On the basis of a synthetic analysis of the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, it is argued that the legal significance of the concept of States jurisdiction (provided for by article 1 of the European Convention), understood as power – or capacity – to affect the enjoyment of the rights provided for by theECHR, is destined to remain important in the future, as far as cases of extraterritorial violations of the ECHR Convention are concerned. Indeed, this concept does not appear to be absorbed by the issue of attribution of extraterritorial violations to Contracting States in many important and recent judgments, such as the “Medvedeyev”, the “Al-Skeini” and the “Al-Saadoon” judgments. Even the references to the “ultimate control” criterion, made by the European Court in the “Behrami Saramati” and “Al-Jedda” judgments show that, albeit in a subtle way, the issue of jurisdiction tends to remain relevant in situations in which international organizations are exercising functions that correspond to typically State functions. In the context of the probable European Union (EU)’s accession to the ECHR, this could concerns the EU, as far as EU may exercise functions typical of a State (e.g., the the military operation EUFOR “Althea”) in the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
|Numero di pagine||8|
|Rivista||ITALIAN YEARBOOK OF INTERNATIONAL LAW|
|Stato di pubblicazione||Pubblicato - 2011|
- Jurisdiction, Human Rights, ECHR