PROBLEMS OF EXTRATERRITORIAL HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS ― THE JURISDICTION OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS: THE BANKOVIĆ CASE

in The Italian Yearbook of International Law Online
Restricted Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?



Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.



Help

Have Institutional Access?



Access content through your institution. Any other coaching guidance?



Connect

PROBLEMS OF EXTRATERRITORIAL HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS ― THE JURISDICTION OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS: THE BANKOVIĆ CASE

in The Italian Yearbook of International Law Online

References

' See REss, "State Responsibility for Extraterritorial Human Rights Violations - The Case of Bankovic", Zeitschrift fur Europarechtliche Studien, 2003, p. 73 ff. Cf. also GRANATA, IYIL, 2000, p. 263 ff., IYIL, 2001, p. 215 ff., and infra in this Yearbook. 2See the decisions of the Court of 21 November 2001 in the cases McElhinney v. Ireland, Al- Adsani v. the United Kingdom and Fogarty v. the United Kingdom, available at http://www.echr.coe.int. See also BROHMER, "Die volkerrechtliche Immunitat von der staatlichen Gerichtsbarkeit und die Verfahrensgarantien der EMRK - Einige Anmerkungen zu den Urteilen des Europaischen Gerichtshofs fur Menschenrechte in den Fallen Waite & Kennedy und Beer & Regan gegen die Bundesrepublik Deutschland", in ID. (ed.), Der Grundrechtsschutz in Europa - Wissenschaftliches Kolloquium aus Anlass des 65. Geburtstages von Prof. Dr. Dr. Dr. h.c. mult. Georg Ress, 2002, p. 85 ff. 3 cast of Prince Hans-Adam II of Liechtenstein v. Germany, Decision of 12 July 2001 and the Concurring Opinion of Judge Ress joined by Judge Zupancic. 4 Segi et autres et Gestoras Pro-Amnistia et autres contre 1 Allemagne, I'Autriche, la Belgique, le Danemark, 1'Espagne, la Finlande, la France, la Grece, /7/'/a/!�e, 1'Italie, le Luxembourg, les Pays-Bas, le Portugal, le Royaume-Uni et la Suede, reguete no. 6422/02 et no. 9916102, Decision of 23 May 2002. 5 See BROHMER, cit. supra note 2; see also ID., State Immunity and the Violation of Human Rights, The Hague, 1997; REss, "The Changing Relationship Between State Immunity and Human Rights", in DE SALVIA and VILLIGER (eds.), The Birth of European Human Rights Law, Liber Amicorum Carl Aage Norgaard, Baden-Baden, 1998, p. 175 ff.

6 See note by RUETH and TRILSCH, AJIL, 2003, p. 168 ff. 7 Ibid., p. 171. g On these problems in relation to "enforcement action" in general, see REss and BR6tttvtER, "Art. 53(1) Clause 1 UN Charter", in Stn�tn�tn (ed.), The Charter of the United Nations, A Commentary, 2nd ed., Oxford, 2002, p. 854 ff. 9 This is true even if it is first of all related to the jurisdiction of the Court and not to that of the Committee of Ministers. The Convention speaks of jurisdiction (competence) of the Court in Article 32 and gives the Court the power to decide on disputes about its own jurisdiction (Article 32(2)). '° Decision of 12 December 2001 (Admissibility), HRLJ, 2001, p. 453 ff.

1 ' See REss, "The Duty to Protect and to Ensure Human Rights under the European Convention on Human Rights", in KLEn�r (ed.), The Duty to Protect and to Ensure Human Rights, Berlin, 2000, p. 165 ff., p. 183 ff , 1z For a summary of this jurisprudence see HusttEEtt, "Die volkerrechtliche Verantwortlichkeit der Tiirkei fur Menschenrechtsverletzungen in Nordzypern nach den Ehtscheidungen der Europaischen Kommission und des Europaischen Gerichtshofs fur Menschenrechte im Fall Loizidou/Turkei", Zeitschrift Four Europarechtliche Studien, 1998, p. 398 ff., p. 306 ff.; SCH�SPFER, Zur Extraterritorialen Wirkung der Europaischen Menschenrechtskonvention, Diss. Salzburg, passim. " X v. the Federal Republic of Germany, Decision of 25 September 1965, Yearbook of the Commission, Vol. 8, 1965, p. 159 ff., p. 169. See also COttEN-JONATttnN and FLAUSS, "Cour europeenne des droits de 1'homme et droit international general (2001)", AFDI, 2001, p. 423 ff., p. 438 ff. �4 X & Y v. Switzerland (Admissibility), Decision of 14 July 1977, DR 9, p. 57 ff., p. 71 ff. 15 Drozd and Janousek v. France and Spain, Judgment of 27 May 1992, § 96.

