Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-dtkg6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-20T23:33:00.023Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

9 - The extra-territorial application of human rights: functional universality

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 March 2015

Gerd Oberleitner
Gerd Oberleitner
Affiliation:
Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz, Austria
Get access

Summary

Reach of human rights

Whenever states engage in military operations beyond their borders, the extra-territorial application of human rights becomes an issue. It remains a vividly debated question in international legal scholarship as well as a matter of great practical relevance. At its centre is the notion of jurisdiction and the way in which states are duty-bound and responsible for acts abroad. In human rights law, the application of human rights norms depends on a state’s jurisdiction. It rests on the idea that human rights govern the relationship between the government (and its agents) and those over which the government has jurisdiction, so that a state party to a human rights treaty has obligations towards individuals only in as far as such a jurisdictional link can be established. “Jurisdiction” is, however, an ambiguous term with multiple meanings and no treaty-based legal definition, and there is disagreement on how to confine it with regard to related but different concepts such as attribution, the scope of obligation and the responsibility for wrongful acts. Under general public international law it describes the ability as well as the limits of the legal competence of states to regulate the conduct of (natural and legal) persons by means of its domestic law, and may cover jurisdiction to prescribe, adjudicate and enforce. Such jurisdiction flows from the equal sovereignty of states and describes the extent of each state’s right to regulate such conduct, whether prescriptive (as law-making) or executive (as law enforcement). Jurisdiction is essentially territorial for the way it describes a state’s prerogative to regulate matters on its territory; where it is exercised extra-territorially it is likely to infringe the rights of other states if not expressly consented to.

Type
Chapter
Information
Human Rights in Armed Conflict
Law, Practice, Policy
 , pp. 144 - 168
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2015

