of armed conflict, while Human Rights apply to all human beings at all times. Nevertheless, some Human Rights provisions can be suspended in war time.

The need of Humanitarian Law Since the number of women who actually participated in war was insignificant until the outbreak of World War 1, the need for special protection for them was not felt prior to that time. This does not imply however that women had previously lacked any protection. From the birth of international humanitarian law, they had had the same general legal protection as men. International humanitarian law gives expression in law to the fundamental principle of the equality of men and women, specifying this principle in clauses forbidding discrimination. It is specified that women "shall in all cases benefit by treatment as favorable as that granted to men" (Article 14, C. III). This means that women are entitled to all the rights and freedoms specified by the Conventions. Accordingly, any discriminatory measure which does not result from the application of the Conventions is prohibited. However, the prohibition of discrimination is not a prohibition of differentiation. It is for this reason that distinctions are prohibited only to the extent that they are unfavourable. Equality could easily be transformed into injustice if it were to be applied to situations which are inherently unequal and without taking into account circumstances relating to the state of health, the age and the sex of protected persons. In an international armed conflict , women are among the persons protected by the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the protection of civilian persons in time of war. Under these conditions, they benefit from all the provisions which state the basic principle of humane treatment, including respect of life and physical and moral integrity, particularly forbidding coercion, corporal punishment, torture, collective penalties, reprisals, pillage and the taking of hostages. Furthermore, in the event of infractions committed in relation to the conflict, women have the right to trial by an independent and impartial court established by l aw respecting the generally recognized principles of judicial procedure. It is important to differentiate between international humanitarian law and human rights law. While some of their rules are similar, these two bodies of law have developed separately and are contained in different treaties. In particular, human rights law - unlike international humanitarian law - applies in peacetime, and many of its provisions may be suspended during an armed conflict. International humanitarian law covers two areas: the protection of those who are not, or no longer, taking part in fighting;

restrictions on the means of warfare - in particular weapons - and the methods of warfare, such as military tactics. International humanitarian law protects those who do not take part in the fighting, such as civilians and medical and religious military personnel. It also protects those who have ceased to take part, such as wounded, shipwrecked and sick combatants, and prisoners of war. These categories of person are entitled to respect for their lives and for their physical and mental integrity. They also enjoy legal guarantees. They must be protected and treated humanely in all circumstances, with no adverse distinction. More specifically: it is forbidden to kill or wound an enemy who surrenders or is unable to fight; the sick and wounded must be collected and cared for by the party in whose power they find themselves. Medical personnel, supplies, hospitals and ambulances must all be protected. There are also detailed rules governing the conditions of detention for prisoners of war and the way in which civilians are to be treated when under the authority of an enemy power. This includes the provision of food, shelter and medical care, and the right to exchange messages with their families. The law sets out a number of clearly recognizable symbols which can be used to identify protected people, places and objects. The main emblems are the red cross, the red crescent and the symbols identifying cultural property and civil defense facilities.

International humanitarian law prohibits all means and methods of warfare which:

fail to discriminate between those taking part in the fighting and those, such as civilians, who are not, the purpose being to protect the civilian population, individual civilians and civilian property; cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering; cause severe or long-term damage to the environment. Humanitarian law has therefore banned the use of many weapons, including exploding bullets, chemical and biological weapons, blinding laser weapons and anti-personnel mines.

