Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-9pm4c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T10:39:38.125Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Triggering State Obligations Extraterritoriality: The Spatial Test in Certain Human Rights Treaties

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2014

Ralph Wilde
Get access

Abstract

The spatial test for triggering the extraterritorial application of the main treaties on civil and political rights law has been the subject of significant judicial comment in recent years. This piece offers a critical evaluation of an important common theme in these judicial determinations: the suggestion that the spatial test is to be understood in a manner that covers a sub-set of extraterritorial activity involving territorial control occurring as a matter of fact. It provides a sustained explanation and critical evaluation of four different ways such a suggestion can be identified in some of the key judicial determinations on the issue of the extraterritorial application of treaties on civil and political rights generally. Since one of the other main areas of law potentially relevant to extraterritorial activity—the law of occupation—also uses a test of territorial control as a trigger for application, the interplay between the approaches taken in each area of law on the question of what type of control is required mediates the extent to which the fields of activity covered by the two areas of law overlap. Understanding the merit of the determinations concerning human rights law discussed in this piece is significant, then, not only on its own terms, but also because of its significance to the broader question of the overlap between human rights law and the law of occupation.

Type
Research Article
Information
Israel Law Review , Volume 40 , Issue 2 , Summer 2007 , pp. 503 - 526
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and The Faculty of Law, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 2007

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.)

Footnotes

*

UCL Faculty of Laws, www.ucl.ac.uk/laws/wilde.

Thanks to Dr Silvia Borelli for research assistance. This research was supported by the Leverhulme Trust.

References

1 European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, art. 1, Nov. 4, 1950, 213 U.N.T.S. 221 [hereinafter ECHR]; International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, art. 2, Dec. 19, 1966, 999 U.N.T.S. 171 [hereinafter ICCPR]; American Convention on Human Rights, art. 1, Nov. 22, 1969, O.A.S. Treaty Series No. 36, 1144 U.N.T.S. 123 [hereinafter ACHR]; Convention on the Rights of the Child, Nov. 20, 1989, 1577 U.N.T.S. 3 [hereinafter CROC]. The ICCPR formulation is slightly different from the others in that applicability operates in relation to those “within [the state's] territory and subject to its jurisdiction.” This issue is addressed below, in note 8. The American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, adopted by the Ninth International Conference of American States, Bogotá, Colombia, 1948, OAS Res. XXX (1948), although not containing a reference to “jurisdiction,” has been understood to operate as if it did; see, e.g., Coard v. the United States of America, Case 10.951, Inter-Am. C.H.R., OEA/ser.L/V/II.106.doc.3rev, (1999), at para. 37. Note that the ECHR and its Protocols have separate provisions on applicability to overseas territories; see, e.g., Article 56 of the ECHR. The African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, OAU Doc. CAB/LEG/67/3 rev. 5 (June 27, 1981), 21 I.L.M. 58 (1982) [hereinafter ACHPR] does not contain the “jurisdiction” conception of responsibility.

2 Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, art. 2, Dec. 10, 1984, 1465 U.N.T.S. 85 [hereinafter CAT].

3 But cf. the special regime for applicability in overseas territories under the ECHR and its Protocols, and the reference to “territory” in the ICCPR (see supra note 1 and infra note 8).

4 Although the state's obligations in relation to the provision of primary education are conceived in terms of “metropolitan territory or other territories under its jurisdiction.” See Article 14, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Dec. 19, 1966, 993 U.N.T.S. 3 [hereinafter ICESCR].

5 See Article 2, id. and Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Advisory Opinion, 2004 I.C.J. 163, (July 9), at para. 112 [hereinafter Wall case].

6 Given the approach taken by the European Court of Human Rights in relation to the Russian presence in Transdniestria, there is a question as to whether it covers the state's territory that is not under its control. See, e.g., Ilaşcu v. Moldova and Russia, 2004-VII Eur. Ct. H.R. (GC), in particular paras. 310-335.

