Human Rights at the Edge of Force: Coercive Settlement of International Disputes in Contemporary International Law

Contrary to popular belief, coercion precedes firing a bullet. Coercion includes invoking the law to justify the use of force when resolving a dispute. This Article pertains to the problem of contemporary international law in the context of inter-State coercive dispute settlements. Once a situation of inter-State dispute arises which entails or may entail the use of force, the Article determines how contemporary international law provides interfaces for the protection of human rights. The study is mainly dependent on the law, which is the doctrinal method. The study focuses on the United Nations Charter, international law of human rights, international law of humanitarian, theory, practice, and judgments of the International Court of Justice, and that of the European Court of Human Rights. It focuses on the studies of occupation, cross-border military operations, forced migrations, and extraterritorial infringements of the right of detention. The result of the study is that the interstate law governs the use of law and the arguments of the human rights and international humanitarian law remain applicable to the armed law. The study of the courts indicated that the siege and the mass immigration in the framework of the control of law over the defence of humanitarian and human rights remain practically jus colour and politically insulated. The consequences remain doctrinal and ethically applicable. Under coercive, strategic narrative control and defence remain applicable and cannot be transformed human rights law. Under defence and coercion, the impediments of human injury remain scientifically and politically invisible.