In traditional terms, international human rights law and international humanitarian law were different sets of laws. Inherently similar in their substance, they possessed different institutions, scope and mandate. However, this is not case now completely. New forms of armed conflicts have virtually led international human rights law regime to enter in the domain of international humanitarian law. Now, thus, we are living in the era where international humanitarian law has emerged as joint claim made by international human rights law regime aswell by international humanitarian law regime. The growth of such shared concern and succeeding institutional, procedural and legal arrangements have bridged the difference between international human rights law and international humanitarian law to a great extent. Therefore this can now be claimed that at this point, both law regimes own similar, different as well as complementary elements. Before going deep into the subject, its seems worthy to briefly describe the composition of international human rights law and international humanitarian law. International human rights law, by and large, consists of two law regimes such as United Nations human rights regime and regional human rights regime. United Nation human rights regime is composed of United Nations human rights treaties, declarations, general comments and optional protocols and their overall implementation and oversight mechanisms. The regional human rights regime is composed of regional human rights laws and their adjudicating and implementation institutions. International humanitarian law includes three currents such as Hague, Geneva and New York. The Geneva conventions include four conventions of 1949.Out of four, three replaced the earlier three conventions. Hague conventions include Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907. New York trend is consisting of various United Nations human rights related soft aswell as hard laws such as UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict and various other relevant declarations and resolutions Complementary aspects The problem with international human rights law as well as international humanitarian law is that both possess inherent limitations in terms of their scope, application and subject. These limitations, if not properly overcome through the alternative application of both sets of the laws at various places, can dramatically undermine the basic spirit and concept of human dignity enshrined in these laws. It is much undesired fact that international human rights law allows states to abrogate human rights, except from some non-derogatory rights, in case of emergencies. Such emergencies are doomed to produce armed conflicts in many cases. In such state of affairs, international humanitarian law, which doesn’t allow derogations (ICRC webpage 2004), protects the inherent dignity of people. Similarly, international humanitarian law, which is silent about the issue of torture regarding spices and terrorist, poses grave threat to the innate dignity of human being. In this case, the applicability of international human rights that prohibits torture on every human being, be it spy or terrorist, protects such groups from not to be tortured. Differences Despite the significant convergence of international human rights law and international humanitarian law, they are, however, different in terms of their projects (Lewis 2012), concept, applicability, scope, and mandate. One of the basic differences between international humanitarian law and international human rights law is that latter is applicable in peace times as well during the armed conflicts whereas former is applicable only during the armed conflicts (ICRC webpage 2004; Orakhelashvili 2008; ICRC 2011). Nevertheless, the applicability of human rights law in armed conflicts has been widely recognized at international level. United Nations has also accepted that human rights law applies in situations of armed conflict (Hapold 2012). In addition to it, international court of justice decision in case of construction of the wall in the Occupied Palestine and DRC v .Uganda, Congo-Uganda, confirms the argument that human rights law continues in the wartime (Orakhelashvili 2008) Unlike, international humanitarian law which aims to humanize war (Focareli 2012), international human rights law is principally designed to condemn the war. Its aims is to put end to violence rather than putting limitations on it Unfortunately, international human rights is subject to derogations. Whereas, international humanitarian law is immune to such phenomenon. Derogations are not allowed under international humanitarian law (ICRC webpage 2004). Most of the international human rights law clauses can be suspended in the times of emergency. Whereas, international humanitarian law can never be suspended when it is applicable. I think, this may be because of the different levels of the situations under which international humanitarian law and international human rights law operate. International humanitarian rights law operates in very extreme conditions of time bound hostilities which put human beings at high risk. This seems the reason that international humanitarian law doesn’t allow any derogation. Whereas, such state of affairs which involves such extreme and especially time bound danger to human being to such extent is not common phenomenon in the human rights field. International human rights law and international humanitarian law are different in terms of their actors. International Committee of the Red Cross/Crescent (ICRC) is the only legally authorized organization to operate in the humanitarian situations. Whereas the international human rights law regime is very rich in its actors. A large number of organizations ranging from local to international level are engaged to play active role in the promotion and protection of human rights. International humanitarian law is short of coherent governance system at global level. Whereas, international human rights regime holds relatively strong coherent global governance system. International human right regime is governed by well-structured and well-coordinated UN bodies. Office of the High Commission of the Human Rights (OHCHR) as overarching body in the UN human rights system coordinates the activities of treaty body’s aswell as charted based bodies. Unlike in international human rights law regime, the oversight and performance review mechanisms in international humanitarian law regime are very poor. Except from the international conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, which is a particular global assembly and meets every four years, no other global platform exist where States can regularly deliberate on international humanitarian law implementation (ICRC 2012). However, efforts are under way to improve the governance system of international humanitarian law. In this regard, UN has made many efforts. It has established a post of Under Secretary General for humanitarian affairs thought it could not come up to the mark (Verma 1993). In general, the protection of the victims of armed conflict is the central concern of all humanitarian laws (UN 1991). It defines the restrictions on the use of violence to reduce its effects and extends safety to people (UN 1991; Verma1993; Kalshoven & Zegveld 2011; ICRC 2012). Whereas, international human rights law aims to protect and promote people inherent rights which they enjoy by virtue of being born as human. Unlike, international humanitarian law which aims to humanize war (Focareli 2012), international human rights law is principally designed to condemn the war. Its aims is to put end to violence rather than putting limitations on it. Similarities Apart from various differences, both sets of laws share some similarities. The subject of international human rights law and international humanitarian law is same that is the protection of human being (Cassimatis 2003; Knable 2006). Both sets of laws primarily aim to protect human dignity (ICRC 2004). Different in the times of applicability, both laws, in principle, extend safeguards to the human beings. The human safety is the joint project of both sets of laws. Both sets of laws are also similar in their substance. The principles such as the right to life, respect for human dignity and it’s the inviolability is the shared substance of both sets of laws ( Kalshoven & Zegveld 2011) Both sets of laws are subject of the United Nations. Realizing that international human rights and international humanitarian law share various same concerns for the humanity; and experiencing that humanitarian situations carry human rights concerns along with humanitarian issues, United Nations has taken various steps to mainstream the humanitarian rights in its law making, reporting and oversight mechanisms. Various UN human rights soft and hard laws directly support humanitarian cause such as optional protocol one of Convention on the Rights of Child, UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and various other declarations. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Colombia reports both human rights as well humanitarian law violations (Kalshoven & Zegveld 2011). Even the United Nations Commission on Human Rights and various U.N special Rapportuers report humanitarian issues along with human rights concerns in their communicating and reports (Kalshoven & Zegveld 2011) Conclusion The increasing concerns for human rights in humanitarian situations and subsequent arrangements especially at UN level has triggered the process of converge of international human rights law and international humanitarian law. However, the process of convergence is underway. At this point, international human rights law and international humanitarian law own same, different aswell as complementary elements. They complement their shortcomings in order to principally fulfill the mission of protecting human dignity. Different in their procedures but same in substance, both law regimes contribute towards the reduction in human sufferings. Their prime concern and subject is human being and its inherent and inviolable dignity! The writer is a graduate in Human Rights and Democratization from the University of Sydney. He is a Development Practitioner and a Freelance Columnist