The Extraterritoriality of the ECHR: Why Jaloud and Pisari Should be Read as Game Changers

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

89 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

This article argues that Jaloud v Netherlands and Pisari v Moldova and Russia should be interpreted as changing the approach to the extraterritorial application of the European Convention on Human Rights. It advances three key arguments. First, it suggests a reading of these cases pointing to the fact that the European Court of Human Rights is no longer relying on the separation of the different models of extraterritorial jurisdiction. Secondly, it advances a model of jurisdiction based on power understood as a potential for control and the application of rules to the concerned individuals. Thirdly, it argues that this model is preferable to the previous ones because it explains hard cases just as well or better and, in addition, captures a distinct understanding of the function of human rights recognized in the Convention.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)161-168
JournalEuropean Human Rights Law Review
Issue number2
Publication statusPublished - 2016
Externally publishedYes

Cite this