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Gondek, Michal, “Extraterritorial Application of the European Convention on Human Rights: Territorial Focus in the Age of Globalization?” (2005) 52(3) Netherlands International Law Review364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milanovic, Marko, Extraterritorial Application of Human Rights Treaties (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2011), pp. 21–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cerone, John, Out of Bounds? Considering the Reach of International Human Rights Law, New York University School of Law Centre for Human Rights and Global Justice Working Paper No. 5 (2006), pp. 26–32, available at (last accessed 15 April 2014)
Shaw, Malcolm, International Law (6th edn., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), pp. 645–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kranz, Jerzy, “Die völkerrechtliche Verantwortlichkeit für die Anwendung militärischer Gewalt” (2010) 48(3) Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht308Google Scholar
Joseph, Sarah, “Scope of Obligations” in Moeckli, Daniel, Shah, Sangeeta and Svikumaran, Sandesh (eds.), International Human Rights Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), p. 160Google Scholar
Kälin, Walter and Künzli, Jörg, The Law of International Human Rights Protection (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), p. 129Google Scholar
Al-Skeini v. United Kingdom, European Court of Human Rights, Appl. No. 55721/07, Judgment of 7 July 2011, para.78
Lubell, Noam, Extraterritorial Use of Force against Non-State Actors (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), pp. 232–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGoldrick, Dominic, “Extraterritorial Application of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights” in Coomans, Fons and Kamminga, Menno T. (eds.), Extraterritorial Application of Human Rights Treaties (Antwerp: Intersentia, 2004), pp. 41–72Google Scholar
Scheinin, Martin, “Extraterritorial Effect of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights” in Coomans, Fons and Kamminga, Menno T. (eds.), Extraterritorial Application of Human Rights Treaties (Antwerp: Intersentia, 2004), pp. 73–81Google Scholar
Sergio Ruben Lopez Burgos v. Uruguay, Human Rights Committee, Communication No. 52/1979, UN Doc. A/36/40 (29 July 1981), para. 12(3)
Wilde, Ralphe, “Legal ‘Black Hole’? Extraterritorial State Action and International Treaty Law on Civil and Political Rights” (2005) 26 Michigan Journal of International Law791Google Scholar
Human Rights Committee, Concluding Observations on Cyprus, UN Doc. CCPR/C/79/Add.39 (21 September 1994), para. 3
Human Rights Committee, Concluding Observations on Israel, UN Doc. CCPR/C/79/Add.93 (18 August 1998), para. 10
Human Rights Committee, Concluding Observations on Belgium, UN Doc. CCPR/CO/81/BEL (12 August 2004), para. 6
Human Rights Committee, Concluding Observations on Netherlands, CCPR/CO/72/NET (27 August 2001) para. 8
Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 31 on the Nature of the General Legal Obligation Imposed on States Parties to the Covenant, UN Doc. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.13 (26 May 2004), para. 10
Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, International Court of Justice, Advisory Opinion of 9 July 2004 [2004] ICJ Reports, paras. 108–11 (“Wall case”)
Human Rights Committee, Concluding Observations on the Netherlands, UN Doc. CCPR/CO/72/NET/Add.1 (29 April 2003), para. 19
Human Rights Committee, Concluding Observations on Belgium, UN Doc. CCPR/CO/81/BEL (12 August 2004), para. 6
Replies to the List of Issues to be Taken Up in connection with the Consideration of the Fifth Periodic Report of the Government of Australia, UN Doc. CCPR/C/AUS/Q/5/Add.1 (5 February 2009), para. 18 (emphasis in the original)
Schäfer, Bernhard, Zum Verhältnis Menschenrechte und humanitäres Völkerrecht. Zugleich ein Beitrag zur extraterritorialen Geltung von Menschenrechtsverträgen (Potsdam: Universitätsverlag Potsdam, 2006), p. 24Google Scholar
Dennis, Michael J., “Application of Human Rights Treaties Extraterritorially in Times of Armed Conflict and Military Occupation” (2005) 99(1) American Journal of International Law141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
United States Defence Department, Working Group Report on Detainee Interrogations in the Global War on Terrorism: Assessment of Legal Historical, Policy, and Operational Considerations (6 March 2003), p. 6, available at
Solis, Gary D., The Law of Armed Conflict (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), p. 25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Human Rights Committee, Third Periodic Report – United States, UN Doc. CCPR/C/USA/3 (26 November 2005), para. 130
Human Rights Committee, Summary Record of the 1405th Meeting: United States of America, UN Doc. CCPR/C/SR.1405 (24 April 1995), para. 20
Human Rights Committee, Concluding Observations on United States of America, UN Doc. CCPR/C/USA/CO/3 (15 September 2006), para. 3
Committee Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment of Punishment, Concluding Observations: United States of America, UN Doc. CAT/C/USA/CO/2 (25 July 2006), para. 14
McCarthy, Conor, “Legal Conclusion or Interpretative Process? Lex Specialis and the Application of International Human Rights Standards” in Arnold, Roberta and Quénivet, Noelle (eds.), International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights Law: Towards a Merger in International Law (Leiden: Nijhoff, 2008), p. 107Google Scholar
