Under the influence of the global spread of human rights, legal disputes are increasingly framed in human rights terms. Parties to a legal dispute can often invoke human rights norms in support of their competing claims. Yet, when confronted with cases in which human rights conflict, judges face a dilemma. They have to make difficult choices between superior norms that deserve equal respect. In this high-level book, the author sets out how judges the world over could resolve conflicts between human rights. He presents an innovative legal theoretical account of such conflicts, questioning the relevance of the influential proportionality test to their resolution. Instead, the author develops a novel resolution framework, specifically designed to tackle human rights conflicts. The book combines concerted normative theory with profound practical analysis, firmly rooting its theoretical arguments in human rights practice. Although the analysis draws primarily on the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, the book’s core arguments are applicable to judicial practice in general. As such, the book should be of great interest to academics, postgraduate students and legal practitioners in Europe and beyond. The book is particularly suited for use in advanced courses on legal theory, human rights law and jurisprudence.

Human rights and conflict resolution have been traditionally perceived as two separate fields, sometimes in competition or in tension and occasionally with contradictory approaches towards achieving a lasting peace. Although human rights norms have been incorporated and institutionalized by various national, regional, and international organizations that deal with conflict resolution, negotiators and mediators are often pressured in practice to overlook international human rights principles in favor of compliance and more immediate outcomes. The chapters in this volume navigate the relationship between human rights and conflict resolution by fleshing out practical, conceptual, and institutional encounters of the two agendas and engaging with lessons learned and windows of opportunities for mutual learning. Recognizing the increasing relevance of this debate and important gaps in the current research on the topic, this book addresses the following questions: How can we improve our practical and theoretical understanding of the complementarity between human rights and conflict resolution? How would a human rights-based approach to conflict resolution look like? How are international, regional, and national organizations promoting, implementing, and/or adapting to better coordinate between human rights and conflict resolution? Building on empirical evidence from contemporary conflict resolution processes, how have human rights been integrated in different efforts on the ground? What are the main lessons learned in this regard? Examining a wide range of countries and issues, this work is essential reading for human rights, conflict resolution, and security experts including scholars, diplomats, policy-makers, civil society representatives, and students of international politics.

'Human rights and conflict' is divided into three parts, each capturing the role played by human rights at a different stage in the conflict cycle.

Despite the theoretical and practical importance of the question of conflict between treaties, little has been written on the subject. This monograph fills this gap by providing a detailed analysis of the main issues. The book is divided into three parts. The first deals with the definition of conflict, causes of conflict, and different types of conflict. The second part examines different sources of international law in order to identify rules of international law relating to the resolution of conflicts. The third part addresses the actual process of resolving conflicts between treaties. After describing different stages of treaty conflict-resolution, it discusses some special principles advanced for resolving conflicts between certain types of treaties, namely, those relating to the protection of human rights, those concerning dispute settlement, and treaties dealing with private law issues.

Preventing sweeping human rights violations or wars and rebuilding societies in their aftermath require an approach encompassing the perspectives of both human rights advocates and practitioners of conflict resolution. While these two groups work to achieve many of the same goals—notably to end violence and loss of life—they often make different assumptions, apply different methods, and operate under different values and institutional constraints. As a result, they may adopt conflicting or even mutually exclusive approaches to the same problem. Eileen F. Babbitt and Ellen L. Lutz have collected groundbreaking essays exploring the relationship between human rights and conflict resolution. Employing a case study approach, the contributing authors examine three areas of conflict—Sierra Leone, Colombia, and Northern Ireland—from the perspectives of participants in both the peace-making and human rights efforts in each country. By spotlighting the role of activists and reflecting on what was learned in these cases, this volume seeks to push scholars and practitioners of both conflict resolution and human rights to think more creatively about the intersection of these two fields.

Resolving Conflicts of Laws was cited 6 times by the High Court in Momcilovic v The Queen (2011) 2451 CLR 1; [2011] HCA 34. It has also been cited in the Same-Sex Marriage Case (Commonwealth of Australia v Australian Capital Territory) (2013) 250 CLR 441; [2013] HCA 55 at [61], in Plaintiff M47-2012 v Director General of Security (2012) 251 CLR 1; [2012] HCA 46 at [54] and [136], in Sportsbet Pty Ltd v New South Wales (2012) 249 CLR 298; [2012] HCA 13 at [10], in CFMEU v Director of the Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate (No 2) (2013) 209 FCR 464; [2013] FCAFC 25 at [61]; in Wreck Bay Aboriginal Community Council v Williams [2017] ACTCA 46 at [45] and [47] and in a large number of other appellate and first instance decisions. An important feature in all legal systems, but especially in federations whose polities have overlapping legislative powers, is that those laws regularly conflict - or at least are claimed to conflict. Any coherent legal system must have principles for resolving such conflicts. Those principles are of immense practical as well as theoretical importance. This book, which straddles constitutional law and statutory interpretation, describes and analyses those principles.This book does not merely address the conflicts between Commonwealth and State laws resolved by the Constitution (although it does that and in detail). It analyses the resolution of all of the conflicts of laws that occur in the Australian legal system: conflicts between laws enacted by the same Parliament and indeed within the same statute, conflicts between Commonwealth, State, Territory, Imperial laws and delegated legislation.After identifying the laws in force in Australia, the chapters deal with:conflicts in laws made by the same legislature, focussing on the interpretative process of statutory construction;repugnancy, a doctrine with continuing vitality in the areas of s79 of the Judiciary Act, delegated legislation and Territory laws;conflicts between laws of the Commonwealth and State laws, proposing that the categories of inconsistency (commonly three: direct, indirect and "covering the field") are best seen aspects of a single constitutional concept;conflicts between the laws of two States, andconflicts involving the laws of the self-governing Territories