Extraterritorial Application of the European Convention on Human Rights: Territorial Focus in the Age of Globalization?

Netherlands International Law Review

Volumn 52, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 349-387

  Gondek, Michał ^a  

^a MAASTRICHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84867774007     PISSN: 0165070X     EISSN: 17416191     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0165070X05003499     Document Type: Review

References (91)

1. The practice of targeted killings, used previously by Israel against Palestinians suspected of terrorism, has also been employed in the US-led war against terror: the example is the assassination of suspected Al Qaeda members in Yemen with a missile launched from an US Unmanned Aerial Vehicle in November 2002. On the question of legality of the use of this tactic see, e.g., A. Cassese, International law, 2nd edn. (Oxford, Oxford University Press 2005) pp. 420-423.
2. See, e.g., J. Mayer, 'Outsourcing torture', The New Yorker, 14 February 2005.
3. Swedish TV4 documentary, The broken promise, 17 May 2004, on the expulsion of two refugees to Egypt, ordered by the Swedish government and carried out on 18 December 2001 by hooded US agents. See Statewatch News Online, news releases of October 2004, available at < www.statewatch.org >.
4. See, e.g., Amnesty International, One year after Abu Ghraib, torture continues, available at < web.amnesty.org/pages/irq-280405-feature-eng > (visited on 27 August 2005).
5. See, e.g., Amnesty International, 'Disappearances' in the 'war on terror', available at < web.amnesty.org/pages/stoptorture-300805-news-eng > (visited on 27 August 2005)
6. AI report Torture and secret detention: Testimony of the 'disappeared' in the 'war on terror', available at < web.amnesty.org/library/index/engamr511082005 > (visited on 27 August 2005).
7. B. Simma, 'How Distinctive Are Treaties Representing Collective Interest? The Case of Human Rights Treaties', in V. Gowlland-Debbas, ed., Multilateral Treaty-Making: The Current Status of Challenges to and Reforms Needed in the International Legislative Process (The Hague, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2000) p. 87.
8. 1155 UNTS p. 331. The Convention entered into force on 27 January 1980.
9. Banković and Others v. Belgium and 16 Other Contracting States, Application No. 52207/99, Admissibility Decision of 12 December 2001, 41 ILM (2002) p. 517.
10. The decision has been widely annotated. A summary of critical views on Banković may be found in G. Ress, 'Problems of Extraterritorial Human Rights Violations - the Jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights: The Banković Case', 12 Ital. YIL (2003) pp. 51-67;
11. G. Ress, 'State Responsibility for Extraterritorial Human Rights Violations. The Case of Banković', 6 Zeitschrift für Europarechtlichen Studien (2003) pp. 73-89.
12. Loizidou v. Turkey (Preliminary Objections), ECtHR 23 March 1995, Series A, Vol. 310, para. 62.
13. Cyprus v. Turkey, Application No. 25781/94, ECtHR 10 May 2001, para. 77.
14. Stocké v. Germany, Case No. 28/1989/188/248, ECtHR 12 October 1989, Series A, Vol. 199, 24, para. 166.
15. Cyprus v. Turkey, Applications No. 6780/74 and 6950/75, ECommHR 26 May 1975, 2 DR (1975) p. 136.
16. W.M. v. Denmark, Application No. 17392/90, ECommHR 14 October 1992, not reported.
17. Soering v. The United Kingdom, Case No. 1/1989/161/217, ECtHR 7 July 1989, Series A, Vol. 161.
18. For a more comprehensive analysis of the pre-Banković case law on Art. 1, see, e.g., R. Lawson, 'Life after Banković: On the Extraterritorial Application of the European Convention on Human Rights', in F. Coomans and M. Kamminga, eds., Extraterritorial Application of Human Rights Treaties (Antwerp, Intersentia 2004) pp. 90-107.