Lorenz, Dirk, Der territoriale Anwendungsbereich der Grund- und Menschenrechte. Zugleich ein Beitrag zum Individualschutz in bewaffneten Konflikten (Vienna: Neuer Wissenschaftlicher Verlag, 2005), p. 212Google Scholar
Human Rights Committee, Second Periodic Report of Israel, UN Doc. CCPR/C/ISR/2001/2 (4 December 2001), para. 8
Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Second Periodic Report of Israel, UN Doc. E/1990/6/Add.32 (16 October 2001), para. 5
Human Rights Committee, Concluding Observations on Israel, UN Doc. CCPR/CO/78/ISR (5 August 2003), para. 11
Dennis, Michael J. and Surena, Andre M., “Application of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in Times of Armed Conflict and Military Occupation: The Gap between Legal Theory and State Practice” (2008) 6 European Human Rights Law Review719Google Scholar
Dennis, Michael J., “Application of Civil and Political Rights Treaties Extraterritorially during Times of Armed Conflict” (2007) 40(2) Israel Law Review501–2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nowak, Manfred, UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: CCPR Commentary (2nd edn., Kehl: Engel, 2005), pp. 43–44Google Scholar
Human Rights Committee, Concluding Observations on Poland, UN Doc. CCPR/CO/82/POL (2 December 2004), para. 3
Human Rights Committee, Concluding Observations on Italy, UN Doc. CCPR/C/ITA/CO/5 (24 April 2006), para. 3
Human Rights Committee, Comments by the Government of Germany to the Concluding Observations on of the Human Rights Committee, UN Doc. CCPR/CO/80/DEU/Add.1 (11 April 2005)
Committee on Human Rights, Report of the Working Group on a Draft Convention Against Torture, UN Doc. ECN.4/1984/72 (9 March 1984), para. 5
CRC, General Comment No. 6 on the Treatment of Unaccompanied and Separated Children Outside Their Country of Origin, UN Doc. CRC/GC/2005/6 (1 September 2005), para. 28
Coomans, Fons, “Some Remarks on the Extraterritorial Application of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights” in Coomans, Fons and Kamminga, Menno T. (eds.), Extraterritorial Application of Human Rights Treaties (Antwerp: Intersentia, 2004), p. 185Google Scholar
Künnemann, Rolf, “Extraterritorial Application of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights” in Coomans, Fons and Kamminga, Menno T. (eds.), Extraterritorial Application of Human Rights Treaties (Antwerp: Intersentia, 2004), pp. 212–31Google Scholar
Pedersen, Marten Peschardt, “Territorial Jurisdiction in Article 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights” (2004) 73(3) Nordic Journal of International Law283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, Sarah, “Revisiting Extraterritorial Jurisdiction: A Territorial Justification for Extraterritorial Jurisdiction under the European Convention” (2009) 20(4) European Journal of International Law1224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
UK Ministry of Defence, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), p. 282Google Scholar
Zimmermann, Andreas, “Extraterritorial Application of Human Rights Treaties: The Case of Israel and the Palestinian Territories Revisited” in Buffard, Isabelle, Crawford, James, Pellet, Alain and Wittich, Stefan (eds.), International Law between Universalism and Fragmentation, Essays in Honour of Gerhard Hafner (Leiden: Nijhoff, 2008), p. 764Google Scholar
International Committee of the Red Cross, International Humanitarian Law and the Challenges of Contemporary Armed Conflicts, Report to the 31st International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent (2011), p. 15
Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda), International Court of Justice, Judgment of 19 December 2005 [2006] ICJ Reports, para. 216
Dinstein, Yoram, The International Law of Belligerent Occupation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), p. 88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cerna, Christina, “Extraterritorial Application of the Human Rights Instruments of the Inter-American System” in Coomans, Fons and Kamminga, Menno T. (eds.), Extraterritorial Application of Human Rights Treaties (Antwerp: Intersentia, 2004), pp. 141–74Google Scholar
Salas and others v. United States, Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report. No. 31/93, Case No. 10573, Decision on Admissibility of 14 October 1993, para. 6
Bernard Coard and others v. United States, Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report No. 109/99, Case No. 10.951, OAS Doc. OEA/Ser.L/V/II.106 Doc. 3 rev., Decision of 29 September 1999, para. 37
Armando Alejandra, Jr. and others v. Cuba, Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report No. 86/99, Case No. 11.589, Decision of 29 September 1999, para. 23
Detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Request for Precautionary Measures of 12 March 2002
Cassel, Douglas, “Extraterritorial Application of Inter-American Convention Human Rights Instruments” in Coomans, Fons and Kamminga, Menno T. (eds.), Extraterritorial Application of Human Rights Treaties (Antwerp: Intersentia, 2004), p. 177.Google Scholar
Loizidou v. Turkey, European Court of Human Rights, Appl. No. 40/1993(435/514), Preliminary Objection of 23 February 1995, para. 62
Lawson, Rick, “Life After Banković: On the Extraterritorial Application of the European Convention on Human Rights” in Coomans, Fons and Kamminga, Menno T. (eds.), Extraterritorial Application of Human Rights Treaties (Antwerp: Intersentia, 2004), pp. 90–103Google Scholar
