Abstract
The armed conflict in Ukraine has been ongoing since 2014. As to date, the total number of recorded deaths has exceeded ten thousands civilians and combatants. Every day, i.e. during the present research, this number has been increasing. As outlined above, the European regional system of human rights protection, epitomised by the ECtHR, addresses this challenge within two interrelated tracks: individual and inter-State applications. The research focuses on landmark decisions of international, regional, and domestic courts in terms of human rights extraterritorially by way of establishing human rights duty-bearer jurisdiction outside states’ boundaries based on effective control test. It scrutinizes the jurisprudence of the ECtHR in terms of inconsistency between Bankovic and Aj-Jedda cases. In turn, the paper aims to model extraterritorial application of human rights law in Ukraine v. Russia inter-State applications (re Crimea and re Eastern Ukraine) based on Loizidou precedent as well as describes new forms of Russia’s violations of human rights in Crimea.
Highlights
International/regional judges (and domestic judges as mentioned by Besson) shall still enjoy a certain level of flexibility to render fair and enforceable decisions in specific circumstances of each extraterritorial case
She challenged Schabas's thesis by posing a question: 'whether the Inter-State application is a mechanism of collective enforcement of human rights or one of international dispute settlement?' To this end, Risini observes that many Inter-State proceedings were driven by interests other than the safeguarding of human rights but a combination of collective enforcement and dispute resolution [Risini, 2018:60]
As the present paper has analysed more than ten landmark decisions of international, regional, and domestic courts, it concludes that human rights framework addresses violations of human rights extraterritorially by way of establishing human rights duty-bearer jurisdiction outside its boundaries based on “effective control test”
Summary
International/regional judges (and domestic judges as mentioned by Besson) shall still enjoy a certain level of flexibility to render fair and enforceable decisions in specific circumstances of each extraterritorial case. Another portion of the critique of extraterritorial application roots in the possibility of conflicts between an interpretation of human rights duties by international and domestic courts [Besson, 2021:880].
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