7 See Wall case, supra note 5, at paras 107-113; Case Concerning Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (DRC v. Uganda), 2005 I.C.J. 116 (Dec. 19), at paras. 216-217 [hereinafter DRC v. Uganda]; Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 31 [80]: Article 2 of the Covenant: The Nature of the General Legal Obligation Imposed on States Parties to the Covenant, ¶ 10, UN Doc. CCPR/C/74/CRP.4/Rev.6 (2004), [hereinafter General Comment No. 31]; Celiberti de Casariego v. Uruguay, Comm. No. 56/1979, UN Doc. CCPR/C/13/D/56/1979 (1981); Lilian Celiberti de Casariego v. Uruguay, Communication No. R.13/56, Human Rights Committee, Supp No. 40, at 185, UN Doc. A/36/40 (1981); M. v. Denmark, Appl. No. 17392/90, Eur. Comm'n H.R. Dec. & Rep. 193 (1982); Drozd and Janousek v. France and Spain, 14 Eur. Ct. H.R. 745 (1992); Loizidou v. Turkey, 310 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) at para. 62 (1995)(GC)(Preliminary Objections) [hereinafter Loizidou (Preliminary Objections)]; Loizidou v. Turkey, 1996-VI, Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) 2216, 2234-35, at paras. 52-56 (GC)(Merits) [hereinafter Loizidou (Merits)]; Illich Sanchez Ramirez v. France, Appl. No. 28780/95, 86 Eur. Comm'n H.R. Dec. & Rep. 155 (1996) Cyprus v. Turkey, 2001-IV Eur. Ct. H.R. 1, at para. 77 (GC); Banković v. Belgium, 2001–XII Eur. Ct. H.R. 333, at paras. 70-71 (GC); Issa v. Turkey, 41 Eur. Ct. H.R. 27 (2004), at para. 71; Ilaşcu v. Moldova and Russia, supra note 6; Coard v. the United States, supra note 1, at paras. 37, 39, 41; Committee Against Torture, Consideration of Reports Submitted by States Parties under Article 19 of the Convention, Conclusions and Recommendations: United States of America, ¶ 15, UN Doc. CAT/C/USA/CO/2 (July 25, 2006) [hereinafter CAT: USA Report]. As mentioned supra in note 2, obligations in the ICCPR are owed to “all individuals within a state's territory and subject to its jurisdiction.” Given the clear affirmation by the Human Rights Committee and the International Court of Justice that the ICCPR can apply extraterritorially, it would seem that jurisdiction can operate as a basis for applicability independently of territory. For academic commentary see, e.g., Lush, Cristopher, The Territorial Application of the European Convention on Human Rights: Recent Case Law, 42 I.C.L.Q. 897 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Meron, Theodor, Extraterritoriality of Human Rights Treaties, 89 Am. J. Int'l L. 78 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Frowein, Joachim, The Relationship Between Human Rights Regimes and Regimes of Belligerent Occupation, Isr. Y.B. Hum. Rts. 1 (1998)Google Scholar; Pasquale De Sena, La nozione di Giurisdizione Statale nei trattati sui diritti dell'uomo (2002); Happold, Matthew, Bankovic v. Belgium and the Territorial Scope of the European Convention of Human Rights, 3 Eur. Hum. Rts. L. Rev. 77 (2003)Google Scholar; Orakhelashvili, Alexander, Restrictive Interpretation of Human Rights Treaties in the Recent Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, 14 Eur. J. Int'l L. 529 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Altiparmak, Kerem, Bankovic: An Obstacle to the Application of the European Convention on Human Rights in Iraq?, 9 JCSL 213 (2004)Google Scholar; Ben-Naftali, Orna & Shany, Yuval, Living in Denial: The Application of Human Rights in the Occupied Territories, 37 Isr. L. Rev. 17 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Borelli, Silvia, Casting Light on the Legal Black Hole: International Law and Detentions Abroad in the ‘War on Terror’, 87 Int'l Rev. Red Cross 39 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Fox, Gregory H., The Occupation of Iraq, 30 Geo. J. Int'l L. 195, 270–278 (2005)Google Scholar; Watkin, Kenneth, Controlling the Use of Force: A Role for Human Rights Norms in Contemporary Armed Conflict, 98 Am. J. Int'l L. 1 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Dennis, Michael J., Application of Human Rights Treaties Extraterritorially in Times of Armed Conflict and Military Occupation, 99 Am. J. Int'l L. 119 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Olivier De Schutter, Globalization and Jurisdiction: Lessons from the European Convention on Human Rights, NYU School of Law, Center for Human Rights and Global Justice Working Paper No. 9 (2005), available at http://www.nyuhr.org/docs/wp/DeSchutter%20Globalization%20and%20Jurisdiction.pdf (last visited June 13, 2007); Gondek, Michal, Extraterritorial Application of the European Convention on Human Rights: Territorial Focus in the Age of Globalization?, 52 NILR 349 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wilde, Ralph, Legal ‘Black Hole’?: Extraterritorial State Action and International Treaty Law on Civil and Political Rights, 26 Mich. J. Int'l L. 739 (2005)Google Scholar; Wilde, Ralph, The ‘Legal Space’ or ‘Espace Juridique’ of the European Convention on Human Rights: Is It Relevant to Extraterritorial State Action?, 10 Eur. Hum. Rts. L. Rev. 115 (2005)Google Scholar; Roberts, Adam, Transformative Military Occupation: Applying the Laws of War and Human Rights, 100 Am. J. Int'l L. 580 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and the contributions in Extraterritorial Application of Human Rights Treaties (Coomans, F. & Kamminga, M. eds., 2004) [hereinafter Coomans & Kamminga]Google Scholar.

