A Study On The Criteria Of Extraterritorial Human Rights Obligations Of States

According to the human rights treaties signed by the state,the human rights obligations that the state needs to undertake for the violation of human rights outside its territory are the extraterritorial human rights obligations of the state.The undertaking of extraterritorial human rights obligations by states is conducive to the globalization of human rights protection and conforms to the principle of universality of human rights.It can fill the vacuum of human rights protection caused by the inward-looking development of international human rights law.How to determine that an individual outside the territory of a country is under the authority or control of that country determines the limit and scope of a country’s extraterritorial human rights obligations.The criteria for effective control are divided into effective control over territory and effective control over individuals.Effective control of extraterritorial territory implies that a State has a human rights obligation to all persons within that territory,without the need for a case-by-case determination as to whether a particular individual within that territory has been violated by a particular act and thus falls under the jurisdiction of that State.Effective control over individuals means that all individuals in a certain territory are not the object of the state’s human rights obligations,but to measure whether specific individuals are under the effective control of the state,and the state has extraterritorial human rights obligations to individuals under its own authority or authority.The introduction of Draft Zero and its amendment means that the United Nations holds a positive attitude towards countries’ undertaking extraterritorial human rights obligations.However,through the review of the articles,we find that its standard provisions on countries’ undertaking extraterritorial human rights obligations are not clear enough and need to be further clarified.Next,we will examine and reflect on the current standards for countries to undertake extraterritorial human rights obligations.First of all,in accordance with the principle of universality of human rights and the extraterritorial application of international human rights conventions,states are required to undertake extraterritorial human rights obligations to the territories of other states under their authority or control or to individuals in the territories,thus obtaining the legal basis for states to undertake extraterritorial human rights obligations.Finally,by examining the sufficient force and relevant standards of conduct used in the Alien Tort Act of the United States and the individual model and spatial model used in the Al-Skeini and Banovic case of the European Court of Human Rights,it is found that the current standard of States undertaking extraterritorial human rights obligations is flawed.It is too narrow to deal with the extraterritorial human rights obligations of States through the text of the treaty.Because the current standards of the state to undertake extraterritorial human rights obligations are not clear,and there are many defects.This paper suggests that Draft Zero and its revised text adopt an causal model and a new concept beyond jurisdiction-the universal human rights obligation of the State-to solve this problem.The causal model holds that jurisdiction "applies to persons within the power or effective control of the forces of a Contracting State operating outside its borders,regardless of the circumstances in which such power or effective control is acquired".Consequently,the jurisdiction of States parties need not be linked to the concept of territory,but should arise when there is de facto control over the violations in question.The universal human rights obligation of States holds that globalization leads to the transnationalization of communications,which transcends national boundaries and to a large extent relativizes the territorial boundaries of particular systems and regimes.This process applies to law in general as well as to specific human rights.Human rights therefore transcend national boundaries and transcend the territory of nation-states.As a result,human rights violations are no longer carried out solely by the home State in its territory and jurisdiction,nor by actors subject to its jurisdiction.