FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W323836996> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W323836996 abstract "According to the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) states have an obligation to secure, to everyone within their jurisdiction, the rights prescribed in the Convention. Already at the drafting of the ECHR, it was clear that the states mainly had this obligation within their own territories. However, the European Court of Human Rights (the Court) has found that the ECHR can be applied extraterritorially in exceptional cases. This paper investigates these exceptional cases based on three recent cases from the Court concerning human rights violations in Iraq.In order for a state to be held responsible for an internationally wrongful act it is required that the act can be attributed to the state according to international law on state responsibility. Inquiries concerning when an act can be attributed to the state are initially dealt with just as questions concerning when an act can be attributed to an International Organisation, such as the United Nations, instead of the state. The prerequisite for attribution that becomes relevant for this paper has been developed by the International Law Commission and the International Court of Justice and requires that the state or the International Organisation have effective control over the perpetrators. The state’s jurisdiction over the applicant is a prerequisite for the application of the ECHR. The Court has developed two different models for the extraterritorial application of the Convention – on of them is labelled the personal model and investigates if the state has authority and control over an individual and the other is called the spatial model and is applicable when the state has effective overall control over an area. Jurisdiction of the state must be separated from the jurisdiction of the Court, which concerns the compatibility between the application and the provisions in the ECHR, as well as the concept of jurisdiction in public international law, which concerns when the state lawfully can exercise its prescriptive, adjudicative and enforcement jurisdiction. When dealing with the extraterritorial application of the ECHR, the paper initially concludes that the disputed opinion that a state never can be held responsible for acts committed outside the espace juridique - legal space - of the ECHR must be seen as overridden after the Grand Chamber judgment in Al-Skeini and Others v. the United Kingdom.In the case Al-Saadoon and Mufdhi v. the United Kingdom, the Court applied the spatial model and found that detained Iraqis were within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom since British forces had total and exclusive control over the detention facilities. The paper establishes that a certain straight of military presence is needed in order for the state to be able to have sufficient control in these cases and that the model only can be applied to areas or places over which the state can have such control. In the case Al-Skeini and Others v. the United Kingdom, which concerned inter alia the shooting of several Iraqis by British soldiers, the Court reached the same conclusion, however by applying the personal model. The paper demonstrates how authority and control over an individual requires exercise of some form of public powers and that, if such powers are exercised, the killing of an individual may result in that he or she is within the state’s jurisdiction for the purposes of Article 1 of the ECHR. The final Iraqi case, Al-Jedda v. the United Kingdom, is an instance of how the Court sometimes chooses to address the question of attribution before the issue of jurisdiction. When doing so, the Court has required ultimate authority and control in order to answer to whom the alleged violation can be attributed. The paper illustrates how this prerequisite is incompatible with the requirement in international law and what problems that might arise due to this incoherency.The last part of the paper looks at the pending case Pritchard v. the United Kingdom (the case is pending at the time of writing, 9 March 2012), which concerns the death of a British soldier serving in Iraq. The case was communicated to the British Government in September 2011 and a judgment can therefore not be expected soon. The paper speculates on the outcome by discussing if and how the ECHR can be applicable extraterritorially in this particular case. My conclusion is that the Court will find the United Kingdom did not have jurisdiction over the deceased at the time of his death. However, the alleged violation could, by applying the requirement for ultimate authority and control, probably be attributed to the United Kingdom." @default.
• W323836996 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W323836996 creator A5061570468 @default.
• W323836996 date "2012-01-01" @default.
• W323836996 modified "2023-09-27" @default.
• W323836996 title "Human Rights Violations in Iraq - A Study of the Extraterritorial Application of the European Convention on Human Rights" @default.
• W323836996 hasPublicationYear "2012" @default.
• W323836996 type Work @default.
• W323836996 sameAs 323836996 @default.
• W323836996 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W323836996 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W323836996 hasAuthorship W323836996A5061570468 @default.
• W323836996 hasConcept C169437150 @default.
• W323836996 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W323836996 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W323836996 hasConcept C2776949292 @default.
• W323836996 hasConcept C2778042224 @default.
• W323836996 hasConcept C2778447849 @default.
• W323836996 hasConcept C2780608745 @default.
• W323836996 hasConcept C55447825 @default.
• W323836996 hasConcept C86615163 @default.
• W323836996 hasConcept C95691615 @default.
• W323836996 hasConceptScore W323836996C169437150 @default.
• W323836996 hasConceptScore W323836996C17744445 @default.
• W323836996 hasConceptScore W323836996C199539241 @default.
• W323836996 hasConceptScore W323836996C2776949292 @default.
• W323836996 hasConceptScore W323836996C2778042224 @default.
• W323836996 hasConceptScore W323836996C2778447849 @default.
• W323836996 hasConceptScore W323836996C2780608745 @default.
• W323836996 hasConceptScore W323836996C55447825 @default.
• W323836996 hasConceptScore W323836996C86615163 @default.
• W323836996 hasConceptScore W323836996C95691615 @default.
• W323836996 hasLocation W3238369961 @default.
• W323836996 hasOpenAccess W323836996 @default.
• W323836996 hasPrimaryLocation W3238369961 @default.
• W323836996 hasRelatedWork W104718664 @default.
• W323836996 hasRelatedWork W1121814718 @default.
• W323836996 hasRelatedWork W132169856 @default.
• W323836996 hasRelatedWork W1531834230 @default.
• W323836996 hasRelatedWork W2057964320 @default.
• W323836996 hasRelatedWork W2064779934 @default.
• W323836996 hasRelatedWork W2096079064 @default.
• W323836996 hasRelatedWork W2316619552 @default.
• W323836996 hasRelatedWork W250294820 @default.
• W323836996 hasRelatedWork W2918017695 @default.
• W323836996 hasRelatedWork W2937102817 @default.
• W323836996 hasRelatedWork W3013380029 @default.
• W323836996 hasRelatedWork W3115996392 @default.
• W323836996 hasRelatedWork W3122241438 @default.
• W323836996 hasRelatedWork W3122259826 @default.
• W323836996 hasRelatedWork W3122906923 @default.
• W323836996 hasRelatedWork W3123324734 @default.
• W323836996 hasRelatedWork W324776993 @default.
• W323836996 hasRelatedWork W757451800 @default.
• W323836996 hasRelatedWork W959720485 @default.
• W323836996 isParatext "false" @default.
• W323836996 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W323836996 magId "323836996" @default.
• W323836996 workType "article" @default.