Browsing by discipline "Kansainvälinen oikeus"

The Payment Services Directive 2 (PSD2) introduces novel obligations for the account servicing payment service providers (i.e. account banks) to enable access to their customers’ account data, when such access is explicitly consented by the customer, unless a refusal to enable such access is justified. Further, the account banks have an obligation to allow third-party payment service providers to utilize authentication procedures, which are provided by the account banks. Jointly, these obligations may be described as “access obligations”, either to data or procedure. The PSD2 reform and in particular its access obligations directed the account banks are expected to be significant for the payment services market requiring the account banks to implement new business models in order to comply with the PSD2. When the account banks are subject to these novel supply obligations, and the payment service market will be opened for the new kinds of payment service providers, this may also facilitate the possible abusive behavior amongst the account banks from a competition law perspective. As seen in the Commission’s investigations with respect to several account banks refusing to grant access to their customer account data even before the PSD2, the refusal to supply considerations under Article 102 TFEU are possible in this context. The questions underlying in this setting are examined in the thesis, such as whether the account banks’ refusal to supply access to their customers’ account data and authentication procedures constitutes an abuse of dominant position as a refusal to supply under Article 102 TFEU even if such refusal would be justified under the PSD2. Ultimately, the discussion concerns the interaction between competition law and the PSD2 and which assessment should prevail. As a prerequisite for the assessment of the PSD2 obligations under the refusal to supply doctrine, such doctrine is assessed generally in a data context. With respect to the refusal to supply data, the assessment requires analyzing the market dynamics. The definition of dominance in data-driven markets requires shifting the emphasis from the market shares to the characteristics of the market and the exclusivity of data. The aspect of exclusivity is closely held with the debate on the essentiality or indispensability of data having also relevance when defining the actual abuse of dominance. However, the considerations on the essentiality of data are limited only to forced data sharing without a regulatory duty to supply. This means that the Commission is forcing an undertaking to share its data solely based on the doctrine under Article 102 TFEU and thus is required to prove the abuse-specific criteria on the refusal to supply. With respect to regulatory duties to supply, the Commission will consider only the likelihood of anti-competitive foreclosure in its refusal to supply assessment. This burden of proof may be seen lower than compared to the traditional refusal to supply data test that requires to prove, for instance, the indispensability of data, which may be met only in exceptional situations. In the PSD2 context, the payment service market has its specialties, which need to be taken into consideration in the refusal to supply assessment. As a result of the equivalent supply obligation for all account banks, market shares may have more relevance in the dominance assessment. The problem is that access to all account banks’ data may be considered as essential, when account information or payment initiation services may not function properly without this access. Further, the PSD2 access obligations are regulatory duties due to which the element of indispensability is not required to be considered in the abuse assessment. If the account bank refuses to provide access to the account data for the third-party payment service providers, it is likely that such refusal will eliminate competition from payment initiation and account information service markets. Thus, the account banks’ refusal to supply access to their customers’ account data and authentication procedures may constitute an abuse of dominant position as a refusal to supply under Article 102 TFEU. In contrast, the compliance with the PSD2, for instance with respect to justified refusal, does not entail that such conduct is also compliant with competition law. However, justified refusal under the PSD2 should not trigger Article 102 TFEU and in these situations the PSD2 should prevail over competition law. The supply obligations beyond the PSD2 may be addressed solely under Article 102 TFEU and the refusal to supply-specific assessment requiring the indispensability of input, whether either data or data processing system. From a practical perspective, the account banks have addressed the PSD2 access obligations by creating an open banking system and cooperating with the FinTech companies. Further, some account banks will grant the access beyond the PSD2 obligations. The system of open banking may, however, imply competition law problems with respect to refusal to supply and other types of Article 102 TFEU abuses. However, the actual effect of the PSD2 and its implications to competition will be seen, when the transition period of the PSD2 ends on 14 September 2019 and the novel market practice will commence to evolve.

