[MUSIC] Welcome back to this first substantive sequence in the module of legal protection for health care delivery in armed conflict or other emergencies. At the end of this particular sequence, you should be able to identify major differences between the international legal frameworks of international humanitarian law, which we shall briefly refer to as IHL and international human rights law. Secondly, be able to identify the specific role that domestic legislation has to play in implementing these legal frameworks. And finally, be able to describe the relationship between ethical principles of health care and the law. On the first dimension of course, it is clear that international humanitarian law and international human rights law share one general objective. Namely:to aim at the protection of patients and the health care delivery. However, it is also important to appreciate general differences in their application. And briefly, I'm going to mention three of those differences. First, in terms of the respective specificity in these legal frameworks, in enshrining the protection, international humanitarian law is much more specific, in the specific situation of armed conflict. It provides precise definitions of the wounded and sick. So those benefiting from health care as those that require medical care, whether they are civilians or military and that abstain from any hostile acts being involved in military operations. And then also international humanitarian law provides specific definitions on the components of a health-care system that must be protected in an armed conflict. Namely, medical personnel, facilities and transports. Chiefly for being specifically protected as one of these persons or objects. It is necessary that competent authorities of a party to an armed conflict involved in an armed conflict, predetermine that they are going to serve on medical purposes during that armed conflict. Beside those specific categories that have specific privileges such as using the Red Cross, Red Crescent and Red Crystal emblems, and that have an enhanced protection, there are also specific rules under IHL to protect the exercise of medical activities in conformity with medical ethics. And then finally, they also foresee roles for individuals, civilians, to assist in the performance of medical tasks. If we turn to human rights law on the other hand, it is much more generic. In that, it is designed to basically protect individuals an access to a health-care system. It is designed to lay the foundations of the public health care system around making already, health care facilities available to individuals, providing access to them, being acceptable in terms of the culture concerned. But it does not in the same manner as international humanitarian law provide specific protections for health care providers on account of their specific functions that they perform. This is why in the specific situation of an armed conflict, IHL is the legal framework that is to be primarily resorted to because it contains the greatest specificity. Another very relevant difference is to see in what situations these legal frameworks apply. As I have already mentioned, International Humanitarian Law applies in the situation of an armed conflict only. Outside of those situations it does not apply. And briefly, we distinguish between two types of armed conflicts, of an international character, meaning those between the two or more states' armed forces or non-international armed conflicts. Where states' armed forces must be engaged at least against one non-state organized armed group. Or such conflicts may also occur between non-state organized armed groups only. On the other hand, international human rights law applies generally at all times meaning in peacetime or in emergency situations such as an armed conflict. And then, a final key difference is who is bound by these respective legal frameworks? International humanitarian law because I explicitly mentioned that some of these conflicts and these are the prevalent conflict types today are non-international, by definition, one of the parties involved in such a conflict will be a non-state organized armed group. And there are explicit obligations imposed on non-state armed groups. If we look on the other hand at human rights law, human rights law binds primarily and traditionally states only. Meaning that with regards to non-state armed groups, it is doubtful if and to what extent human rights law also applies to non-state actors including non-state armed groups. Let me now turn to the second dimension, namely the role of domestic legislation in implementing these international legal frameworks. And here, what is key to emphasize is that a domestic legislation has the fundamental objective to translate the international legal obligations of a state effectively on the national territory. And there is a priority of international law over national law. That means domestic legislation must not be in any extent weaker than the international legal obligations that a state has assumed. And then finally, some brief comments on the relationship between ethical principles of health care and legal frameworks. Now ethical principles of health care at their core are not sources of law. They are moral and professional duties usually decreed by health care professional associations. However, there are some obvious links to legal frameworks already by virtue of the fact that under IHL, there are explicit references to respecting health care professionals' activities in line with their ethical principles of health care. In a similar manner, human rights law also generally requires that health facilities, goods and services are respectful of medical ethics. So to that extent, ethical principles have been transposed into legal rules. Obviously, there are fundamental overlaps between law and ethics to the extent that there are commonalities in the principles that they respectively enshrine. Chiefly among those, is for instance, the fundamental principle of impartiality. Meaning, providing health care on the basis of clinical need only and not distinguishing among patients on grounds other than medical ones. But ethical principles still go further than that because sometimes, specific challenges are not explicitly dealt with in legal frameworks. What to do for example, in mass casualty situations? Who to treat first? There the legal frameworks do not provide a precise guidance. And here, ethical principles come into play in recognizing these dilemmas and hopefully providing a more specific guidance to health care professionals. So just to mention these as examples. And with these remarks, I think we should be sufficiently equipped to then, in subsequent stages, delve into an appreciation of the more concrete legal and operational challenges in implementing these international legal frameworks. I thank you very much for your attention, and I hope you'd stay tuned. [MUSIC]