�6 Issa and Others v. Turkey (Admissibility), Decision of 30 May 2000; 6calan v. Turkey (Admissibility), Decision of 14 December 2000. �� Soering v. the United Kingdom, Judgment of 26 June 1989, § 9I; see also Cruz Varas and Others v. Sweden, Judgment of 20 March 1991, Ser. A, No. 201, §§ 69 and 70; Vilvarajah and Others v. the United Kingdom, Judgment of 30 October 199 I, Ser. A, No. 215, § 103. 18 Cyprus v. Turkey (Admissibility), Decision of 26 May 1975, DR 2, p. 125 ff., p. 136 ff.; see also Chrysostomos and Others v. Turkey (Admissibility), Decision of 4 March I99I, Europaische Grundreehte-Zeitschrift, 1991, p. 254 ff., and the comment thereto by RUMPF, "Turkei, EMRK und die Zypernfrage: Der Fall Chrysostomos u.a.", ibid., p. 199 ff. �9 Ahmed Cavit An and Others v. Cyprus (Admissibility), Decision of 8 October I99I, Europaische Grundrechte-Zeitschrift, 1992, p. 470 ff. 20 Loizidou v. Turkey (Preliminary Objections), Judgment of 23 March 1995, Ser. A, No. 310; Loizidou v. Turkey (Merits), Judgment of 18 December 1996, Reports 1996-VI; Cyprus v. Turkey, Judgment of 10 May 2001; see thereto HOFFn�tEISTER, "Comment on Cyprus v. Turkey", AJIL, 2002, p. 445 ff.; TAVERNIER, "En marge de I'arret Chypre contre la Turquie: L'affaire chypriote et les droits de t'homme devant la Cour de Strasbourg", RTDH, 2002, p. 807 ff.; LOUCAIDES, "The Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Case of Cyprus v. Turkey", Leiden JIL, 2002, p. 225 ff. 21 Loizidou v. Turkey (Preliminary Objections), cit. supra note 20, § 62; Loizidou v. Turkey (Merits), ibid.,§ 52; Cyprus v. Turkey, ibid., § 77.

22 Cyprus v. Turkey, ibid., § 78 (so-called "black hole" theory). Since Northern Cyprus is still part of the Republic of Cyprus there may nevertheless be a positive obligation on Cyprus to ensure the protection of human rights, as far as possible, in Northern Cyprus. z3 AI-Adsani v. the United Kingdom, cit. supra note 2, § 55 ff. One may have doubts as to whether this is true in every respect because the Convention, being an international treaty, could well also be interpreted primarily on its own irrespectively of international customary law. See BRÖHMER, cit. supra note 5. 24 See the very controversial discussion on the report submitted by Rigaux on this subject at the Session of the Institute of International Law in Vancouver, August 2001. 25 See inter alia The Case of the S.S. "Lotus ", PCIJ, Series A, No. 10, 1927; HAILBRONNER, "Der Staat und der Einzelne als V61kerrechtssubjekte", in VITZT� (ed.), Volkerrecht, Berlin/New York, 1997; JENNINGS and WATTS (eds.), Oppenheim's International Law, 9th ed., London, 1992, §§ 137 ff.; MÜLLER and WILDHABER, Praxis des Volkerrrechts, 3rd ed., Bern, 2001, p. 373; see furthermore the references cited in Bankovic and Others v. Belgium and 16 Other NATO Member States, cit. supra note 10, §§ 59-60. 26 Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armies in the Field (Geneva Convention I), UNTS, Vol. 75, p. 31; Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea (Geneva Convention II), LJNTS, Vol. 75, p. 85; Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (Geneva Convention III), UNTS, Vol. 75, p. 135; Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (Geneva Convention IV), UNTS, Vol. 75, p. 287; all adopted on 12 August 1949 and entered into force on 21 October 1950; see also Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and