19. Banković, supra n. 8, at paras. 59 and 61.
20. Banković, supra n. 8, at para. 75.
21. Öcalan v. Turkey (Merits), Application No. 46221/99, Chamber judgment of 12 March 2003.
22. See, e.g., A. Clapham, 'Symbiosis in International Human Rights Law: The Öcalan Case and the Evolving Law on the Death Sentence', 1 Journal of International Criminal Justice (2003) pp. 475-489.
23. Ilascu and Others v. Moldova and Russia (Merits), Application No. 48787/99, ECtHR 8 July 2004.
24. Issa and Others v. Turkey, Application No. 31821/96, ECtHR 16 November 2004.
25. Cf., Banković, supra n. 8, at paras. 59, 61 and 63.
26. See, e.g., S. Rosenne, Practice and Methods of International Law (London, Oceana Publications 1984) p. 30.
27. P. Reuter, Introduction to the Law of Treaties (London, Pinter 1989) p. 74;
28. G. Hafner, et al., (The Hague, Kluwer Law International 1998)
29. See, e.g., Advisory Opinion on Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, ICJ 9 July 2004, para. 94 (available at < www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket/imwp/imwpframe.htm >)
30. A. Aust, Modern Treaty Law and Practice (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press 2000) p. 186;
31. T.O. Elias, The Modern Law of Treaties (Dobbs Ferry, NY, Oceana Publications 1974) p. 74.
32. See also ECtHR (1975) in Golder v. the United Kingdom (Merits and just satisfaction), Application No. 4451/70, 56 ILR 200, para. 30
33. On the notion of the object and purpose in the law of treaties see J. Klabbers, 'Some Problems Regarding the Object and Purpose of Treaties', 8 Finnish YIL (1997) pp. 138-160.
34. Soering, supra n. 16, at para. 86, quoted in Banković at para. 66.
35. Klabbers, op. cit. n. 36, at pp. 151-152.
36. Banković, supra n. 8, at paras. 59-61.
37. See also Lawson, op. cit. n. 17, at pp. 107-108, 111, and Remarks of H. Hannum, in 'Bombing for Peace: Collateral Damage and Human Rights', 96 ASIL Proc. (2002) p. 98.
38. Remarks of H. Hannum, in 'Bombing for Peace: Collateral Damage and Human Rights', 96 ASIL Proc. (2002) p. 98.
39. F.A. Mann, 'The Doctrine of Jurisdiction in International Law', 111 Recueil des Cours (1964-I) p. 15.
40. R. Higgins, Problems and Process: International Law and How We Use It (Oxford, Clarendon Press 1994) p. 56.
41. See, e.g., case note by A. Rüth and M. Trilsch, in 97 AJIL (2003) pp. 167-172.
42. Cf., López Burgos v. Uruguay, Case No. 52/79, UN Doc. A/36/40, p. 176, HRC 29 July 1981 and Öcalan, supra n. 24.
43. Mann, op. cit. n. 41, at p. 9.
44. V. Lowe, 'Jurisdiction', in M.D. Evans, ed., International Law (Oxford, Oxford University Press 2003) p. 329.
45. Cf., M. Shaw, International Law, 6th edn. (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press 2003) p. 572
46. Higgins, op. cit. n. 42, at p. 56.
47. Mann, op. cit. n. 41, at p. 13.
48. Lowe, op. cit. n. 46, at p. 334.
49. O. Schachter, International Law in Theory and Practice (Dordrecht, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 1991) p. 255.
50. Lowe, op. cit. n. 46, at p. 333.
51. Schachter, op. cit. n. 52, at p. 255.
52. Mann, op. cit. n. 41, at p. 128.
53. F.A. Mann, 'The Doctrine of International Jurisdiction Revisited after Twenty Years', 186 Recueil des Cours (1984-III) p. 34.
54. E.g., Dudgeon v. United Kingdom, ECtHR judgment of 22 October 1981, Series A, No. 45, p. 18
55. Mann, op. cit. n. 41, at p. 46.
56. See, e.g., I. Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law, 6th edn. (Oxford, Oxford University Press 2004) pp. 297, 309.
