Abstract:

The right to life during armed conflict is an important testing ground for the relationship between international human rights law and international humanitarian law. It is argued that these two branches of law converge but contradict each other when it comes to the right to life and especially the use of lethal force against persons not under the de facto control of the state, and it is thought that international humanitarian law does not recognize any right to life in armed conflicts. The application of the right to life to military personnel has been a controversial issue and has created emotional conflicts. There are two main views on this issue. Those who accept that willingly accepting the possibility of death during armed conflict is a natural part of serving in the armed forces, and those who argue that while this is true, states still have an obligation to properly train and equip their armed forces. This article reviews cases in this area and provides a view of when a state has right to life obligations in relation to its armed forces and what those obligations mean. In order to examine the research questions of the article, the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, as well as the universal human rights law standards and the decisions of other regional human rights institutions were examined.

Keywords: