Human rights, State sovereignty and national territory - 5[] Al Skeini and Others v. the United Kingdom - [] Debate - Territorial Control and Categories of Rights

6 important questions on Human rights, State sovereignty and national territory - 5[] Al Skeini and Others v. the United Kingdom - [] Debate - Territorial Control and Categories of Rights


What questions arise when studying the notion of jurisdiction in relation to international responsibility?


One question that arises is whether the condition of jurisdiction is distinct from the condition of attribution for international responsibility to be affirmed. Another question is whether states may be held responsible for human rights violations that occur on parts of their territory over which they cannot exercise effective control.


Can a state be held responsible for human rights violations that occur on its territory but in a part over which it cannot exercise effective control?


Yes, a state may still be held responsible for human rights violations that occur on its territory but in a part over which it cannot exercise effective control. An example is when a state is nominally the territorially competent state but faces challenges such as guerrilla movements or separatist regimes.


What did the International Court of Justice state regarding the applicability of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) to situations outside a state's territory?


The International Court of Justice stated that while the jurisdiction of states is primarily territorial, it may sometimes be exercised outside the national territory. The Court found that states parties to the ICCPR should be bound to comply with its provisions even when exercising jurisdiction on foreign territory. As for the ICESCR, it may apply to territories over which a state exercises territorial jurisdiction.
  • Higher grades + faster learning
  • Never study anything twice
  • 100% sure, 100% understanding
Discover Study Smart


What distinction did the International Court of Justice draw between the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) in terms of their applicability beyond the national territory?


The International Court of Justice referred to economic, social, and cultural rights as 'essentially territorial' and suggested that the ICESCR extends to situations where a state exercises 'territorial jurisdiction'. In contrast, it spoke of 'jurisdiction' simpliciter regarding the ICCPR. This distinction imposes stronger conditions for the applicability of the ICESCR beyond the national territory compared to the ICCPR.


What questions arise when considering the responsibility of a state for events that occur outside its territory?


Questions arise regarding the extent of a state's responsibility for events that occur outside its territory, particularly when it lacks full control over the area. The criteria of 'state agent authority and control' and 'effective control of an area' are considered by the European Court of Human Rights to determine jurisdiction in such cases.


What did the International Court of Justice state regarding the applicability of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) to territories over which a state exercises territorial jurisdiction?


The International Court of Justice stated that the ICESCR may apply to territories over which a state exercises territorial jurisdiction. This suggests that economic, social, and cultural rights require the state to exercise quasi-sovereign powers, even as an occupying power.

The question on the page originate from the summary of the following study material:

  • A unique study and practice tool
  • Never study anything twice again
  • Get the grades you hope for
  • 100% sure, 100% understanding
Remember faster, study better. Scientifically proven.
Trustpilot Logo