Unravelling the extraterritorial riddle: An analysis of R (Hassan) v. Secretary of state for defence

Journal of International Criminal Justice

Volumn 7, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 633-643

  King, Hugh ^a  

^a NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 70349623322     PISSN: 14781387     EISSN: 14781395     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/jicj/mqp037     Document Type: Article

References (71)

1. R (Hassan) v. Secretary of State for Defence [2009] EWHC 309 (Admin).
2. The facts are set out in the decision at §§ 1-10.
3. The Court dealt with the facts perfunctorily, and because of its focus on the question of 'jurisdiction', left many factual discrepancies and points of interest (such as the reasons for and circumstances of Hassan's arrest and his status) unresolved or unclear. In any event, the precise circumstances of Hassan's arrest were not relevant to the question before the Court.
4. R (Middleton) v.West Somerset Coroner [2004] 2 AC 182, §2.
5. Art.1 provides that the High Contracting Parties 'shall secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in Section I of this Convention'.
6. Hassan, supra note 1, §19.
7. Ibid., §8.
8. R (Al-Skeini) v. Secretary of State for Defence [2007] UKHL 26, [2007] 3 WLR 33, [2007] 3 All ER 685.
9. See T. Thienel, 'The ECHR in Iraq: The Judgment of the House of Lords in R (Al Skeini) v. Secretary of State for Defence', 6 Journal of International Criminal Justice (2008) 115-128.
10. Hassan, supra note 1, §30.
11. Ibid., §22.
12. Ibid., §32.
13. Ibid., §34.
14. Banković and others v. Belgium and others (GC), ECHR RJD 2001-XII 333.
15. V. Lowe, 'Jurisdiction,' in M. Evans (ed.), International Law (2nd edn., NewYork: Oxford University Press, 2006) 335, at 335.
16. R. Higgins, Problems and Process: International Law and How We Use It (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994) 146.
17. This conclusion is most clearly apparent in Al-Skeini, supra note 8, §109 (per Lord Brown). The Court of Appeal has also endorsed it in R (Al-Saadoon) v. Secretary of State for Defence [2009] EWCA Civ 7, §37.
18. Al-Skeini, supra note 8, §§76-77 (per Lord Rodger), §§ 109, 127 (per Lord Brown).
19. Banković, supra note 13, §75.
20. Al-Skeini, supra note 8, §79.
21. Ibid., §83 (per Lord Rodger)
22. see also xx 97 (Lord Carswell) and 129 (per Lord Brown).
23. Ibid., §61 (per Lord Rodger).
24. R (Al-Skeini) v. Secretary of State for Defence [2005] EWCA Civ. 1609, §110 (per Brooke LJ).
25. Al-Skeini, supra note 8, §107 (per Lord Brown). But see Al-Saadoon, supra note 16, §26, where Laws LJ notes that the Divisional Court 'referred to the detention facility "operating ... with the consent of the Iraqi sovereign authorities". That was a mistake; at the material time Iraq was under occupation and had no sovereign authorities of its own.'
26. Ibid., §32 (per Lord Brown).
27. Cyprus v. Turkey (1975), 2 DR 125, 136.
28. See e.g. Solomou v. Turkey (2008), Applic. No.36832/97, §45
29. Andreou v. Turkey (2008), Applic. No. 45653/99, at 10
30. Pad v. Turkey (2007), Applic. No. 60167/00, §53.
31. See Banković, supra note 13, §§ 74-75.
32. Öcalan v. Turkey (GC), ECHR RJD 2005-IV 131, §85 (emphasis added).
33. See R. Wilde, 'The "Legal Space" or "Espace Juridique" of the European Convention on Human Rights: Is it Relevant to E'traterritorial State Action', 2 European Human Rights Law Review (2005) 115
34. R. Lawson, 'Life after Banković : On the Extraterritorial Application of the European Convention on Human Rights', in F. Coomans M. Kamminga (eds), Extraterritorial Application of Human Rights Treaties (Antwerp: Intersentia, 2004) 83, at 113-115
35. Thienel, supra note 8, at 119-120.
36. Pad, supra note 26, §53.
37. See also Issa v. Turkey (2005) 41 EHRR 27
38. Öcalan, supra note 28
39. Isaak v. Turkey (2006), Applic. No. 44587/98
40. Sánchez-Ramirez v. France (1996), 86A DR 155
41. Freda v. Italy (1980), 21 DR 250.
42. Al-Skeini, supra note 8, §78 (per Lord Rodger)
43. see also §129 (per Lord Brown).
44. R. Wilde, 'Triggering State Obligations Extraterritorially: The Spatial Test in Certain Human Rights Treaties', 40 Israel Law Review (2007) 503, at 522.
45. Banković, supra note 13, §§ 60, 71, 73.
46. Al-Skeini, supra note 8, §109 (per Lord Brown).
47. For the distinction between territorial jurisdiction and non-territorial jurisdiction, see Assanidze v. Georgia (GC), ECHR RJD 2004-II 221, §§ 137-138.
48. See e.g. C. Tomuschat, Human Rights: Between Idealism and Realism (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003), at 110.
49. M. v. Denmark (1992), 73 DR 193.
50. Ibid., §2.
51. A contrary conclusion would require states to intervene in foreign territories around the world to secure the rights of those who are suffering at the hands of their government.
52. Consular relations are governed by the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, drafted in 1963 to consolidate customary international law. See Case Concerning United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran (United States of America v. Iran), ICJ Reports (1980) 3, ' 45.
53. X. v. United Kingdom (1977), 12 DR 73. The facts are set out at 73-74.
54. Ibid., at 74.
55. Ibid., at 74-75.
56. See H. King, 'The Extraterritorial Human Rights Obligations of States' (unpublished manuscript on file with the author, at 26-32).
57. Ilaşcu v. Moldova and Russia (GC), ECHR RJD 2004-VII 179.
58. Ibid., §333.
59. See e.g. Lawson, supra note 29
60. V. Mantouvalou, 'Extending Judicial Control in International Law: Human Rights Treaties and Extraterritoriality', 9 International Journal of Human Rights (2005) 147
61. M. Milanović, 'From Compromise to Principle: Clarifying the Concept of State Jurisdiction in Human Rights Treaties', 8 Human Rights Law Review (2008) 411
62. A. Orakhelashvili, 'Restrictive Interpretation of Human Rights Treaties in the Recent Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights', 14 European Journal of International Law (2003) 529
63. A. Ruth and M. Trilsch, 'Banković v. Belgium', 97 American Journal of International Law (2003) 168.
64. O. De Schutter, 'Globalization and Jurisdiction: Lessons from the European Convention on Human Rights', 6 Baltic Yearbook of International Law (2006) 185, at 196.
65. See e.g. Loizidou v. Turkey (Preliminary Objections) (GC), ECHR (1995) Series A, No. 310, 24
66. Loizidou v. Turkey (Merits) (GC), ECHR RJD 1996-VI 2216, 2234-2235.
67. See e.g. X. v. United Kingdom, supra note 41
68. X. v. Federal Republic of Germany (1965), 17 HRCD 42.
69. See also the Passport Cases, albeit decided under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, where Uruguayan nationals, neither within Uruguayan territory nor in the custody of Uruguayan officials abroad, were held to be within Uruguayan 'jurisdiction' for the purposes of the Covenant when requesting passports from their consular officials: Lichtensztejn v. Uruguay (77/1980), UN Doc. CCPR/C/18/D/77/1980 (1983)
70. Montero v. Uruguay (106/1981), UN Doc. CCPR/C/18/D/106/1981 (1982).
71. Milanović, supra note 47, at 447-448.