Acts of Aggression as <i>Ipso Facto</i> Violations of the Right to Life: Scrutinising the Human Rights Committee’s Proposed Link between Human Rights Law and the <i>Jus ad Bellum</i>

Abstract In paragraph 70 of General Comment No. 36 on the right to life, the UN Human Rights Committee suggests that “States parties engaged in acts of aggression … resulting in deprivation of life, violate ipso facto [the right to life].” This article highlights previously unappreciated risks associated with this proposal which reveal a need for further elaboration and refinement. Expanding on this critical perspective, this article unfolds in four parts. First, Section II contextualises paragraph 70 to show that it appears, at first glance, only natural to refer to the jus ad bellum when interpreting the right to life in armed conflicts. The remaining sections then scrutinise this conclusion from the perspective of each implicated body of law. Adopting an IHL-viewpoint, Section III contends that paragraph 70 could undermine IHL’s regulation of fighting and frustrate occupying powers’ performance of their IHL duties. Section IV outlines how human rights protections during occupations could be weakened and human rights law be paradoxically used to the detriment of individuals’ rights. Finally, Section V scrutinises paragraph 70 through a jus ad bellum-lens to show that it reflects a proposal to change the law which risks facilitating the invocation of human rights to legitimise unlawful wars.