8 See, e.g., Wall case, supra note 5, at paras. 107-113; General Comment No. 31, supra note 7, at para. 10; Loizidou (Preliminary Objections), supra note 7, at para. 62; Loizidou (Merits), supra note 7, at para. 52; Cyprus v. Turkey, supra note 7, at paras. 75-77; Bankovìć v. Belgium, supra note 7, generally, and in particular paras. 70 and 75; Issa v. Turkey, supra note 7, at paras. 69-70; Ilaşcuv. Moldova and Russia, supra note 6, at paras. 314-316; Isaakv. Turkey, supra note 7, at 19; CAT: USA Report, supra note 7, at para. 15.

9 See, e.g., General Comment No. 31, supra note 7, at para. 10; Lopez Burgos v. Uruguay, supra note 7, at para. 12.3; Celiberti de Casariego v. Uruguay, supra note 7, at para. 10.3; M. v. Denmark, supra note 7, at 93; Illich Sanchez Ramirez v. France, supra note 7, at 155; Banković v. Belgium, supra note 7, generally, and in particular para. 75; Issa v. Turkey, supra note 7, at para. 71; Isaak v. Turkey, supra note 7, at 19-21; Coardv. the United States, supra note 7, at paras 37, 39, 41; CAT: USA Report, supra note 7, at para. 15.

10 Wall case, supra note 5, at para. 113. In paras. 108-111 the ICJ discusses the potential for the term “jurisdiction” under the ICCPR to subsist extraterritorially, concluding in the affirmative. After considering the position under the ICESCR, it turns to the CROC, and assumes extraterritorial applicability on the basis that obligations in that instrument are conceived in relation to the state's “jurisdiction.” One can perhaps conclude that this assumption is made in the light of the Court's earlier discussion about the meaning of the same term in the ICCPR, and on the basis that the term has the same meaning in both instruments, since otherwise the Court would have had to conduct a similar enquiry into the meaning of “jurisdiction” in the CROC to that it had conducted in relation to the ICCPR.

11 This is discussed in more detail in Section E5 infra.

12 Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) Notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970), Advisory Opinion, 1971 I.C.J. 16, (June 21), at para. 118.

13 On this test for jurisdiction, see Loizidou (Merits), supra note 7; Loizidou (Preliminary Objections) supra note 7; Cyprus v. Turkey, supra note 7; Banković v. Belgium, supra note 7; Issa v. Turkey, supra note 7; Ilaşcu v. Moldova and Russia, supra note 6; Al-Skeini v. Sec. of State for Defence [2004] EWHC 2911 (Admin.) [hereinafter Al-Skeini (HC)]; Al-Skeini v. Sec. of State for Defence [2005] EWCA 1609 (Civ.) [hereinafter Al-Skeini (CA)]; Al Skeini v. Sec. of State for Defence [2007] UKHL 26, [2007] 3 All E.R. 865 [hereinafter Al-Skeini (HL)]; CAT: USA Report, supra note 7, para. 15.

14 Loizidou (Preliminary Objections), supra note 7, at para. 62, cited in Loizidou (Merits), supra note 7, para. 52.

15 See also Cyprus v. Turkey, supra note 7, at para. 77. Further aspects of the test are discussed infra in Section E4 and 5.

16 Hague Regulations Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land (annex to the Convention (IV)) Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, art. 42 (1), Oct. 18, 1907, 36 Stat. 2277. See more generally id. Articles 42-46.

17 Id.

18 See, e.g., Geneva Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, art. 2, Aug. 12, 1949, 75 U.N.T.S. 287, 6 U.S.T. 3516. See more generally id. at Articles 27-34 and 47-78.

