Human Rights Protection in Occupied Territories

Introduction

One of the most important problems in the modern world is the settlement of international or non-international armed conflicts under international law, as well as the protection of the population affected by armed conflicts, which is one of the goals of international humanitarian law and international human rights law. Victims of war can be both combatants and civilians. It is noteworthy that, according to statistics, 70% of the victims of armed conflicts are civilians (although in the twentieth century this figure was much higher, its reduction does not give grounds for optimism). Legal protection for both categories is provided by the 1949 Geneva Conventions and its Additional Protocols.

International humanitarian law together with international law of occupation, which is part of it, applies regardless of whether the use of force is lawful under international law (Jikia, Gegenava, 2017).

Problems with occupation are very acute in modern international law. Most of the crimes committed during World War II took place in the occupied territories. Current practice demonstrates the importance of the appropriate application of the law of occupation (Jikia, Gegenava, 2017).

The issue of the applicability of human rights standards in occupied territories is one of fundamental theoretical and practical importance. It concerns the principle of the universality of human rights and involves the problem of coordinating between international human rights law and international humanitarian law (Ben-Naftali, Shany, 2003). International Human Rights law in situations of occupation serves several important functions:

• •

  It affects the interpretation of International Humanitarian Law norms;

• •

  It fills normative gaps;

• •

  It validates the legitimacy of the involvement of international supervisory mechanisms in situations of occupation (Ben-Naftali, Shany, 2003).

The special urgency of the presented issue inregard with Georgia is conditioned by the fact that Abkhazia and the so-called “South Ossetia” is still under Russian military occupation. Georgian state authorities have been expelled from the territories, and the real control is exercised by the Russian Federation, with the help of marionette forces.

The protection of the rights of the population living in the occupied territories of Georgia is not possible even at the minimum level, which is due to the lack of effective guarantees for the protection of human rights, as well as security and order. It is noteworthy that due to the “creeping occupation” of Russia, more and more citizens are being mistreated every day in the area of ​​occupation, which automatically leads to the violation of their rights, constant danger, living in a potentially dangerous environment for life and health (Jikia, Gegenava, 2017).

The Russian government, as a supporter of the de facto government, is actively involved in the violation of various rights of ethnic Georgians living in the occupied territories and their discriminatory treatment, including the violation of property rights, violation of free movement, deprivation of Georgian language education, etc. The above actions are intended to exclude the possibility of ethnic Georgians returning voluntarily to safe and dignified conditions, which will eventually lead to the complete removal of the occupied territories from Georgia (Jikia, Gegenava, 2017).

The aim of this chapter is to analyze what mechanisms exist for the protection of human rights in the occupied territories, how effectively the practical realization of human rights takes place and what responsibilities or obligations fall on the state to protect the rights of persons living in the occupied territories; the chapter also discusses whether the existing legal norms of the occupation regulate human rights issues, how effective the existing legal framework is in the light of today's reality, and whether it needs to be refined.

Cases of occupation emerged after the WWII clearly showed that existing law has not been pursuing the contemporary practice, which caused the materialization of unregulated issues in the occupation law and the necessity of modifications in existing norms (Pipia, 2020).