relating to the Protection of Victims of Intemationa) Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), UNTS, Vol. 1125, p. 3, adopted on 8 June 1977 and entered into force on 7 December 1978. 27 Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, GA Res. 39/46 (annex, 39, UN GAOR, Suppl. No. 51, p. 197, UN Doc. A/39/51, 1984), entered into force on 26 June 1987. z8 UNTS, Vol. 189, p. 150, adopted on 28 July 1951 and entered into force on 22 April 1954. z9 Sale v. Haitian Centers Council, Inc., 113 S.Ct. 2549, 125 L. (92-344), 509 U.S. 155 (1993); criticised by MERON, "Extraterritoriality of Human Rights Treaties", AJIL, 1995, p. 78 ff., with further references, pp. 78, 83. '° GA Res. 2200A (XXI), 21, UN GAOR, Suppl. No. 16, p. 52, UN Doc. A/6316, 1966, UNTS, Vol. 999, p. 171, adopted on 16 December 1966 and entered into force on 23 March 1976. 31 See inter alia MERON, cit. supra note 29. 3z In this sense SCHINDLER, "Human Rights and Humanitarian Law: Interrelationship of the Laws", American University International Law Review, 1982, p. 935 ff., p. 939; PACIFICO, "I bombardamenti NATO in Serbia al vaglio della Corte europea dei diritti umani", I diritti dell'uomo, 2001, No. 2-3, p. 78 ff., p. 82. 33 Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, GA Res. 2200A (XXI), cit. supra note 30, p. 59, UNTS, Vol. 999, p. 302, adopted on 16 December 1966 and entered into force on 23 March 1976. 3° See namely Sergio Euben Lopez Burgos v. Uruguay, Communication No. R. I 2/52 (6 June 1979), UN Doc. Suppl. No. 40 (A/36/40), 1981, p. 176, § 12.3; Lilian Celiberti de Casariego v.

Uruguay, Communication No. R.13/56 (17 July 1979), UN Doc. Suppl. No. 40 (A/36/40), 1981, p. 185, § 10.3. 35 The identical wording is used in Article 5 § 1 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, GA Res. 2200A (XXI), 21 UN GAOR Suppl. No. 16, p. 49, UN Doc. A/6316, 1966, UNTS, Vol. 993, p. 3, adopted on 16 December 1966 and entered into force on 3 January 1976. 36 GA Res. 44/25, annex, 44 UN GAOR, Suppl. No. 49, p. 167, UN Doc. A/44/49, 1989, adopted on 20 November 1989 and entered into force on 2 September 1990. " OAS Treaty Series No. 36, UNTS, Vol. 1144, p. 123, adopted on 22 November 1969 and entered into force on 18 July 1978, reprinted in Basic Documents Pertaining to Human Rights in the Inter-American System, OEA/Ser.L.V/11.82 Doc.6 rev.l, p. 25 (1992). The relevant part of Article 1 reads as follows: "The States Parties to this Convention undertake to respect the rights and freedoms recognised herein and to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms, without any discrimination [...]". '8 GA Res. 217A (III), UN Doc A/810, 1948, p. 71, adopted and proclaimed on 10 December 1948. The relevant part of the Preamble states that the purpose of the Resolution is "[...] to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction". The relevant part of Article 2 reads as follows: "Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status [...]". 9 Adopted by the Ninth International Conference of American States, Bogota, Colombia, 1948, reprinted in Basic Documents Pertaining to Human Rights in the Inter-American System, cit. supra note 37, p. 17. Article 2 of this declaration reads as follows: "All persons are equal before the law and have the rights and duties established in this Declaration, without distinction as to race, sex, language, creed or any other factor". °° Coard et al. v. the United States, 29 September 1999, Report No. 109799, Case No. 10951, 37.

41 Bankovi6 and Others v. Belgium and 16 Other NATO Member States, cit. supra note 10, § 59. 42 Ibid., § 62. 43 Ibid., § 63; Collected Edition of the Travaux Préparatoires of the European Convention on Human Rights, Dordrecht, 1976, Vol. III, p. 260. 44 Bankovi6 and Others v. Belgium and 16 Other NATO Member States, cit. supra note 10, §§ § 61, 66. 45 Ibid., §§ 67-73. 46 Ibid., § 75.