19 See, e.g., Benvenisti, Eyal, The International Law of Occupation 4 (1993)Google Scholar.

20 For academic commentary on occupation law generally, see, e.g. Benvenisti, id. in particular at 3-6; Roberts, Adam, What is a Military Occupation?, 55 BYIL 249 (1984)Google Scholar, in particular at 300; The Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, Commentary to the IV Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War 21–22 (Pictet, Jean S. ed., 1958)Google Scholar, see especially Commentary to Article 2 (2); Von Glahn, Gerhard, Law Among Nations: An Introduction to Public International Law ch. 25 (1995)Google Scholar; Gerson, Allan, Israel, the West Bank and International Law (1978)Google Scholar; Kretzmer, David, The Occupation of Justice: The Supreme Court of Israel and the Occupied Territories (2002)Google Scholar; UK Ministry of Defence, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict (2004); Wilson, Arnold, The Laws of War in Occupied Territory, 18 Transactions of the Grotius Society 17 (1932)Google Scholar; Gerson, Allan, Trustee Occupant: The Legal Status of Israel's Presence in the West Bank, 14 Harv. Int'l L.J. 1 (1973)Google Scholar; Daniel Thürer, “Current Challenges to the Law of Occupation,” Speech delivered at the 6th Bruges Colloquium, Oct. 20-21,2005, available at www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/occupation-statement-211105?opendocument (last visited June 13, 2007) [hereinafter Thürer]; Gasser, Hans-Peter, Protection of the Civilian Population, in The Handbook of Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflicts 240–279 (Fleck, Dieter ed., 1995)Google Scholar and sources cited therein; Scheffer, David, Beyond Occupation Law, 97 Am. J. Int'l L. 842 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Vité, Sylvain, L'applicabilité du droit international de l'occupation militaire aux activités des organisations internationals, 86 Int'l Rev. Red Cross 9 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bhuta, Nehal, The Antinomies of Transformative Occupation, 16 Eur. J. Int'l L. 721 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ratner, Steven R., Foreign Occupation and International Territorial Administration: The Challenges of Convergence, 16 Eur. J. Int'l L. 695 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Roberts, supra note 7.

21 Thùrer, supra note 20 (footnotes omitted).

22 One such idea which will not be addressed is the notion that human rights treaties only apply extraterritorially when states are acting in the territory of other states who are also parties to the same treaty. Thus for extraterritorial action occurring in the territory of a non-party state or non-state entity, the obligations are inapplicable. This has become a topic of debate following the observations of the European Court of Human Rights in relation to the “espace juridique” of the ECHR in the Banković case: see Banković v. Belgium supra note 7, at para. 80; for commentary, see, e.g., the works by Orakhelashvili, Altiparmak and Wilde cited in supra note 7 above; see also Rick Lawson, Life After Bankovic: On the Extraterritorial Application of the European Convention on Human Rights, in Coomans & Kamminga, supra note 7, at 131.

23 Another issue mediating the degree of overlap is the extent to which the applicability of each area of law is determined by the subject matter at issue. On the applicability of human rights obligations in war time, see the derogation provisions of the various international instruments for the protection of human rights: Article 4, ICCPR, supra note 1; Article 15, ECHR, supra note 1; Article 27, ACHR, supra note 1; see also Coard (supra note 1), at paras 39-42; Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, 1996, I.C.J. 226 (July 8), at paras. 24 and 25; Wall case, supra note 5, at paras. 105-106.

24 See, e.g., Higgins, Rosalyn, Problems and Process: International Law and How We Use It ch. 4 (1994)Google Scholar; Ian Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law ch. 15 (2003); Shaw, Malcolm N., International Law ch. 12 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Mann, Francis A., The Doctrine of Jurisdiction in International Law, 111 Recueil des Cours 1 (1964-I)Google Scholar; Mann, Francis A., The Doctrine of International Jurisdiction Revisited after Twenty Years, 186 Recueil des Cours 8 (1984-III)Google Scholar; Akehurst, Michael, Jurisdiction in International Law, 46 BYIL 145 (1972–1973)Google Scholar.

25 Banković v. Belgium, supra note 7, at paras 59-61.

26 Loizidou (Preliminary Objections), supra note 7, at para. 62; Loizidou (Merits), supra note 7, at paras. 52-56. See also Cyprus, supra note 7, at para. 77.

