Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Extraterritorial Obligations and the Obligation to Protect

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Netherlands Yearbook of International Law 2016

Part of the book series: Netherlands Yearbook of International Law ((NYIL,volume 47))

Abstract

Since the late 1970s, what we today label ‘globalisation’ has altered many aspects of international law, not least international human rights law. This has been reflected inter alia in increased calls for universal respect for human rights beyond a state’s territorial border. The challenges to territoriality in this regard does not only relate to the actions of states abroad, but also with respect to their regulation of the conduct of business enterprises over which they exert significant influence. The chapter analyses the European Court of Human Rights’ jurisprudence and practice of the UN human rights bodies, and argues that extraterritorial human rights obligations have become an integral part of international human rights law. It is held that what has been seen as ‘exceptional’ now represent ‘common practice’. This conclusion is then applied to the discussion of the new treaty on human rights as currently being drafted.

Professor of Human Rights Law, Centre for International Law and Human Rights, Lancaster University Law School, UK

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    1945 Charter of the United Nations, 1 UNTS XVI (UN Charter), Article 57.

  2. 2.

    Salomon 2007, at 11.

  3. 3.

    Ibid., at 12.

  4. 4.

    UN Human Rights Council, Elaboration of an international legally binding instrument on transnational corporations and other business enterprises with respect to human rights, UN Doc A/HRC/26/L.22/Rev.1, 25 June 2014.

  5. 5.

    Maastricht Principles on States’ Extraterritorial Obligations in the area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, adopted by a group of experts in Maastricht in September 2011, http://www.etoconsortium.org/nc/en/main-navigation/library/maastricht-principles/?tx_drblob_pi1%5BdownloadUid%5D=23, accessed 27 January 2017, Principle 8.

  6. 6.

    International humanitarian law is in its origin extraterritorial in that it consists of legal regulation of conduct when a state is engaged in military conflict abroad.

  7. 7.

    Knox 2010, at 82.

  8. 8.

    Gibney 2013.

  9. 9.

    For a thorough discussion on the terminology used to describe the phenomenon often referred to as ‘extraterritorial human rights obligations’, see Gibney 2013.

  10. 10.

    UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment No. 14, The right to the highest attainable standard of health (Article 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights) UN Doc E/C.12/2000/4, 11 August 2000, para 39.

  11. 11.

    Gibney 2013, at 40.

  12. 12.

    See, for instance, Beckler and Kirtland 2003, at 11.

  13. 13.

    Gibney 2013, at 41.

  14. 14.

    UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (2000), General Comment No. 14, The right to the highest attainable standard of health (Article 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights), UN Doc E/C.12/2000/4, 11 August 2000, para 39 (emphasis added).

  15. 15.

    Knox 2010, at 83.

  16. 16.

    Margot E. Salomon holds that ‘[t]he collective obligations of the international community of states […] pertain to obligations to ensure arrangements that are just, and thereby conducive to the fulfilment of the socio-economic rights of all people’. Salomon 2007, at 182.

  17. 17.

    Maastricht Guidelines on Violations of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, adopted by a group of international experts in Maastricht, 22–26 January 1997,

    http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/instree/Maastrichtguidelines_.html, accessed 22 August 2016, para 6. This categorisation is commonly used by international human rights bodies. For instance, in the General Comment on the Right to Adequate Food, the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights confirms that: ‘[t]he right to adequate food , like any other human right, imposes three types or levels of obligations on States parties: the obligations to respect, to protect and to fulfil. […] The obligation to respect existing access to adequate food requires States parties not to take any measures that result in preventing such access. The obligation to protect requires measures by the State to ensure that enterprises or individuals do not deprive individuals of their access to adequate food. The obligation to fulfil (facilitate) means the State must proactively engage in activities intended to strengthen people’s access to and utilization of resources and means to ensure their livelihood, including food security. Finally, whenever an individual or group is unable, for reasons beyond their control, to enjoy the right to adequate food by the means at their disposal, States have the obligation to fulfil (provide) that right directly. This obligation also applies for persons who are victims of natural or other disasters.’ UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR), General Comment No. 12, The right to adequate food (Article 11), UN Doc E/C.12/1999/5, 12 May 1999, para 15.

  18. 18.

    1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 999 UNTS 171 (ICCPR).

  19. 19.

    UN Human Rights Committee (HRC), General Comment No. 31 [80], The Nature of the General Legal Obligation Imposed on States Parties to the Covenant, CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.13, 26 May 2004, para 8.

  20. 20.

    UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, Implementing the United Nations ‘Protect, Respect and Remedy’ Framework, HR/PUB/11/04, 2011.

  21. 21.

    Ibid, at 3.

  22. 22.

    UN Guiding Principles Reporting Framework, Glossary, Human Rights Due Diligence, http://www.ungpreporting.org/resources/glossary/, accessed 22 August 2016.

  23. 23.

    Black’s Law Dictionary Online, What is Due Diligence, http://thelawdictionary.org/due-diligence/, accessed 23 August 2016.

  24. 24.

    De Schutter 2016, at 54.

  25. 25.

    UNGP, at 3–4.

  26. 26.

    1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1155 UNTS 331 (VCLT), Article 31.

  27. 27.

    Çali 2014, at 528.

  28. 28.

    Ibid., at 533.

  29. 29.

    Jonas and Saunders 2010, at 581.

  30. 30.

    VCLT, Article 32.

  31. 31.

    See in particular Articles 1(3), 55 and 56 of the UN Charter.

  32. 32.

    UN Charter, Article 56.

  33. 33.

    UN Charter, Article 55.

  34. 34.

    For further elaboration of the importance of these passages in an extraterritorial context, see Skogly 2010.

  35. 35.

    1966 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 993 UNTS 3 (ICESCR); and ICCPR.

  36. 36.

    1965 International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, 660 UNTS 195 (ICERD).

  37. 37.

    ICERD, Article 2(1)(a).

  38. 38.

    1979 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, 1249 UNTS 13 (CEDAW).

  39. 39.

    CEDAW, Article 2(a).

  40. 40.

    See in particular Article 2(d) and (e) of CEDAW.

  41. 41.

    1984 Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 1465 UNTS 85 (CAT), Article 2(1).

  42. 42.

    1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1577 UNTS 3 (CRC).

  43. 43.

    2006 Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 2515 UNTS 3 (CRPD).

  44. 44.

    CRPD, Article 32.

  45. 45.

    1950 European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as amended, ETS 5 (ECHR).

  46. 46.

    1969 American Convention on Human Rights 1144 UNTS 123 (ACHR).

  47. 47.

    1981 African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, 1520 UNTS 217 (ACHRP).

  48. 48.

    ACHPR, Article 1.

  49. 49.

    League of Arab States, Arab Charter on Human Rights (ArCHR) translation by Dr. Mohammed Amin Al-Midani and Mathilde Cabanettes, revised by Professor Susan M. Akram, 2004, http://www.eods.eu/library/LAS_Arab%20Charter%20on%20Human%20Rights_2004_EN.pdf, accessed 27 January 2017 (ArCHR).

  50. 50.

    Sergio Euben Lopez Burgos v Uruguay, UN Human Rights Committee, Communication, UN. Doc CCPR/C/13/D/52/1979, 29 July 1981 (Lopez Burgos), at 176.

  51. 51.

    Ibid., para 12.2.

  52. 52.

    Ibid., para 12.3.

  53. 53.

    Soering v the United Kingdom, ECtHR Plenary, Judgment, No. 14038/88, 7 July 1989 (Soering).

  54. 54.

    Article 3 ECHR provides the right to be free from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment.

  55. 55.

    Soering, para 83.

  56. 56.

    Ibid., para 86.

  57. 57.

    Ibid.

  58. 58.

    Ibid., para 87.

  59. 59.

    Ibid., para 111.

  60. 60.

    Ibid, para 88.

  61. 61.

    Loizidou v Turkey, ECtHR Grand Chamber, Judgment, No. 15318/89, 18 December 1996 (Loizidou).

  62. 62.

    1952 Protocol 1 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, ETS 9.

  63. 63.

    Ibid., para 51.

  64. 64.

    Ibid., para 56.

  65. 65.

    Ibid., para 52.

  66. 66.

    Banković and Others v Belgium and Others, ECtHR Grand Chamber, Admissibility, Decision, No. 52207/99, 12 December 2001 (Banković).

  67. 67.

    Ibid., para 28; Article 10 guarantees the freedom of expression, Article 13 the right to an effective remedy.

  68. 68.

    Ibid., para 31.

  69. 69.

    Ibid., para 85.

  70. 70.

    Ibid., para 67.

  71. 71.

    Issa v Turkey, ECtHR Second Section, Judgement, No. 31821/96, 16 November 2004.

  72. 72.

    Al-Skeini and Others v The United Kingdom, ECtHR Grand Chamber, Judgement, No. 55721/07, 7 July 2011 (Al-Skeini).

  73. 73.

    Ibid., para 133.

  74. 74.