Afer World War ?, many international human rights treaties have been ratified. Although an expectation that international human rights law makes world better to protect human rights, there are still vast human rights violations in various countries. From the gap between expectation to international human rights law and reality of human rights violations, the purpose of this thesis is to point out the problem of international human rights law and not only to point out the problem but also to suggest a coherent and logical explanation. To achieve the goal, this thesis investigates three questions: what is the better way to understand international law?, why do states comply with international law?, and what is the problem of international human rights law?. The first, this paper argues and represents that law and economics approach can be the better way to understand international law and can be a useful methodology to research international law. Despite of some concerns from misunderstanding of law and economics approach, law and economics can give insights to study international law, using economic theories such as price theory, transaction cost economics, game theory. The second, this paper shows the reason why states comply with international law. Although there are previous studies that explain compliance with international law, the studies have limitations to suggest a coherent and logical explain. By law and economics analysis, the key for states’ compliance is the three Rs of compliance: reciprocity, retaliation, and reputation. The three Rs makes and raises cost for states’ non-compliance with international law. Therefore, through the three Rs, international law can work as self-enforcing mechanism and can induce states to comply with international law. The third, this paper point out problems of international human rights. This paper argues that international human rights law has different character or concept compared with other international laws such as WTO law and law of war. International human rights law is not based on reciprocal character as contract model but based on moral foundation that makes consent between states as declarations of existing moral norms. Because this different character, the three Rs as the key for compliance cannot work well. Only reputation little works. Moreover, there are no strong enforcement mechanisms in international human rights regimes. Although there are some enforcement mechanisms in international human rights system, they have limitations to induce states to comply with international human rights law and do not impose costs for states’ non-compliance. In conclusion, from law and economics approach, international human rights law as self-enforcing mechanism cannot satisfy the conditions for compliance of international law: reciprocity, retaliation, and reputation. Moreover, there are not strong and effective enforcement mechanisms to assure compliance in international human rights treaties. Therefore, current international human rights law cannot fully induce and facilitate states to comply with international human rights obligations.

Humanitarian Intervention is a widely-debated doctrine of international law that is seen to be between law and non-law. It also touches upon principles of international law such as human rights, sovereignty and justice. It has invoked moral and ethical debates. This grey area of law has arguably produced moral, political and legal narratives about humanitarian intervention. These narratives can be seen in the context of the NATO intervention in Kosovo in 1999. This was a significant case of humanitarian intervention in the 1990s as it involved the use of force by a group of states without the UNSC’s authorisation for the action. This thesis will set out the dominant moral, political and legal narratives produced in the NATO intervention in Kosovo in 1999. These different narratives are set out and analysed in chapters divided into moral, political and legal narratives on humanitarian intervention. These narratives will be identified from various discourse and texts of political actors, international lawyers, international institutions and scholars. The narratives will be analysed in terms of their effect and significance. Also, the issues and shortcomings of these storylines will be considered. It will be argued that these stories contributed to our constant fascination and resort to the doctrine of humanitarian intervention. Moral storylines were the most dominant in the Kosovo intervention. Moral and ethical reasoning was predominantly employed to support the intervention. Also, political narratives were important in justifying the humanitarian intervention in Kosovo. Therefore, legal arguments had less prominence in justifying the humanitarian intervention. As such, international lawyers and political actors turned to politics and morality instead of the law when justifying the humanitarian intervention in Kosovo. These moral, political and legal narratives produced by humanitarian intervention in Kosovo are complex and competing storylines. However, these stories are all linked and together produce an overarching storyline about humanitarian intervention. This overarching storyline is that humanitarian intervention is by an international community protecting the key values of human rights, morality, justice and peace. This action is vital and needed and the international community has a duty to intervene in these serious human rights violations that are the concern of all states. This overarching story can be seen to benefit the Western states who invoke this doctrine of humanitarian intervention. They are the states with the power and resources to undertake these humanitarian interventions in a humanitarian crisis in another state. Furthermore, the values that such storylines benefit are those of human rights, justice, peace and morality. These values are invoked throughout the different storylines. However, these values are defined by the Western international lawyers and political actors who adopt these narratives on intervention. Therefore, the stories arguably benefit Western values and ideals. As a result, the stories can be seen to elevate the West’s interests over other states. There is value in drawing this complex story about humanitarian intervention in Kosovo as it shows the significance of these narratives. These narratives are significant as they can be seen to present a desirable and favourable story about humanitarian intervention. So, one perspective on the significance of these narratives is that they make humanitarian intervention appear desirable. The narratives are also significant as they demonstrate how we think and speak about international law and how these stories contributed to the fascination and resort to the doctrine of humanitarian intervention by states. Furthermore, they show how we view international law and its limits. Also, they demonstrate how the actors who told such stories were relevant and created themselves a role to play in these humanitarian interventions. However, these narratives about humanitarian intervention only present a certain limited and favourable story about humanitarian intervention in Kosovo. These narratives have issues and shortcomings which are important to understand. Moral reasoning was dominant in the narratives on intervention, as such the narratives demonstrate the dangers of moral reasoning about the law. The stories are also employed by Western international lawyers and political actors and it is the powerful Western states who invoked this doctrine of humanitarian intervention. Therefore, the narratives highlight the issues of power politics and hegemonic politics involved in humanitarian intervention.

Globalisation has reconfigured the territoriality and sovereignty, which has traditionally been associated with states. Economic actors, such as transnational corporations, have become powerful actors within the world’s economy and they are increasingly using their economic power to influence the actions of states. Transnational corporations business operations also directly affect the enjoyment of human rights by individuals, especially women. One such case which is considered in this thesis involves a textile manufacturing plant in Jordan called Classic, which produces clothes for some of America’s biggest retailers. The case involves allegations of sexual and physical abuse by the factory’s management against the factory’s female workers. As the case will demonstrate, transnational corporations are increasingly escaping liability for abuses which happen within their corporate structures and supply chains. Due to the power shift which has taken place in the last few decades, states are finding it increasingly more difficult to control the acts of non-state actors. Especially developing nations are often unable to regulate against the powerful transnational conglomerates, due to their economical dependence on the corporations presence in the country. Although international law is directly applicable to states, and most states sign up to international human rights conventions, international human rights law, as it currently stands, does not impose direct human rights obligations on corporations. Also, there are only limited circumstances when states can be held liable for the acts of non-state actors. As a result, the current human rights paradigm suffers from severe governance gap, which is rooted in the statist nature of international law. To address this shift in power dynamics, the thesis examines how the duty to protect individual’s human rights and the responsibility to respect human rights is distributed between states and transnational corporations. This thesis addresses this problem from two fronts: firstly, the thesis examines the current position of non-state actors within the international human rights structure and explores how states can be held liable for human rights violations which are committed by non-state actors, including transnational corporations. States duty to take positive steps to protect individuals within their jurisdictions are examined. International law has adopted a due “diligence” doctrine to address state responsibility in this context. To this end, the thesis reviews the development of the due diligence principle under international law and more specifically under women specific human rights instruments such as Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women. Jurisprudence of the European and Americas human rights courts as well as treaty bodies’ deliberations which interpret the due diligence concept are examined. Secondly, international law typically leaves states to regulate corporations via domestic law provisions and international law permits states to enforce international human rights norms against corporations under domestic law. Thus, states can hold corporations criminally and civilly liable for human rights violations under domestic laws, however, corporations do not currently have general obligations under international human rights law. To address this, the thesis examines recent attempts to establish direct human rights responsibilities on corporations within the international human rights system. The UN Draft Norms and John Ruggie’s “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework are explored in this context. Both frameworks highlight that corporations have specific duties to respect human rights and the “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework provides practical guidance for corporations in discharging this responsibility. The thesis concludes that recent decent developments domestically and internationally are increasingly contributing towards a paradigm shift within the international human rights law system, which is beginning to recognise that states as well as corporations have their distinctive roles to play in protecting human rights.

Tutkimuksessa tarkastellaan lähettäjävaltion kansainvälistä korvausvastuuta avaruusromun avaruusesineelle aiheuttamasta vahingosta. Kansainvälisessä oikeudessa ei toistaiseksi ole avaruusromua eksplisiittisesti koskevia sitovia oikeussääntöjä. Työn tarkoitus on selvittää, voiko valtion vastuu avaruusromun avaruusesineelle aiheuttamasta vahingosta siitä huolimatta perustua voimassaolevaan oikeuteen eli YK:n avaruutta koskeviin yleissopimuksiin tai kansainvälisen vastuun yleisiin periaatteisiin. Keskeinen tutkimuskysymys on, soveltuuko YK:n kansainvälistä vastuuta avaruusesineiden aiheuttamasta vahingosta koskevan yleissopimuksen (vastuusopimus, Liability Convention) 3 artikla avaruusromun aiheuttamaan vahinkoon. Esikysymyksenä käsitellään vastuusopimuksen 1 artiklan sisältämää avaruusesineen määritelmää, sillä lähettäjävaltio voi olla vastuusopimuksen nojalla korvausvastuussa vain avaruusesineen aiheuttamasta vahingosta. Käsitteen tulkinnassa käytetään kansainvälisen oikeuden yleisiä valtiosopimusten tulkintasääntöjä. Niihin perustuvan analyysin pohjalta työssä todetaan, ettei avaruusesineen käsitteen voida sen epäselvyyden vuoksi varmasti sanoa sisältävän avaruusromua. Tutkimuksessa esitetään kuitenkin erityisesti vastuusopimuksen tarkoituksen ja päämäärän sekä 1 artiklan sanamuodon pohjalta tulkintasuositus, jonka mukaan sopimusta sovellettaisiin myös avaruusromuun. Vastuusopimuksen 3 artiklan soveltamisen kannalta keskeinen on myös sen sisältämä syy-kriteeri: lähettäjävaltio on velvollinen korvaamaan avaruudessa aiheutuneen vahingon vain, jos se on luettavissa lähettäjävaltion syyksi tai niiden tahojen syyksi, joista lähettäjävaltio on vastuussa. Tästä syystä työssä selvitetään myös, mitä tuottamusvastuu merkitsee kansainvälisessä oikeudessa ja vastuusopimuksen kontekstissa. Syy-kriteeriä arvioidaan YK:n valtioiden toimintaa johtavia periaatteita niiden tutkiessa ja käyttäessä avaruutta, siihen luettuna kuu ja muut taivaankappaleet koskevan yleissopimuksen (avaruusyleissopimus, Outer Space Treaty) 9 artiklan ja avaruusromua koskevan soft law'n sisällön valossa. Tutkimuksessa todetaan, että käytännössä lähettäjävaltion tuottamuksen osoittaminen voi muodostua ylitsepääsemättömäksi esteeksi korvausvastuun toteutumiselle, vaikka avaruusromun aiheuttama vahinko kuuluisikin vastuusopimuksen soveltamisalaan. Vaihtoehtoisina korvausvastuun perusteina tarkastellaan siksi avaruusyleissopimuksen 7 artiklan yleistä korvausvastuuta koskevaa sääntöä sekä kansainvälisen vastuun yleisiä periaatteita, joiden arvioidaan voivan joissakin tapauksissa tarjota vastuusopimusta laajempaa suojaa. Lopuksi arvioidaan vastuusopimuksen puutteiden pohjalta esitettyjä kehitysehdotuksia ja tullaan siihen johtopäätökseen, että avaruusromua koskevan kansainvälisen oikeustilan päivitys on tarpeellista mutta poliittisen tahdon puutteen vuoksi epätodennäköistä.