27 General Comment No. 31. supra note 7, at para. 10 (emphasis added).

28 Wall case, supra note 5, at para. 109.

29 Id.

30 Banković v. Belgium, supra note 7, at para. 67.

31 See Al-Skeini (HC), supra note 13, at paras. 245 and 269; Al-Skeini (CA), supra note 13, at paras. 75-76.

32 Banković v. Belgium, supra note 7, at para. 71.

33 Id. at paras. 75-76.

34 See the discussion in the paragraphs cited supra note 33.

35 See Al-Skeini (CA), supra note 13, at paras. 123-124 (LJ Brooke).

36 Al-Skeini (HL), supra note 13.

37 See also the disagreement by LJ Sedley, Al-Skeini (CA), supra note 13, at para. 195.

38 See Al-Jedda v. Sec. of State for Defence [2005] EWHC 1809 (Admin.); Al-Jedda v. Sec. of State for Defence [2006] EWCA 327 (Civ.). And of course the law of occupation itself contains obligations concerning the promotion of law and order and the protection of human rights. See generally the sources cited supra note 20.

39 See Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law, Report of the Study Group of the International Law Commission (finalized by Martti Koskenniemi), UN Doc. A/CN.4/L.682 (April 13, 2006).

40 Al-Skeini (CA), supra note 13, at paras 196-197 (LJ Sedley).

41 Id. at para. 125 (LJ Brooke). See also id. at para. 126.

42 Id. at para. 125 (LJ Brooke).

43 A right of self-determination is contained in Article 1, ICCPR, supra note 1; Article 1, ICESCR, supra note 1. On the interpretative approach to the ECHR referencing other legal obligations, see Article 53, ECHR, supra note 1; Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Article 31(3)(c), May 23, 1969, 1155 U.N.T.S. 331; Golder v. United Kingdom, 18 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A)(1975) at para. 35; Loizidou (Merits), supra note 7, at para. 43; Al-Adsani v. United Kingdom, 2001-XI Eur. Ct. H.R. (GC), at para. 55; Fogarty v. United Kingdom, Eur. 2001-XI Ct. H.R. (GC), at para. 35; McElhinney v. Ireland, 2001-XI Eur. Ct. H.R. (GC), at para. 35; Banković v. Belgium, supra note 7, para. 57; Kalogeropoulou v. Greece and Germany, 2002-X Eur. Ct. H.R., at para. D (l)(a); Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey, 2005-I Eur. Ct. H.R. (GC), at para. 111; Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turzim Ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi v. Ireland, Eur. Ct. H.R. at para. 150.

44 Al-Skeini (CA), supra note 13, at para. 126 (LJ Brooke).

45 Golder v. United Kingdom, supra note 43, at para. 34. Here the word “States” is capitalized, and reference is made to the “Council,” not “Country,” of Europe, which denotes the regional grouping under whose aegis the ECHR was adopted.

46 Al-Skeini (CA), supra note 13, at para. 126 (LJ Brooke).

47 Al-Skeini (HL), supra note 13, at para. 129.

48 Id. at para. 129.

49 Iraq ratified the ICCPR on 25 January 1971; see Status of Multilateral Treaties Deposited with the Secretary-General, available at http://untreaty.un.org/ENGLISH/bible/englishinternetbible/partI/chapterIV/treaty6.asp (last visited July 10, 2007).

50 See supra note 22.

51 Al-Skeini (HL), supra note 13, at para 78.

52 Id. at para. 78.

53 See also Issa v. Turkey, supra note 7, at paras 74-75.

54 Loizidou (Merits), supra note 7, at para. 56 and Loizidou (Preliminary Objections), supra note 7, at paras 63-64.

55 Id.

56 See also Cyprus v. Turkey, supra note 7, at para. 77.

57 Banković v. Belgium, supra note 7, at para. 75.

58 Id. at paras 75-76.

59 Issa v. Turkey, supra note 7, at para. 76.

60 Al-Skeini (CA), supra note 13, at para. 198 (LJ Sedley).

61 Id. at paras. 201-202. The idea of dividing and tailoring was criticized at the House of Lords stage. See in particular paras. 79-80 (Lord Rodger) and 128-30 (Lord Brown). The alternative understanding of jurisdiction not covered in detail in this article, that of control over individuals rather than control over territory, is, however, clearly significant in rendering human rights obligations applicable even when the territorial control test is not met; see supra note 9 and accompanying text.