57. See Lawson, M. Kamminga, eds., Extraterritorial Application of Human Rights Treaties (Antwerp, Intersentia 2004) op. cit. 17, at p. 104.
58. Ilascu, supra n. 26, at paras. 393-394.
59. see also Assanidze v. Georgia, Application No. 71503/01, ECtHR 8 April 2004.
60. Ilascu, supra n. 26, at para. 334.
61. Banković, supra n. 8, at para. 71.
62. See Lawson, M. Kamminga, eds., Extraterritorial Application of Human Rights Treaties (Antwerp, Intersentia 2004) op. cit. n. 17, at p. 111.
63. Ilascu, supra n. 26, see in particular paras. 314-319.
64. Öcalan, supra n. 24, at para. 93.
65. Cf., Clapham, loc. cit. n. 25, at p. 480.
66. See Öcalan, supra n. 24, at paras. 95-103.
67. Issa, supra n. 28, at para. 74.
68. Banković, supra n. 8, at para. 79.
69. The view expressed, e.g., by the English High Court in Al-Skeini, see infra.
70. See, e.g., Ress, 'Problems of Extraterritorial Human Rights Violations', op. cit. n. 10, at p. 63;
71. Ress, 'State Responsibility for Extraterritorial Human Rights Violations', loc. cit. n. 10, at p. 84 (Judge Ress was himself a member of the Grand Chamber deciding Banković)
72. M. O'Boyle, 'The European Convention on Human Rights and Extraterritorial Jurisdiction: A Comment on "Life after Banković"', in Coomans and Kamminga, op. cit. n. 17, at p. 137
73. Lawson, op. cit. n. 17, at pp. 113-115.
74. López Burgos, supra n. 44, at para. 12.3.
75. See F. Coomans, 'Some Remarks on the Extraterritorial Application of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights', in Coomans and Kamminga, op. cit. n. 17, at pp. 183-199.
76. For more on extraterritorial application of the ICCPR see D. McGoldrick, 'Extraterritorial Application of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights', in Coomans and Kamminga, op. cit. n. 17, at pp. 41-72.
77. General Comment No. 31 [80], 'Nature of the General Legal Obligation Imposed on States Parties to the Covenant', 26 May 2004, CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.13.
78. Advisory Opinion on Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, ICJ 9 July 2004, supra n. 33.
79. Lopez Burgos, supra n. 44, Lilian Celiberti de Casariego v. Uruguay, No. 56/79, UN Doc. CCPR/C/OP/1, p. 92, HRC 29 July1984, and Montero v. Uruguay, UN Doc. A/38/40, p. 186, HRC 31 July 1981, and Concluding Observations on the Report of Israel, UN Doc. CCPR/C/79/Add.93.
80. Advisory Opinion on Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, supra n. 33, at para. 112.
81. Advisory Opinion on Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, supra n. 33, at para. 112.
82. See C.M. Cerna, 'Extraterritorial Application of the Human Rights Instruments of the Inter-American System', in Coomans and Kamminga, op. cit. n. 17, at pp. 141-174.
83. Coard et al. v. United States, Case 10.951, Report No. 109/99, IACHR 29 September 1999, para. 37.
84. Request for Precautionary Measures Concerning the Detainees at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, IACHR 12 March 2002, 41 ILM (2002) p. 532.
85. See Rasul et al. v. Bush, Case 03-334, US Supreme Court 28 June 2004.
86. For the examples of the impact of Banković in national case law of the ECHR States Parties see Lawson, M. Kamminga, eds., Extraterritorial Application of Human Rights Treaties (Antwerp, Intersentia 2004) op. cit. n. 17, at pp. 116-118.
87. See also Case 1 O 361/02 of the 1. Zivilkammer des Landsgerichts Bonn, available at .
88. R. (ex parte Mazin Jumaa Gatteh Al Skeini and others) v. Secretary of State for Defense [2004] EWHC 2911 (Admin). When the work on this article was being completed the case was pending in the Court of Appeal.
89. Art. 19 ECHR.
90. Al Skeini, supra n. 107, at para. 258.
91. Banković, supra n. 8, at para. 73.