It is no longer seen as controversial to hold that International Human Rights Law (IHRL) remains applicable during armed conflict, possibly subject to permissive limitations and derogations to some human rights. Although the Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC) in the debate has been referred to as lex specialis in relation to IHRL, this does neither automatically nor categorically mean that LOAC will take precedence over IHRL in all situations arising during an armed conflict. Therefore, this paper briefly discusses how a conflict between IHRL and LOAC norms can be handled in public international law. First, it is examined how the International Court of Justice has shifted it’s position concerning the relationship between IHRL and LOAC. Second, it is argued that actual purpose of conduct must determine which legal framework is the appropriate starting point when assessing the lawfulness of the said conduct. Lastly, the paper closes by concluding that examining norm by norm to determine the appropriate legal framework for a given conduct is far more promising than concluding that one legal framework categorically repeals another legal regime.