July-December 2016
ISSN 2050-005X (Online); 978-1535124478 (ISBN-13); 1535124474 (ISBN-10)
In an age of globalization, as a result of the ongoing global ‘war on terror,’ and the rise in foreign military interventions, states’ military conduct is increasingly expanding outside their territorial boundaries. This phenomenon has caused an additional vulnerability for individuals, increasingly posing a threat to their human rights, and the right to life in particular, even across borders. This case comment examines the recent developments in the extraterritorial scope of application of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) as they arise from the recent judgment in Jaloud v The Netherlands (2014).1 Particular emphasis will be given to the legal difficulties in protecting the human right to life, in the context of multinational military operations overseas; as well as the developing trend towards further extending a state’s scope of jurisdiction in foreign battlefields. As the jurisprudence of the UK national courts indicates, Jaloud’s new ‘checkpoint’ test for jurisdiction, leaves the door wide-open for establishing the ECHR States’ jurisdiction in aerial bombardments (previously rejected in Bankovic2), or targeted killings by drones in the context of future operations. Certainly, such a finding would open the way for the courts to challenge governmental decisions on major policy choices in foreign affairs and further judicialise armed forces’ conduct.
Keywords: Human Rights, Extraterritoriality, Jurisdiction, Armed Conflict, Military Operations, Drones.
1 Jaloud v The Netherlands [GC], no. 47708/08, § 142, ECHR 20 November 2014.
2 Bankovic and Others v Belgium and 16 Other Contracting States [GC], no. 52207/99 (2001) 11 BHRC 435, [2001] ECHR 890.
3 Ibid., para 10–14.
4 Ibid., para 157.
5 Dominic McGoldrick, ‘Extraterritorial Application of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights’ in Coomans and Kamminga (eds), Extraterritorial Application of Human Rights Treaties (Intersentia 2004) 42–43; Marko Milanovic, Extraterritorial Application of Human Rights Treaties: Law, Principles, and Policy (OUP 2011) 41–53. See also Jaloud, 154.
6 See eg, Jane Rooney, ‘The Relationship between Jurisdiction and Attribution after Jaloud v Netherlands’ (2015) 62 Neth Int Law Rev 407.
7 See UNSC Res 1483 (22 May 2003) UN Doc S/RES/1483.
8 Jaloud, para 142, 151.
9 Ibid., para 143, 146, 149.
10 Cf Behrami v. France (Admissibility Decision) (2007) 45 EHRR SE10, 70–71, 138–140, 149.
11 Bankovic and Others v. Belgium and 16 Other Contracting States, Decision of 1 Dec 2001, (2007) 44 EHRR SE5, 75.
12 Ibid., para 57, 59–61, 67. See also, Al-Skeini v. United Kingdom (2011) 53 EHRR para 18, 132, 133–139.
13 Jaloud, para 152.
14 Ibid. See also, Friederycke Haijer and Cedric Ryngaert, ‘Reflections on Jaloud v The Netherlands: Jurisdictional Consequences and Resonance in Dutch Society’ (2015) 19(1–2) Journal of International Peacekeeping 174, 180–181.
15 Milanovic, 54–55; McGoldrick, 71.
16 See n 9 above.
17 Aurel Sari, ‘Jaloud v Netherlands: New Directions in Extra-Territorial Military Operations’ (EJIL:Talk!, 24 November 2014) <http://www.ejiltalk.org/jaloud-v-netherlands-newdirections-in-extra-territorial-military-operations/> accessed 05 May 2016, citing Fleck and Gill (eds), The Handbook of the International Law of Military Operations (OUP 2011) 237.
18 Ibid.
19 See n 10.
20 Haijer and Ryngaert, 180–181. See also, Marko Milanovic, ‘Al-Skeini and Al-Jedda in Strasbourg’ (2012) 23(1) EJIL 121, 129.
21 Al-Saadoon & Others v. Secretary of State for Defence [2015] EWHC 715 (Admin).
22 Ibid., para 84–86 citing Al-Skeini, para 135.
23 Al-Saadoon, para 294.
24 Bankovic, para 75.
25 Al-Saadoon, para 95.
26 Ibid., para 93–94, 96.
27 Ibid., para 96.
28 Haijer and Ryngaert, 180–181.
† LLM Public International Law, University of Leicester; Secretary-General, European Law Students' Association UK.
(2016). Case Comment: Recent Developments in the Extraterritorial Scope of Application of the ECHR in the Aftermath of Jaloud v The Netherlands [2014]. Legal issues Journal, 4 (2), https://www.legalissuesjournal.com/article/04-02-15072016/
