Editing International human rights law

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.

The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.

Latest revision Your text
Line 16: Line 16:
 
The UN Human Rights Committee has understood this provision to mean that the human rights obligations recognized within the ICCPR apply not only to persons physically located within a State’s territory, but also to situations where the State exercises “power or effective control” either over the territory on which an individual is located (the spatial model of jurisdiction) or over the individual (the personal model of jurisdiction).<ref>UN HRC, ‘[http://docstore.ohchr.org/SelfServices/FilesHandler.ashx?enc=6QkG1d%2fPPRiCAqhKb7yhsjYoiCfMKoIRv2FVaVzRkMjTnjRO%2bfud3cPVrcM9YR0iW6Txaxgp3f9kUFpWoq%2fhW%2fTpKi2tPhZsbEJw%2fGeZRASjdFuuJQRnbJEaUhby31WiQPl2mLFDe6ZSwMMvmQGVHA%3d%3d General Comment No. 31 (80): The Nature of the General Legal Obligation Imposed on States Parties to the Covenant]’ (adopted on 29 March 2004, 2187th meeting), para 10.</ref> The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has gone even further by stating that the ICCPR “is applicable in respect of acts done by a State in the exercise of its jurisdiction outside its own territory”.<ref>Cf, [https://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/131/131-20040709-ADV-01-00-EN.pdf <i>Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territories</i><nowiki> (Advisory Opinion) [2004]</nowiki>] ICJ Rep 136, para 111.</ref>
 
The UN Human Rights Committee has understood this provision to mean that the human rights obligations recognized within the ICCPR apply not only to persons physically located within a State’s territory, but also to situations where the State exercises “power or effective control” either over the territory on which an individual is located (the spatial model of jurisdiction) or over the individual (the personal model of jurisdiction).<ref>UN HRC, ‘[http://docstore.ohchr.org/SelfServices/FilesHandler.ashx?enc=6QkG1d%2fPPRiCAqhKb7yhsjYoiCfMKoIRv2FVaVzRkMjTnjRO%2bfud3cPVrcM9YR0iW6Txaxgp3f9kUFpWoq%2fhW%2fTpKi2tPhZsbEJw%2fGeZRASjdFuuJQRnbJEaUhby31WiQPl2mLFDe6ZSwMMvmQGVHA%3d%3d General Comment No. 31 (80): The Nature of the General Legal Obligation Imposed on States Parties to the Covenant]’ (adopted on 29 March 2004, 2187th meeting), para 10.</ref> The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has gone even further by stating that the ICCPR “is applicable in respect of acts done by a State in the exercise of its jurisdiction outside its own territory”.<ref>Cf, [https://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/131/131-20040709-ADV-01-00-EN.pdf <i>Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territories</i><nowiki> (Advisory Opinion) [2004]</nowiki>] ICJ Rep 136, para 111.</ref>
   
A few States (such as the US and Israel) have adopted the contrary view and maintain that human rights obligations do not apply extraterritorially. To date, however, these States remain in the minority.<ref>See, [https://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/131/131-20040709-ADV-01-00-EN.pdf <i>Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territories</i><nowiki> (Advisory Opinion) [2004]</nowiki>] ICJ 136, para 110; UN HRC, <i>Summary Record of the 1405th Meeting,</i> CCPR/C/SR.1405 (31 March 1995) 6 [20].</ref> As such, although the exact criteria for the applicability of human rights obligations to extraterritorial activities of States are not settled and are subject to ongoing academic and political debate,<ref>See, for example, Marko Milanovic, ‘[https://www.ilsa.org/Jessup/Jessup16/Batch%202/MilanovicPrivacy.pdf Human Rights Treaties and Foreign Surveillance: Privacy in the Digital Age]’ (2015) 56 Harvard International Law Journal 81.</ref> the prevailing opinion at present is that human rights obligations do apply to some acts of a State outside its territory.</li>
+
A few States (such as the US and Israel) have adopted the contrary view and maintain that human rights obligations do not apply extraterritorially. To date, however, these States remain in the minority.<ref>See, [https://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/131/131-20040709-ADV-01-00-EN.pdf <i>Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territories</i><nowiki> (Advisory Opinion) [2004]</nowiki>] ICJ 136, para 110; UN HRC, <i>Summary Record of the 1405th Meeting,</i> CCPR/C/SR.1405 (31 March 1995) 6 [20].</ref> As such, although the exact criteria for the applicability of human rights obligations to extraterritorial activities of States are not settled and are subject to ongoing academic and political debate,<ref>See, for example, Marko Milanovic, ‘[http://www.harvardilj.org/wp-content/uploads/561Milanovic.pdf Human Rights Treaties and Foreign Surveillance: Privacy in the Digital Age]’ (2015) 56/1 HarvIntlLJ 81.</ref> the prevailing opinion at present is that human rights obligations do apply to some acts of a State outside its territory.</li>
   
 
<li>If an international human rights regime is applicable, the second question is whether a cyber operation attributable to a State constitutes an <b>interference</b> with a particular human right. The human rights that are often implicated by cyber operations include the right to privacy<ref>Article 17 [https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/ccpr.aspx ICCPR]; Article 8 [https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf ECHR]; Article 7 [http://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/pdf/text_en.pdf EUCFR]; Article 11 [https://www.oas.org/dil/treaties_b-32_american_convention_on_human_rights.pdf ACHR]. The exact titles and scopes of the provisions vary.</ref> and the right to freedom of opinion and expression.<ref>Article 19 [https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/ccpr.aspx ICCPR]; Article 10 [https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf ECHR]; Article 11 [http://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/pdf/text_en.pdf EUCFR]; Article 13 [https://www.oas.org/dil/treaties_b-32_american_convention_on_human_rights.pdf ACHR]. The exact titles and scopes of the provisions vary.</ref></li>
 
<li>If an international human rights regime is applicable, the second question is whether a cyber operation attributable to a State constitutes an <b>interference</b> with a particular human right. The human rights that are often implicated by cyber operations include the right to privacy<ref>Article 17 [https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/ccpr.aspx ICCPR]; Article 8 [https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf ECHR]; Article 7 [http://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/pdf/text_en.pdf EUCFR]; Article 11 [https://www.oas.org/dil/treaties_b-32_american_convention_on_human_rights.pdf ACHR]. The exact titles and scopes of the provisions vary.</ref> and the right to freedom of opinion and expression.<ref>Article 19 [https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/ccpr.aspx ICCPR]; Article 10 [https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf ECHR]; Article 11 [http://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/pdf/text_en.pdf EUCFR]; Article 13 [https://www.oas.org/dil/treaties_b-32_american_convention_on_human_rights.pdf ACHR]. The exact titles and scopes of the provisions vary.</ref></li>

Please note that all contributions to International cyber law: interactive toolkit are considered to be released under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0) (see International cyber law: interactive toolkit:Copyrights for details). If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource. Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!

Cancel Editing help (opens in new window)