Extraterritorial obligations and the obligation to protect

Since the late 1970s, what we today label ‘globalisation’ has altered many aspects of international law, not least international human rights law. This has been reflected inter alia in increased calls for universal respect for human rights beyond a state’s territorial border. The challenges to territoriality in this regard does not only relate to the actions of states abroad, but also with respect to their regulation of the conduct of business enterprises over which they exert significant influence. The chapter analyses the European Court of Human Rights’ jurisprudence and practice of the UN human rights bodies, and argues that extraterritorial human rights obligations have become an integral part of international human rights law. It is held that what has been seen as ‘exceptional’ now represent ‘common practice’. This conclusion is then applied to the discussion of the new treaty on human rights as currently being drafted

Jurisdiction - a barrier to compliance with extraterritorial obligations to protect against human rights abuses by non-state actors?

The obligation to protect individuals against human rights abuses by private and other ‘third’ parties is an accepted part of the tripartite human rights obligations’ classification. Ways of complying with this obligation are, however, not always clear, and some opposition has been voiced to it having reach beyond a state’s territorial border. This opposition is largely based on the reluctance of states to exercise their jurisdiction outside their territory. In this article, we address the content and reach of the human rights obligation to protect and how this relates to the exercise of jurisdiction to prevent human rights violations committed by private entities both within and beyond their home state’s territory. While the obligation to protect generally relates to the state’s obligation to regulate the conduct of any non-state actor, in this article we will use business enterprises as the actors in focus. The obligation to protect does not per se have a territorial limitation. The territorial limitation is brought in when the question of jurisdiction is added to the complexity. By addressing prescriptive jurisdiction, the article challenges the notion that jurisdiction in international human rights law is almost exclusively territorial, and argues that this is a misconception which results in many abuses of human rights that could have been addressed through regulation of conduct beyond a state’s border. Not tackling this misconception results in such conduct now being carried out with impunity. Consequently, the article argues that a restricted approach to jurisdiction is a barrier to full compliance with human rights obligation

Understanding human rights obligations of states engaged in public activity overseas:the case of transnational education

Legal consideration of extraterritorial obligations contained in the European Convention of Human Rights have largely developed in respect of military occupation or the custodial control of individuals. For a number of reasons situations involving transnational cooperation have received little judicial scrutiny. This paper examines human rights concerns associated with the rapidly expanding field of transnational education an activity frequently reliant on interstate cooperation. By re-examining the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights the legal obligations of countries establishing engaged in public activity overseas are explored. The analysis is structured around a case study on the oversight of a European education facility affected by Bahrain’s controversial response to pro-reform protests

Amicus Brief by Amnesty International and Others

On September 2, 2020, six Portuguese youth filed a complaint with the European Court of Human Rights against 33 countries. The complaint alleges that the respondents have violated human rights by failing to take sufficient action on climate change, and seeks an order requiring them to take more ambitious action. The complaint relies on Articles 2, 8, and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protect the right to life, right to privacy, and right to not experience discrimination. The complainants claim that their right to life is threatened by the effects of climate change in Portugal such as forest fires; that their right to privacy includes their physical and mental wellbeing, which is threatened by heatwaves that force them to spend more time indoors; and that as young people, they stand to experience the worst effects of climate change. The case is brought against the Member States of the Council of Europe (Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Germany, Greece, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Croatia, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Latvia, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden) as well as Norway, Russia, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine and the United Kingdom. The complainants allege that the respondents have fallen short of their human rights obligations by failing to agree to emissions reductions that will keep temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius, as envisioned by the Paris Agreement. On November 30, 2020, The European Court of Human Rights fast-tracked and communicated the case to 33 defendant countries, requiring them to respond by the end of February 2021. According to the Global Legal Action Network (GLAN), who are supporting the case, only a tiny minority of cases before the Court are fast-tracked and communicated. On February 4, 2021, the Court rejected a motion by the defendant governments asking the Court to overturn its fast-tracking decision. The governments had asked the court to overturn priority treatment of the case and to hear arguments only on the admissibility of the case. The Court sent a letter to the parties rejecting these motions and gave the defendants until May 27, 2021 to submit a defense on both admissibility and the merits of the case. The Court also granted until May 6, 2021 third party interventions. Among other seven third-party intervention, on May 5, 2021, Amnesty International intervened in the case and submitted her written observations to the European Court of Human Rights. The submission supports the claimants\u27 position, providing legal arguments to the Court to show that international law requires states to not harm, and to not allow companies within their jurisdiction to harm, the human rights of people outside their borders. On May 19, 2021 a new intervention was made by the European Commission submitted her written observations to the European Court of Human Rights. Noting the pronounced impact of environmental degradation and climate change on human rights, the Commissioner argues that international environmental and children’s rights law instruments should play a significant role in defining the scope of states’ obligation to prevent human rights violations caused by environmental harm. The Commission bases its defense of EU policy in the field of environmental protection on sound legal reasoning and science-based evidence. The term ‘climate emergency’ expresses the political will to fulfill the obligations under the Paris Agreement. The Commissioner concludes that “the increasing number of climate change-related applications provide the Court with a unique opportunity to continue to forge the legal path towards a more complete implementation of the Convention and to offer real-life protection to individuals affected by environmental degradation and climate change.” On August 14, 2021, the claimants received the respondent governments’ respective defenses. However, on legal advice, the claimants have decided not to make them public. The claimants have until January 12, 2022 to respond to the governments’ defenses. On June 30, 2022, the Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights relinquished jurisdiction in favor of the Grand Chamber. The case is now going to be examined by the ECtHR\u27s Grand Chamber of 17 judges on account of the fact that the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation of the Convention (Art 30 ECHR). At Issue: Youth filed human rights complaint against 33 governments