Cyprus v. Turkey, European Court of Human Rights, Appl. No. 25781/94, Judgment of 10 May 2001, para. 77
Banković and others v. Belgium and 16 Other Contracting States, European Court of Human Rights, Appl. No. 52207/99, Decision on Admissibility of 12 December 2001
Altiparmak, Kerem, “Banković: An Obstacle to the Application of the European Convention on Human Rights in Iraq?” (2004) 9(2) Journal of Conflict and Security Law223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilde, Ralphe, “Triggering State Obligations Extraterritorially: The Spatial Test in Certain Human Rights Treaties” (2007) 40(2) Israel Law Review503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milanovic, Marko, “From Compromise to Principle: Clarifying the Concept of State Jurisdiction in Human Rights Treaties” (2008) 8 Human Rights Law Review411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Happold, Matthew, “Banković v. Belgium and the Territorial Scope of the European Convention on Human Rights” (2003) 3(1) Human Rights Law Review90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krieger, Heike, “Die Verantwortlichkeit Deutschlands nach der EMRK für seine Streitkräfte im Auslandseinsatz” (2002) 62 Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht672Google Scholar
O’Boyle, Michael, “The European Convention on Human Rights and Extraterritorial Jurisdiction: A Comment on ‘Life After Banković’” in Coomans, Fons and Kamminga, Menno T. (eds.), Extraterritorial Application of Human Rights Treaties (Antwerp: Intersentia, 2004), pp. 125 and 135Google Scholar
Condorelli, Luigi, “La protection des droits de l’homme lors d’actions militaires menées à l’étranger” in College d’Europe (ed.), The Need for Justice and Requirements for Peace and Security, Proceedings of the Bruges Colloquium, 9–10 September 2004 (Bruges: College d’Europe, 2005), pp. 99–101Google Scholar
Cerone, John, “Human Rights on the Battlefield” in Lagoutte, Stéphanie, Sano, Hans-Otto and Smit, Peter Scharff (eds.), Human Rights in Turmoil: Facing Threats, Consolidating Achievements (Leiden: Nijhoff, 2007), p. 121Google Scholar
Droege, Cordula, “The Interplay between International Humanitarian Law and International Human Rights Law in Situations of Armed Conflict” (2007) 40(2) Israel Law Review315, 328–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abdel-Monem, Tarik, “How Far Do the Lawless Areas of Europe Extend? Extraterritorial Application of the European Convention on Human Rights” (2005) 14(2) Journal of Transnational Law and Policy179Google Scholar
Ilaşcu and others v. Moldova and Russia, European Court of Human Rights, Appl. No. 48787/99, Judgment of 8 July 2004, para 313
Öcalan v. Turkey, European Court of Human Rights, Appl. No. 46221/99, Judgment of 12 May 2005, para. 71
Issa and others v. Turkey, European Court of Human Rights, Appl. No. 31821/96, Judgment of 11 November 2004, para. 61
Pad and others v. Turkey, European Court of Human Rights, Appl. No. 60167/00, Judgment of 28 June 2007
Isaak and others v. Turkey, European Court of Human Rights, Appl. No. 44587/98, Judgment of 28 September 2006
Behrami v. France and Saramati v. France, Germany and Norway, European Court of Human Rights, Appl. Nos. 71412/01 and 78166/01, Decision on Admissibility of 2 May 2007, para. 152
Milanovic, Marko and Papić, Tatjana, “As Bad as it Gets: The European Court of Human Rights’ Behrami and Saramati Decision and General International Law” (2008) 58(2) International and Comparative Law Quarterly267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cowan, Anna, “A New Watershed: Re-evaluating Banković in Light of Al-Skeini” (2012) 1(1) Cambridge Journal of International and Comparative Law214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chinkin, Christine, “International Humanitarian Law, Human Rights and the UK Courts” in de Chazournes, Laurence Boisson and Kohen, Marcelo G., International Law and the Quest for its Implementation (Leiden: Nijhoff, 2010), pp. 252–64Google Scholar
Milanovic, Marko, “Al-Skeini and Al-Jedda in Strasbourg” (2012) 23 European Journal of International Law126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verdirame, Guglielmo, “Human Rights in Wartime: A Framework for Analysis” (2008) 6 European Human Rights Law Review703Google Scholar
Bothe, Michael, “Humanitäres Völkerrecht und Schutz der Menschenrechte: Auf der Suche nach Synergien und Schutzlücken” in Dupuy, Pierre-Marie, Fassbender, Bardo, Shaw, Malcolm N. and Sommermann, Karl-Peter (eds.), Common Values in International Law, Essays in Honour of Christian Tomuschat (Kehl: Engel, 2006), p. 73Google Scholar
Hampson, Françoise, “The Relationship between International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights Law from the Perspective of a Human Rights Treaty Body” (2008) 90(871) International Review of the Red Cross570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sivakumaran, Sandesh, “Re-envisaging the International Law of Armed Conflict” (2001) 22(1) European Journal of International Law258Google Scholar
UN OHCHR, International Legal Protection of Human Rights in Armed Conflict (2011), p. 63
United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Report on the Outcome of the Expert Consultation on the Issue of Protecting the Human Rights of Civilians in Armed Conflict, UN Doc. A/HRC/11/31 (4 June 2009), para. 14

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×