ABSTRACT
Whilst both branches of law aim to protect human life, each does it through a specific legal regime. IHRL embraces the individual’s right to life which obligates State authorities to ensure the protection of individuals within their jurisdictions. This is representative of a positive obligation in that States should refrain from actions which endanger individual life, even if the person does not actually die. IHL on the other hand provides a regulation on taking human life by all actors in armed conflict as one of the acts of war. IHL dictates that States take certain precautions in order to fulfil obligations to protect the lives of persons, whether combatants or civilians (for instance, civilian evacuations, and public warnings). Both branches of international law foresee a possibility that life will be lawfully taken in certain circumstances, taking into consideration factual conditions of war or peacetime. The fundamental prohibition of arbitrary deprivation of life can be found both in human rights and IHL, the essence and the scope of which the context of armed conflict cannot be examined without IHL as the most suitable framework.
