Citation

Conte A. J. Conflict Secur. Law 2013; 18(2): 233-258.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2013, Oxford University Press)

DOI

10.1093/jcsl/krs030

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

The transnational nature of terrorist and counter-terrorist activities, and the inter-State cooperation that forms the basis of many counter-terrorism operations, engages difficult and controversial questions concerning the extraterritorial application of human rights law. The decisions in July 2011 of the European Court of Human Rights in Al-Skeini and Others v the United Kingdom and Al-Jedda v the United Kingdom concern the jurisdictional reach of the European Convention on Human Rights to operations abroad, including in the context of multinational operations conducted under a United Nations (UN) mandate. This article argues that these decisions usher in a new era in human rights accountability by realigning the rules concerning attribution of responsibility between the UN and multinational forces; and by moving to a hybrid test between personal and geographical jurisdiction in order to allow the finding of a jurisdictional link for the killing of persons where the State has assumed public functions such as the maintenance of security. While it is inevitable that some questions remain unanswered, the decisions go a long way towards repairing the earlier restrictive and highly problematic case law of the European Court in Banković and Others v Belgium and Behrami and Saramati v France. The Court's decision in Al-Jedda also establishes a robust approach to the question of the compatibility of Security Council resolutions with human rights, consistent with the position of the United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy that respect for human rights and the rule of law is a fundamental basis of the fight against terrorism.

Language: en