Armed Conflicts as Impediments to Enforcing the State Centric Nature of Human Rights Obligations. Case Study of the Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities

An Analysis of the Adequacy of Protection Afforded by the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) in Situations of Armed Conflict

“…Furthermore, the CRPD is not exceptional to the inherent limitations of other treaties of IHRL containing state-centred obligations pertaining to respecting and protecting persons with disabilities [47,308]. Those limitations lead to the lack of mutual reciprocity in terms of compliance considering that state-centred nature of the CRPD's obligations [309].…”

“…Bearing in mind that some types of armed conflict such as NIACs might be crucial for regulating the activities of non-state actors in international law [324][325][326], in so far as that criticism sounds well-founded in the context of non-state actors whose acts would need to be regulated by law ( [327], [308] (p. 33)). It is unlikely to justify overlooking the improvements in legal protection that could be attained as a result of enforcing human rights treaties for the purposes of enhancing the protection rendered to vulnerable groups who are unprotected, under-protected or inappropriately protected by the IHL regime.…”