Terrorism Terrorism is a criminal act that influences an audience beyond the immediate victim. The strategy of terrorists is to commit acts of violence that draws the attention of the local populace, the government, and the world to their cause. The terrorists plan their attack to obtain the greatest publicity, choosing targets that symbolize what they oppose. The effectiveness of the terrorist act lies not in the act itself, but in the publics or governments reaction to the act. Once agreed upon, no country will accept, support, condone, or harbor those who commit such specific terrorist acts. Indeed, a country, group, or region which supports, or even tolerates terrorists, must also be treated as terrorist supporters by the whole world community. Resources for social, economic, political, and possibly even military threats must be made available by all the signers of the definition of terrorism. Our only real hope of defeating terrorists is giving them no place to hide, be they Catholic, Protestant, Moslem, Jewish, White or other supremacist, separatist, political ideologue, or other, no matter how noble their cause. However, until some worldwide organization has significant negotiation power, people will continue to fight oppressors, dictators, despots, terrorists, and other presumed enemies. Indeed, some of these struggles may be for valid reasons. The oppressed will fight an asymmetrical war against a powerful opponent. We cannot link every act of sabotage or guerilla warfare with terrorism. The definition will include specific, narrowly defined acts, - to start. These particularly clear-cut, heinous actions will no longer be part of their arsenal, or they face severe consequences. They will, unfortunately, employ other acts of desperation to circumvent the restrictions. However, the list of prohibited acts will grow.

Terrorism should be defined by who is the target, rather than who are the perpetrators, or the damage done. It doesnt matter whether atrocities are committed by masked thugs, or soldiers with fancy uniforms and high tech weapons. Attacks on masses of innocent civilians, with the purpose of creating fear, are clearly terrorist acts, while attacks on military, or infrastructure are not. Terrorism is the use of force or violence against persons or property in violation of the criminal laws of the United States for purposes of intimidation, coercion, or ransom. Terrorists often use threats to: Create fear among the public. Try to convince citizens that their government is powerless to prevent terrorism. Get immediate publicity for their causes. Acts of terrorism include threats of terrorism; assassinations; kidnappings; hijackings; bomb scares and bombings; cyber attacks (computer-based); and the use of chemical, biological, nuclear and radiological weapons. High-risk targets for acts of terrorism include military and civilian government facilities, international airports, large cities, and high-pro le landmarks. Terrorists might also target large public gatherings, water and food supplies, utilities, and corporate centers. Further, terrorists are capable of spreading fear by sending explosives or chemical and biological agents through the mail. Terrorism has a direct impact on the enjoyment of a number of human rights, in particular the rights to life, liberty and physical integrity. Terrorist acts can destabilize Governments, undermine civil society, jeopardize peace and security, threaten social and economic development, and may especially negatively affect certain groups. All of these have a direct impact on the enjoyment of fundamental human rights. Counter terrorism: Just as terrorism impacts on human rights and the functioning of society, so too can measures adopted by States to counter terrorism. As mentioned above, because terrorism has a serious impact on a range of fundamental human rights, States have not only a right but a duty to take effective counterterrorism measures. Effective counter-terrorism measures and the protection of human rights are complementary and mutually reinforcing objectives which must be pursued together as part of States duty to protect individuals within their jurisdiction. the Security Council acted swiftly, following the terrorist attacks on 11 September 2001, to strengthen the legal framework for international cooperation and common approaches to the threat of terrorism in such areas as preventing its financing, reducing the risk that terrorists might acquire weapons of mass destruction and improving cross-border information-sharing by law enforcement authorities, as well as establishing a monitoring body, the Counter-Terrorism Committee, to supervise the implementation of these measures. The international community has committed to adopting measures that ensure respect for human rights for all and the rule of law as the fundamental basis of the fight against terrorism, through the adoption of the United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy by the General Assembly. Member States have resolved to take measures aimed at addressing the conditions conducive to the spread of terrorism, including lack of rule of law and violations of human rights, and ensure that any measures taken to counter terrorism comply with their obligations under international law, in particular human rights law, refugee law and international humanitarian law. Not only is the promotion and protection of human rights essential to the countering of terrorism, but States have to ensure that any counterterrorism measures they adopt also comply with their international human rights obligations. The General Assembly has adopted a series of resolutions concerning terrorism since December 1972, addressing measures to eliminate international terrorism as well as the relationship between terrorism and human rights. It has emphasized that States must ensure that any measures taken to combat terrorism comply with their obligations under international law, in particular international human rights, refugee and humanitarian law.