Tutkielma käsittelee aseellista väliintuloa kohdevaltion suostumuksella. Tutkimuksen keskipisteessä ovat kyseisen voimankäytön muodon oikeudellinen perusta, soveltaminen ja nykyinen asema kansainvälisessä oikeudessa. Tarkastelussa on etenkin suostumuksellisen väliintulon suhde valtioiden voimankäyttöön liittyvään sääntelyyn, mutta työssä käsitellään myös täysivaltaisuuteen ja interventiokieltoon liittyviä sääntöjä. Aseellinen väliintulo kohdevaltion suostumuksella on käytäntö, jossa yksi valtio antaa toiselle valtiolle luvan käyttää voimakeinoja alueellaan. Ensisilmäyksellä käytäntö on hyvin yksinkertainen, mutta tarkempi tarkastelu osoittaa kuitenkin selviä ristiriitaisuuksia monien kansainvälisen oikeuden normien kanssa. Käytännön yleisenä oikeutuksena on pidetty kohdevaltion täysivaltaisuutta, jonka pitäisi sallia voimankäyttö tämän omalla alueella. Nykyisessä kansainvälisessä sääntelyssä valtioiden oikeutta käyttää voimakeinoja on kuitenkin rajoitettu rajusti: tämän sääntelyn keskiössä on Yhdistyneiden Kansakuntien peruskirja, jonka mukaan yksittäisten valtioiden voimankäyttö on kielletty ellei kyseessä ole itsepuolustus laitonta aseellista hyökkäystä vastaan. Muuten voimankäyttö on keskitetty YK:n turvallisuusneuvostolle, jonka tehtävänä on ylläpitää kansainvälistä rauhaa ja turvallisuutta. Aseellinen väliintulo kohdevaltion luvalla ei juurikaan sovi tähän suunnitelmaan, joka korostaa keskitettyä voimankäyttöä valtioiden täysivaltaisuuden sijaan. YK:n peruskirjan mukainen suunnitelma ei ole kuitenkaan vielä täysin toteutunut. Voimankäytön keskittäminen turvallisuusneuvostolle kohtasi vakavia ongelmia kylmän sodan aikaisina vuosikymmeninä, mikä puolestaan näkyi yksittäisten valtioiden asevoiman käytössä. Voimankäytön kiellosta huolimatta etenkin kylmän sodan aikana tapahtui useita aseellisia väliintuloja, ja useasti niiden oikeutuksena toimi kohdevaltion suostumus. Vaikka nämä aseelliset väliintulot ovat herättäneet paljon kritiikkiä, niiden laillista oikeutusta ei ole juurikaan kyseenalaistettu. Niiden teoreettinen suhde YK:n peruskirjan voimankäytön kieltoon ei ole kuitenkaan aivan selvä, ja tämä teoreettinen epäselvyys on osaltaan aiheuttanut ongelmia käytännössä. Väliintuloon liittyvien edellytysten täyttäminen on osoittautunut hankalaksi, minkä lisäksi sitä on joskus sovellettu laittomissa tilanteissa. Kenties suurin ongelma tässä suhteessa on suostumuksellisen väliintulon soveltaminen sisällissodan aikana, sillä useiden kansainvälisen oikeuden normien mukaan muut valtiot eivät saisi puuttua toisen valtion sisällissodan kulkuun: aseellinen väliintulo ei luonnollisesti edistä tätä tavoitetta. On myös hiukan epäselvää miten kohdevaltion suostumus toimii voimankäytön oikeutuksena nykyisessä, kylmän sodan jälkeisessä kansainvälisessä oikeudessa. YK:n turvallisuusneuvosto on ottanut yhä näkyvämmän roolin kansainvälisessä yhteisössä, minkä lisäksi aseellisen voimankäytön muodot ovat kehittyneet kansainvälisen terrorismin myötä. Nämä voimankäytössä tapahtuneet muutokset tarjoavat sekä haasteita että mahdollisuuksia kohdevaltion suostumuksella tapahtuvalle väliintulolle. Tämän aseellisen väliintulon muodon tulevaisuus riippuu monista tekijöistä, mutta ainakin nykyisessä kansainvälisessä oikeudessa sillä on kuitenkin oma, joskin kenties aikaisempaa suppeampi paikkansa.

