The relationship between jurisdiction and attribution after Jaloud v. Netherlands.
This article argues that the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in Jaloud v. Netherlands adopted an attribution test in order to establish jurisdiction under Article 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It argues that this would not be the first time that the ECtHR has adopted an attribution test in order to establish Article 1 jurisdiction. Furthermore, the article challenges the proposition that the ECtHR’s adoption of an attribution test to establish jurisdiction is methodologically unsound and not in conformity with international law. It proposes moving beyond this debate and... Mehr ...
Verfasser: | |
---|---|
Dokumenttyp: | Artikel |
Erscheinungsdatum: | 2015 |
Verlag/Hrsg.: |
Springer
|
Schlagwörter: | Jaloud v. Netherlands / Extraterritoriality / State responsibility / Fragmentation of international law / Military intervention |
Sprache: | unknown |
Permalink: | https://search.fid-benelux.de/Record/base-29195326 |
Datenquelle: | BASE; Originalkatalog |
Powered By: | BASE |
Link(s) : | http://dro.dur.ac.uk/16751/ |
This article argues that the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in Jaloud v. Netherlands adopted an attribution test in order to establish jurisdiction under Article 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It argues that this would not be the first time that the ECtHR has adopted an attribution test in order to establish Article 1 jurisdiction. Furthermore, the article challenges the proposition that the ECtHR’s adoption of an attribution test to establish jurisdiction is methodologically unsound and not in conformity with international law. It proposes moving beyond this debate and considering the real challenges that an attribution test of Article 1 jurisdiction poses for the future.