47 Ibid., § 78. a816id., § 80. 49 COI-IEN-JONATI-IAN, "La territorialisation de la juridiction de la Cour europeenne des droits de I'homme", RTDH, 2002, p. 1069 ff.; Riou, "Commentaire de I'arrEt Bankovic", L'Europe des libert6s, 2002, No. 7, p. 17 ff.; PnCtFtCO, cit. supra note 32, p. 78 ff.; FLAUSS, "Actualit6 de la Convention europeenne des droits de I'homme (novembre 2001-avril 2002)", Actualit6 juridique droit administratif, 2002, p. 500 ff.; LAURSEN, "NATO, the War over Kosovo, and the ICTY Investigation", American University Intemational Law Review, 2002, p. 765 ff., p. 799 ff. See also the following comments: SCHEIRS, "European Court of Human Rights Declares Application against NATO Members States Inadmissible", International Enforcement Law Reporter, 2002, p. 154 ff.; KARL, "NATO-Bombardements in Jugoslawien und Anwendbarkeit der EMRK", Das Osterreichische Institut fur Menschenrechte, Newsletter 2002, No. 2. 50 Riou, cit. supra note 49, p. 18; COt�rt-JONA�ttA�, cit. supra note 49, p. 1074 ff.

51 Riou, ibid., p 18. 52 COHEN-JONATHAN, cit. supra note 49, p. 1079 ff. s3 Riou, cit. supra note 49, p. 18; PACIFICO, cit. supra note 32, p. 82. 54 This has been suggested by PACIFICO, ibid., and COrtEN-JONATtt�w, cit. supra note 49, p. 1077 fF. 55 COHEN-JONATHAN, ibid., p. 1079 ff.

56 See also LnUttsErr, cit. supra note 49, p. 799. 57 Riou, cit. supra note 49, p. 18. 58 LAURSEN, cit. supra note 49, p. 799; PACinco, cit. supra note 32, p. 82; COI�N-JONATt�nN, cit. supra note 49, p. 1081. 59 Riou, cit. supra note 49, p. 18. 60 PACIFICO, cit. supra note 32, p. 82. 61 Riou, cit. supra note 49, p. 18. 62 Bankovic and Others v. Belgium and l 6 Other NATO Mem6er States, cit. supra note 10, § 72 ff. 63 McElhinney v. Ireland, cit. supra note 2.

� LAURSEN, cit. supra note 49, p. 799. ss Bankovic and Others v. Belgium and 16 Other NATO Member States, cit. supra note 10, § 80. 66 See inter alia Soering v. the United Kingdom, cit. supra note 17, § 87 with further references; JACOT-GUILLARMOD, "R�gles, methodes et principes d'interpretation dans la jurisprudence de la Cour europeenne des droits de l'homme", in PETTITI, DECAUX and IMBERT (eds.), La Convention europeenne des droits de l'homme. Commentaire article par article, Paris, 1999, p. 41 ff., p. 53. 67 For this suggestion see PACIFICO, cit. supra note 32, p. 82; COHEN-JONATHAN, cit. supra note 49, p. 1081. 68 The Court might see this differently given that the events then could take place within the regional sphere of the Convention system. 69 RIOU, cit. supra note 49, p. 18.

�° PACIFICO, cit. supra note 32, p. 82. 71 COHEN-.IONATHAN, La Convention europeenne des droits de I'homme, Paris, 1989, p. 94 ff.; Riou, cit. supra note 49, p. 18. 72 Ilascu and Others v. Moldova and the Russian Federation (Admissibility), Decision of 4 July 2001.

'3 Aikakterini Kalogeropolu and others v. Greece and Germany, Decision of 12 December 2002. 74 Grand Chamber, 21 November 2001, Application No. 31253/96. 75 See COHEN-JONATHAN, cit. supra note 49, p. 1073. 76 See PETZOLD, "Epilogue: La reforme continue", in MAHONEY, MATSCHER, PETZOLD and WILDHABER (eds.), Protection des droits de I'homme: la perspective europeenne. Melange a la memoire de Rolf RyssdallProtecting Human Rights: The European Perspective. Studies in Memory ofRolfRyssdal, K61n, 2000, p. 1571 ff. 77 Cyprus v. Turkey, cit. supra note 20; see also Loizidou v. Turkey (Merits), cit. supra note 20.

Information

Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 15 15 1
Full Text Views 34 34 20
PDF Downloads 0 0 0
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0