Foreign direct investment (FDI) is considered important for economic growth, and a vital component of sustainable development. To foster the potential benefits, states have concluded thousands of international investment agreements (IIAs). These IIAs are designed to facilitate, promote, and protect FDI, and they often include provisions on investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS). The resolution of investor-state disputes by arbitration has alarmed many scholars since these disputes often entail serious public interest implications. This research aims to contribute to the debate on the sustainability and development impact of ISDS and international investment law from the perspective of labour and employment law and policy. Against this backdrop, the research investigates how the interpretation and application of IIAs may affect labour and employment regulation and policies in host states. A targeted key word search was used to identify cases in the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) case law database, followed by a legal review to come down to cases where substantive labour-related claims and arguments have been made. Beyond pinpointing vulnerabilities from the perspective of sustainable development, the case law analysis extends to researching the potential and real impacts of ISDS cases on host states’ domestic labour law and policy, drawing from the world polity theory within the socio-legal discipline. On this basis, recommendations are made in view of improving the sustainability-related outcomes of ISDS and international investment law. The research provides a rich set of findings. First, the research finds that labour-related issues have arisen in six per cent of ICSID cases with publicly available material. Labour-related claims and arguments have also been made in ISDS cases outside of the ICSID framework. Second, the research finds that tribunals have handled such matters with different approaches, ranging from teleological interpretation and “arbitral activism” emphasizing labour rights to literal and narrow interpretation techniques. Tribunals have only to a limited extent applied the provisions of other treaties binding on the disputing parties or general principles of international law. Further, several incoherencies can be identified in the case law. Third, labour-related arguments in ISDS have been made by both investors and host states. Many of the standard IIA provisions have provided the basis for such arguments, including standards of treatment, expropriation and actions tantamount to expropriation, exceptions clauses, preamble clauses and provisions on the definition of an investment, as well as provisions in investor-state agreements. These provisions and related ISDS jurisprudence are analysed in detail in the paper. Fourth, the research finds certain direct impacts of ISDS decisions on host states’ labour and social regulation, while other impacts may be implied, potential or may have appeared in a longer timeframe. Unarguably, ISDS will have had an impact on both state and enterprise spending and, consequently, policies. The case law analysed reconfirms the states’ “right to regulate” in a non-discriminatory manner, implying at times even a highly protected status for national labour laws. At the same time, the research finds various vulnerabilities and risks, including in cases where states use stabilization agreements, as well as where certain standard provisions are included in IIAs without careful framing of their content. Furthermore, the research points to varying ISDS outcomes in terms of labour protection depending on the choice of wording in specific labour-protection related clauses in IIAs. Lastly, different possibilities to improve the sustainable development and labour aspects of IIAs and ISDS are proposed by the research. The following topics are analysed in detail: improved legal basis and guidance, improved institutions, improved inclusiveness of investment policy making as well as international cooperation. The research suggests that sustainability-oriented treaty drafting would be required to improve the expected outcomes of adjudicated cases. Such drafting could take place at bilateral, plurilateral or multilateral level, focusing on clarifying the content and scope of standard IIA provisions, as well as on incorporating specific labour provisions. The research indicates that institutional improvements would be needed particularly at the preventative front at the national level, while also proposing improvements at the level of ISDS. For more balanced FDI promotion, institutions with expertise in labour matters at the national level could be linked to bodies in charge of preventing investment disputes. Improved inclusiveness in investment policy making entails broader consultations and key roles assigned to labour-related bodies in investment policy making. Lastly, international cooperation would be required to deepen technical assistance towards more sustainable IIAs as well as to provide platforms for consensus-building on more sustainable FDI promotion.

The European migrant crisis led to the implementation of the hotspots in Greece and Italy. The Greek hotspots were regulated by both the hotspot approach and the EU-Turkey Statement. After I had spent the spring and summer of 2016 at the Lepida hotspot on Leros, I wanted to study the structure of it more closely. Once the judgement of the European Court of Human Rights’ case J.R. and others v. Greece was published, I became interested in the accountability of the European Union within the hotspots. This thesis will therefore serve as an analysis of the hotspots in Greece and the scheme that lies behind them. The relationship of the European Union and the European Convention of Human Rights will be studied. The accountability of the European Union within the structure of the Greek hotspots will be analysed by using possible human rights violations assessed by the European Court of Human Rights as a sample. The first chapter presents naturally the personal aspect of the topic and the research questions as well as the method and structure of the thesis. The second chapter focuses on giving the reader an overview of the background that has given rise to the hotspots. Further focusing on the Greek hotspots solely. The hotspot approach and the EU-Turkey Statement are presented. The third chapter will dive into the EU’s protection of human rights. This topic will be presented in the light of the European Convention of Human Rights. Thus, the accession of the EU will be studied as well as the reality of the doctrine of equivalent protection. The European Court of Human Rights’ case J.R. and others v. Greece is the focus of the fourth chapter. I here also analyse the judgement of the case. The absence of the EU within the subject of responsibility of the Greek hotspots leads me further into the topic. The fifth chapter probes different accountability and responsibility theories of international organisation, in this case the EU. The theories are seen in the light of the human rights protection of the EU. The complexity of the topic shows that the EU cannot be held accountable for the human rights violations that are sampled. Finally, I conclude my thesis with my findings and recommendations towards further studies. The study reveals that the combination of the Greek hotspots and the accountability of the EU do not match within the structure that I have presented.

