Extraterritorial jurisdiction of the Member States of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
Abstract
Today, in view of the turbulent political situation in Europe, a question of who bears a responsibility for violations of human rights in the disputed territories becomes increasingly actual. The aim of this paper is to outline the principles used by the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter ""the EtCHR"") in resolving disputes, where an aspect of jurisdiction under article 1 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter ""the ECHR) is problematic.
Analysis of the case-law of the ECtHR shows that when deciding on responsibility of a state in the event of ""extraterritorial jurisdiction"", the Court applies also the norms of general international law. However, the test of 'effective control' set forth in the UN International Court of Justice (hereinafter ""ICJ"") judgment in the case of Nicaragua v.
United States is not the same as the ECtHR's principle of effective control over an area outside state's own territory. According to the ECHR, financial and political support, including issuing own passports to citizens of the disputed territory, are also seen as the elements of an effective control over the territory.