The Immanent Idea of Human Rights in the 1949 Geneva Conventions

Abstract

The article presents an analysis of the 1949 Geneva Conventions as documents that immanently affirm the idea of human rights protection. The purpose of the article is a comprehensive study of the human rights nature of the 1949 Geneva Conventions and the substantiation of the thesis that the idea of human rights is immanent, i.e., an intrinsic and fundamental component of these international legal acts, rather than an external element applied retrospectively to international humanitarian law (IHL). The research aims to refute the traditional view of the separation of IHL from international human rights law (IHRL) by analyzing the historical context of the Conventions' development and their normative content, which confirms the primacy of the human rights objective intended by their authors.

The methodological basis of the research consists of general scientific and special methods of inquiry. The historical-legal method was used to analyze the travaux préparatoires of the 1949 Geneva Conventions and the post-war legal project aimed at establishing human dignity as the foundation of a new world order. Systemic-structural analysis revealed the internal connection between the norms of the Conventions, which together create a coherent system for protecting the rights of the individual in armed conflict. The comparative-legal method was used to compare the provisions of the Conventions with the norms of key acts in the field of IHRL, which demonstrates the pioneering nature of many humanitarian guarantees. The formal-dogmatic method was used to interpret legal norms and doctrinal concepts, particularly the evolution of the relationship between IHL and IHRL from a paradigm of separation to one of modern convergence.

The research found that a human rights-oriented content permeates the entire structure of the Geneva Conventions. Common Article 3 is analyzed in detail, which functions as a universal "mini-convention on human rights" for non-international armed conflicts, enshrining an absolute prohibition on violations of life and dignity, as well as guaranteeing fundamental rights to a fair trial. It is proven that the norms of the First and Second Conventions, which oblige the respect for, protection of, and assistance to the wounded, sick, and shipwrecked without any discrimination, are a direct implementation of the right to life and the right to health. The Third Convention is qualified as a detailed code of rights for prisoners of war, which in many aspects (conditions of detention, labor, judicial guarantees) preceded IHRL standards for the treatment of persons deprived of their liberty. Special attention is paid to the Fourth Convention, which is considered a kind of "constitution of human rights" for times of occupation, establishing a comprehensive regime for the protection of the civilian population, prohibiting collective punishments, deportations, and affirming a wide range of socio-economic and civil rights.

The conclusions confirm that the 1949 Geneva Conventions constitute a self-sufficient and comprehensive charter of fundamental human rights, adapted to the extreme conditions of armed conflict. Their immanent human rights nature, intended by their drafters, is today strengthened and dynamically evolving through a harmonious interpretation with IHRL norms. This is facilitated by the evolutionary understanding of the lex specialis principle and the practice of systemic integration actively applied by international judicial institutions. This approach not only emphasizes the unity of international law but also enhances the protective potential of IHL in contemporary armed conflicts.