International refugee law is forced to adapt to the increase of externalized migration control. States no longer stick to migration control only at their national borders. Especially developed states have introduced various externalized migration control mechanisms – seeking to control the movement of migrants at every step of their journey. By such externalization, states aim to deter unwanted migrants. The presumption behind these practices is that through them, states can avoid the legal responsibilities that flow from international refugee law and especially the principle of non-refoulement. The enforcement of such practices often results in weakened protection for refugees. The control mechanisms are designed so that migrants are effectively denied access to areas where their rights would otherwise be substantially better than in those where they are forced to stay. The thesis deals with these mechanisms as conscious and strategic decisions made by developed states to keep unwanted migrants outside their legal responsibility. The overall objective of the thesis is to challenges the presumption of states, that they can evade responsibilities by outsourcing migration control to other states. It does so by analyzing the current legal regime on the extraterritorial application of non-refoulement and state jurisdiction. The question it answers is thus, when, if ever, does extraterritorial jurisdiction and state responsibility apply if externalized migration control mechanisms have been enforced? The thesis concludes that, although externalized migration control has become the rule rather than the exception, the current legal regime does not provide comprehensive protection for refugees. Extraterritorial jurisdiction under human rights law relies on effective control over territories or individuals; because externalized migration control mechanisms often outsource the control to third states, the jurisdictional link cannot necessarily be established between the individual and the state that enforces such mechanisms. Therefore, to protect refugees effectively the thesis argues that a contemporary understanding of the rules on extraterritorial jurisdiction should be adopted. It argues that states’ reliance on externalized migration control mechanisms can be challenged by adopting an additional basis for jurisdiction – jurisdiction based on the exercise of public powers abroad. It would decrease the attractiveness of externalized practices and increase the likelihood that states commit to fulfill them in a way that respects and guarantees protection for refugees.

This thesis analyzes Chinese regulation on reproductive rights. Since 1949, China’s policy on regulation of population has changed many times. The main reason behind the regulation is to coordinate with the economic and social development of China, as stated in China’s domestic laws. Though economic and social development is a legitimate aim, Chinese regulation of people’s reproductive rights may still violate international law, especially international human rights law. In the first chapter of the thesis, the author explains how Chinese reproductive rights are regulated, in order to present to the readers about the historical trace of family planning policy and provide a full picture of the ups and downs of the policy. By describing the history of China’s regulation of reproductive rights, readers may have a better understanding of the reason why China regulates people’s reproductive rights. In the second chapter, the author will discuss about China’s human rights standards and its regulation of reproductive rights. China, whose human rights standards are per se different from the western world such as the United States, usually defends itself with the human rights standards such as cultural relativism and communitarianism. With these kinds of human rights standards, the author tries to analyze if China’s regulation on reproductive rights is reasonable and if its choice of human rights standards justifies China’s regulation on reproductive rights. In the third chapter, the author will research on the legality of Chinese regulation on reproductive rights. This is the main part of the research. China has signed and ratified many international conventions and treaties which aim to protect reproductive rights and other related human rights t. In this part, the author will analyze whether China’s regulation on reproductive rights is in accordance to the international human rights law which is binding on China. In the last chapter, through the analysis of the above chapters, the author provides suggestions on how China should better comply with international law. For example, as an international trend, family planning now is becoming a human right instead of civic obligation. In order to fulfil its international obligations, China shall change its attitudes towards family planning and treat it as a service which is compulsory for the State to provide to its citizens.