Browsing by Author "Oravisto, Liisa"

The European Court of Human Rights has brought a revolutionary aspect to the extraterritorial application of its Convention by extending it to cover the state parties’ actions abroad. By opening the door to the application of the European Convention on Human Rights to activities of a member state beyond its territorial borders, the Court has changed its case-law practice from more restrictive to more allowing. The major authority on the extraterritorial application of the ECHR has thus far been the Bankovi? v Belgium case from 2001. In Bankovi? the Court decided on the claims against 17 NATO states for the bombardments in Yugoslavia in 1999. The Court dismissed the claims on the basis of jurisdiction as it held that the jurisdictional threshold of Article 1 of the ECHR was not met. Contrary to Bankovi?, the Court decided on Al-Skeini and Al-Jedda positively on the application of the Convention outside of its direct territory. This is a big change in the practice and will have an even bigger impact on the states and thus it is now time to reevaluate the issue in light of these new cases. The incoherence of the Court’s judgments places the states, and individuals, in an unpredictable world as the meaning of ‘within their jurisdiction’ as set out in Article 1 of the Convention remains controversial. The two identities of the Convention as a regional, European instrument and as a universal human rights mechanism create a challenging relationship. This thesis explores the change in the Court’s interpretation views through the case law concerning the extraterritorial application of the ECHR. For a global comparison other human rights treaties and their jurisdiction clauses are reviewed in order to evaluate the status quo in this field and the impacts on states’ actions and respective policies thereof. The Article 1 plays a fundamental role in this context and thus it is reflected throughout the thesis.