    Ilaşcu and Others v Moldova and Russia, ECtHR Grand Chamber, Judgment, No. 48787/99, 8th July 2004 (Ilaşcu); Ivantoc and Others v Moldova and Russia, ECtHR Fourth Section, Judgment, No. 23687/05, 15th November 2011; Catan and Others v The Republic of Moldova and Russia, ECtHR Grand Chamber, Judgment, No. 43370/04, 18454/06 and 8252/05, 19 October 2012; and Mozer v The Republic of Moldova and Russia, ECtHR Grand Chamber, Judgment, No. 11138/10, 23 February 2016.

  75. 75.

    Jaloud v the Netherlands, ECtHR Grand Chamber, Merits and Just Satisfaction, Judgment, No. 47708/08, 20 November 2014 (Jaloud).

  76. 76.

    Ibid., para 149.

  77. 77.

    Ibid., para 151.

  78. 78.

    Ibid., para 152.

  79. 79.

    Banković, para 71 (emphasis added).

  80. 80.

    Al-Skeini, para 135.

  81. 81.

    Drozd and Janousek v France and Spain, ECtHR Plenary, Judgment, No. 12747/87, 26 June 1992.

  82. 82.

    Ibid., para 96.

  83. 83.

    Ibid., para 91.

  84. 84.

    X and Y v Switzerland, European Commission of Human Rights, Plenary, Admissibility, No. 7289/75 and 7349/76, 14 July 1977.

  85. 85.

    Ibid., at 73.

  86. 86.

    Manoilescu and Dobrescu v Romania and Russia, ECtHR Third Section, Decision, No. 60861/00, 3 March 2005.

  87. 87.

    Ibid., para 101.

  88. 88.

    Ibid.

  89. 89.

    Al-Skeini, para 135.

  90. 90.

    International Law Commission, Draft articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, with commentaries, UN Doc. A/56/10, 2001.

  91. 91.

    Ibid., at 38.

  92. 92.

    Ibid.

  93. 93.

    Ibid.

  94. 94.

    Ibid., at 35.

  95. 95.

    Jaloud, para 133.

  96. 96.

    International Law Commission, Draft articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, with commentaries, UN Doc. A/56/10, 2001 (see Commentary on Article 2, at 35).

  97. 97.

    UNGP, at 3 (emphasis added).

  98. 98.

    Ilaşcu, para 331.

  99. 99.

    The Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 2015.

  100. 100.

    UN Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 31, The Nature of the General Legal Obligations Imposed on State Parties to the Covenant, UN Doc CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add. 13, 26 May 2004, para 10.

  101. 101.

    See the Lopez Burgos case.

  102. 102.

    UN Committee Against Torture , General Comment No. 2, Implementation of Article 2 by States Parties, UN Doc CAT/C/GC/2, 24 January 2008, para 7 (emphasis added).

  103. 103.

    Ibid., para 16 (emphasis added).

  104. 104.

    UN Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 31, The Nature of the General Legal Obligations Imposed on State Parties to the Covenant, UN Doc. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add. 13, 26 May 2004.

  105. 105.

    The Committee holds that: ‘[i]n the context of international development cooperation the Committee is concerned about the State party’s funding of low-fee, private and informal schools run by for-profit business enterprises in recipient States. Rapid increase in the number of such schools may contribute to sub-standard education, less investment in free and quality public schools, and deepened inequalities in the recipient countries, leaving behind children who cannot afford even low-fee schools.’ (para 17) and that ‘[t]he Committee recommends that the State party ensure that its international development cooperation supports the recipient States in guaranteeing the right to free compulsory primary education for all, by prioritizing free and quality primary education in public schools, refraining from funding for-profit private schools, and facilitating registration and regulation of private schools.’ (para 18), UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, Concluding observations on the fifth periodic report of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, CRC/C/GBR/CO/5, 12 July 2016.

  106. 106.

    UN Human Rights Committee, Concluding Observations, United States of America, UN Doc CCPR/C/USA/CO/3, 18 December 2006, para 10.

  107. 107.

    Maina Kiai, Special Rapporteur, Report on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, UN Doc A/HRC/29/25, 28 April 2015, para 72.

  108. 108.

    UN Committee on Economic , Social and Cultural Rights, Statement on the Obligations of States Parties regarding the corporate sector and economic social and cultural rights, UN Doc E/C.12/2011/1, 12 July 2011, para 5.

  109. 109.

    UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Concluding observations on the sixth periodic report of Canada, UN Doc E/C.12/CAN/CO/6, 23 March 2016, paras 15–16.

  110. 110.

    UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Concluding observations on the second periodic report of China, including Hong Kong, China, and Macao, China, UN Doc E/C.12/CHN/CO/2, 13 June 2014, para 13.

  111. 111.

    UN Human Rights Committee, Concluding Observations on the sixth periodic report of Germany, UN Doc CCPR/C/DEU/CO/6, 12 November 2012, para16.

  112. 112.

    Maastricht Principles on States’ Extraterritorial Obligations in the area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights , adopted by a group of experts in Maastricht in September 2011, http://www.etoconsortium.org/nc/en/main-navigation/library/maastricht-principles/?tx_drblob_pi1%5BdownloadUid%5D=23, accessed 27 January 2017, Preamble; See also De Schutter et al. 2012.

  113. 113.

    According to Dixon and McCorquodale : ‘[a]s a general rule, a State’s prescriptive jurisdiction is unlimited and a State may legislate for any matter irrespective of where it occurs (even if in the territory of another State) or the nationality of persons involved. […] Enforcement jurisdiction is, on the other hand, generally considered to be territorial ’ (Dixon and McCorquodale 2000, at 281).

  114. 114.

    UNGP, at 3–4.

  115. 115.

    De Schutter 2016, at 45.

  116. 116.

    Ibid.

  117. 117.

    1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 2187 UNTS 3, Article 17.

  118. 118.

    Moeckli and White 2016.

References

  • Beckler RW, Kirtland MH (2003) Extraterritorial Application of U.S. Antitrust Law: What Is a ‘Direct, Substantial, and Reasonably Foreseeable Effect’ Under the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act? Texas International Law Journal 38:11–25

    Google Scholar 

  • Çali B (2014) Specialized Rules of Treaty Interpretation: Human Rights. In: Hollis DB (ed) The Oxford Guide to Treaties. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 525–547

    Google Scholar 

  • De Schutter O (2016) Towards a New Treaty on Business and Human Rights. Business and Human Rights Journal 1(1):41–67

    Google Scholar 

  • De Schutter O, Eide A, Khalfan A, Orellana M, Salomon ME, Seiderman I (2012) Commentary to the Maastricht Principles on Extraterritorial Obligations of States in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Human Rights Quarterly 34(4):1084–1169

    Google Scholar 

  • Dixon M, McCorquodale R (2000) Cases and Materials on International Law, 3rd edn. Blackstone Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibney M (2013) On Terminology: Extraterritorial Obligations. In: Langford M, Vandenhole W, Martin S, van Genugten W (eds) Global Justice, State Duties: The Extra-Territorial Scope of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in International Law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 32–47

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonas DS, Saunders TM (2010) The Object and Purpose of a Treaty: Three Interpretive Methods. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 43, 3:565–608

    Google Scholar 

  • Knox JH (2010) Diagonal Environmental Rights. In: Gibney M, Skogly S (eds) Universal Human Rights and Extraterritorial Obligations. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, pp 82–103

    Google Scholar 

  • Moeckli D, White ND (2016) Treaties as ‘Living Instruments’. In: Bowman M, Kritsiotis D (eds) Conceptual and Contextual Perspectives on the Modern Law of Treaties. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Forthcoming

    Google Scholar 

  • Salomon ME (2007) Global Responsibility for Human Rights: World Poverty and the Development of International Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Skogly S (2010) Extraterritoriality: Universal Human Rights Without Universal Obligations. In: Joseph S, Adam M (eds) Research Handbook on International Human Rights Law. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham/Northampton, pp 71–96

    Google Scholar 

  • The Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (2015) Human Rights Law Sources: UN Pronouncements on Extra-Territorial Obligations. Concluding Observations, General Comments and Recommendations, Special Procedures, UPR Recommendations. Working Paper. http://globalinitiative-escr.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/151027-Human-Rights-Law-Sources-ETOs.pdf. Accessed 23 January 2017

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Human Rights Law, Centre for International Law and Human Rights, Lancaster University Law School, Lancaster, UK

    Sigrun Skogly

Authors
  1. Sigrun Skogly
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sigrun Skogly .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Ministry of Security and Justice of the Netherlands, The Hague, The Netherlands

    Martin Kuijer

  2. Faculty of Law, VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Wouter Werner

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 T.M.C. Asser Press and the authors

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Skogly, S. (2017). Extraterritorial Obligations and the Obligation to Protect. In: Kuijer, M., Werner, W. (eds) Netherlands Yearbook of International Law 2016. Netherlands Yearbook of International Law, vol 47. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-207-1_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-207-1_9

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-206-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-207-1

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation