The extraterritoriality of the ECHR: why Jaloud and Pisari should be read as game changers

Raible, L. (2016) The extraterritoriality of the ECHR: why Jaloud and Pisari should be read as game changers. European Human Rights Law Review, 2, pp. 161-168.

[img]
Preview
Text
195079.pdf - Accepted Version

280kB

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.

Item Type:Articles
Status:Published
Refereed:Yes
Glasgow Author(s) Enlighten ID:Raible, Dr Lea
Authors: Raible, L.
College/School:College of Social Sciences > School of Law
Journal Name:European Human Rights Law Review
Publisher:Sweet and Maxwell
ISSN:1361-1526

University Staff: Request a correction | Enlighten Editors: Update this record