Extraterritorial Application of Human Rights Treaties: Law, Principles, and PolicyQuestions as to when a state owes obligations under a human rights treaty towards an individual located outside its territory are being brought more and more frequently before both international and domestic courts. Victims of aerial bombardment, inhabitants of territories under military occupation, deposed dictators, suspected terrorists detained in Guantanamo by the United States, and the family of a former KGB spy who was assassinated in London through the use of a radioactive toxin, allegedly at the orders or with the collusion of the Russian government - all of these people have claimed protection from human rights law against a state affecting their lives while acting outside its territory. These matters are extremely politically and legally sensitive, leading to much confusion, ambiguity and compromise in the existing case law. This study attempts to clear up some of this confusion, and expose its real roots. It examines the notion of state jurisdiction in human rights treaties, and places it within the framework of international law. It is not limited to an inquiry into the semantic, ordinary meaning of the jurisdiction clauses in human rights treaties, nor even to their construction into workable legal concepts and rules. Rather, the interpretation of these treaties cannot be complete without examining their object and purpose, and the various policy considerations which influence states in their behaviour, and courts in their decision-making. The book thus exposes the tension between universality and effectiveness, which is itself the cause of methodological and conceptual inconsistency in the case law. Finally, the work elaborates on the several possible models of the treaties' extraterritorial application. It offers not only a critical analysis of the existing case law, but explains the various options that are before courts and states in addressing these issues, as well as their policy implications. |
From inside the book
Results 1-5 of 13
Page xxi
... Extradition, ETS 24, 13 December 1957 ..................... 15, 204 European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, ETS 126, entered into force 1 February 1989....13, 15, 131 Framework ...
... Extradition, ETS 24, 13 December 1957 ..................... 15, 204 European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, ETS 126, entered into force 1 February 1989....13, 15, 131 Framework ...
Page 8
... extradite a murder suspect to the US since there was a serious risk that if convicted he would be sentenced to death and subjected to years of waiting on death row for the sentence to be carried out, which was in the Court's view 25 26 ...
... extradite a murder suspect to the US since there was a serious risk that if convicted he would be sentenced to death and subjected to years of waiting on death row for the sentence to be carried out, which was in the Court's view 25 26 ...
Page 9
... extradition—after all, the US is not even a party to the ECHR, and is incapable of violating it—but the decision of the extraditing state to actually proceed with the extradition, while being aware of the risk that the individual will ...
... extradition—after all, the US is not even a party to the ECHR, and is incapable of violating it—but the decision of the extraditing state to actually proceed with the extradition, while being aware of the risk that the individual will ...
Page 15
... Extradition; Art. 80 of the European Code of Social Security. 55 Model Final Clauses for Conventions and Agreements concluded within the Council of Europe, as adopted by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe at its 384th ...
... Extradition; Art. 80 of the European Code of Social Security. 55 Model Final Clauses for Conventions and Agreements concluded within the Council of Europe, as adopted by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe at its 384th ...
Page 26
... extradition or expulsion of a person by a Contracting State may give rise to an issue under Article 3, and hence engage the responsibility of that State under the Convention (see the Soering v. the United Kingdom judgment of 7 July 1989 ...
... extradition or expulsion of a person by a Contracting State may give rise to an issue under Article 3, and hence engage the responsibility of that State under the Convention (see the Soering v. the United Kingdom judgment of 7 July 1989 ...
Contents
1 | |
19 | |
III Policy Behind the Rule | 54 |
IV Models of Extraterritorial Application | 118 |
V Norm Conflicts International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights Law | 229 |
General Conclusion | 262 |
Bibliography | 266 |
Index | 275 |
Other editions - View all
Extraterritorial Application of Human Rights Treaties: Law, Principles, and ... Marko Milanovic No preview available - 2013 |
Extraterritorial Application of Human Rights Treaties: Law, Principles, and ... Marko Milanovic No preview available - 2011 |
Common terms and phrases
actions acts actually agents Al-Skeini approach argument armed Article attributable authority avoidance Bankovic basis Chamber Chapter Commission committed Committee concept concerned concluded conduct considered Constitution Contracting Convention course Covenant Cyprus detained detention domestic ECHR effective effective control effective overall control enforcement establish European Court examined example exercise extend extraterritorial application fact force further hand held human rights treaties ICCPR IHRL individual international law interpretation Iraq issue Italy Judgment jurisdiction jurisdiction clauses Justice killing least limited Lord matter meaning military norm conflict object obligation occupation para paras particular parties personal model persons political positive obligation possible practical prevent principle protection provides question reason refers regard relevant requires respect responsibility result rules scope secure ship simply situations sovereignty spatial state’s territory tion torture Turkey United United Kingdom universality violation