100% satisfaction guarantee Immediately available after payment Both online and in PDF No strings attached
logo-home
Previously searched by you
Previously searched by you
logo
Human Rights Law - Extraterritoriality Summary $10.61   Add to cart
Quickly navigate to
Preview
  2.  
  3. Oxford University (OX)
  4.  
  5. Human Rights Law

Summary

Human Rights Law - Extraterritoriality Summary
 7 views  0 purchase
  • Course
  • Human Rights Law
  • Institution
  • Oxford University (OX)

Comprehensive summary/exam notes on the principle of extraterritoriality in Human Rights Law. This document sets out a timeline of cases from the traditional view of jurisdiction in Bankovic v UK to its development in Al-Skeini v UK, Al-Saadoon, Georgia v Russia and Carter v Russia. It also include...

[Show more]

Preview 1 out of 4  pages

Document information

  • October 7, 2024
  • 4
  • 2022/2023
  • Summary

Subjects

  • human rights
  • human rights law
  • extraterritoriality
  • bankovic v uk
  • al skeini
  • al saadoon
  • georgia v russia
  • carter v russia

Written for

  • Oxford University (OX)
  • Unknown
  • Human Rights Law
All documents for this subject (8)

Seller

avatar-seller
bethjscott5713

Content preview

Extraterritoriality
Article 1 ECHR –
States shall secure the rights and freedoms outlined in the Convention to “everyone within
their jurisdiction.”
Competing views on the extra-territorial applicability of Convention rights relate to
the cases in which a State can be held responsible for securing human rights outside
of the State itself

What is the appropriate scope of extra-territorial application of the ECHR?
e.g., Lloyd Jones LJ in Al-Saadoon – “[T]he combined effect of the exceptional cases of
extra-territorial jurisdiction accepted by the Grand Chamber in Al-Skeini represents a
potentially massive expansion of the scope of application of the Convention, the full
implications of which remain to be worked out.”
Is this true? What is the appropriate scope of the extraterritorial application of the
Convention?
Arguably remains unclear.

1. Restrictive Approach:
Bankovic v UK – traditional view of jurisdiction.
Arising from the bombing of a TV and radio station in Belgrade, carried out
by NATO during the Balkans war.
The ECtHR was clear that the jurisdiction was a primarily territorial concept.
In doing so, the Court went back to basics and had regard to the
nature of the Convention as an international instrument.
It found that in general international law, jurisdiction was given a
territorial meaning and as such, in the Convention context,
jurisdiction was to be given the same meaning.
The Court also focused on the operation of the Convention generally.
This is seen most clearly in the Court’s ousting of the “cause and
effect” basis for jurisdiction; in other words, the idea that whenever a
violation or harm occurs, then by virtue of having caused it,
jurisdiction is made out.
The Court was very reluctant to accept this basis in order to protect
the proper functioning and operation of the Convention, in that
Article 1 ECHR presents jurisdiction as a separate hurdle for the
applicant to overcome in any case and if the Court endorsed such a
“cause and effect” approach, the presence of such a separate
requirement would be essentially redundant.
What is particularly interesting about this case is the Court’s failure to apply
its interpretive approach of the Convention being a “living instrument” in the
context of Article 1 and its specific reference to the travaux préparatoires of
the Convention.
The Court was evidently wary about the fact that the concept of
jurisdiction is determinative of the very scope of the Contracting
Parties’ obligations and as such the scope and reach of the entire
Convention system.
As such, the Court held that the Convention “was not designed to be
applied throughout the world” and would be extended to conduct
only occurring in other contracting states.
2. Problems with this Restrictive Approach:
First of all, the adoption of the same definition of jurisdiction in Article 1 ECHR as
in general international law is based on the false assumption that the Convention is
sufficiently comparable to any other international law instrument.

The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:

Guaranteed quality through customer reviews

Guaranteed quality through customer reviews

Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.

Quick and easy check-out

Quick and easy check-out

You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.

Focus on what matters

Focus on what matters

Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!

Frequently asked questions

What do I get when I buy this document?

You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.

Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?

Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.

Who am I buying these notes from?

Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller bethjscott5713. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.

Will I be stuck with a subscription?

No, you only buy these notes for $10.61. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.

Can Stuvia be trusted?

4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)

75632 documents were sold in the last 30 days

Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy study notes for 14 years now

Start selling
$10.61
  • (0)
  Add to cart