Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-mp689 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T22:38:41.976Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

I. EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS AL-SKEINI AND OTHERS V UNITED KINGDOM (APPLICATION NO 55721/07) JUDGMENT OF 7 JULY 2011

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 February 2012

Conall Mallory
Conall Mallory
Affiliation:
PhD Candidate, Northumbria University.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The long anticipated judgment of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Al-Skeini and Others v United Kingdom1 provided a conclusion to years of academic debate regarding the application of the European Convention on Human Rights to United Kingdom military operations in Iraq.2 In question was the extent to which, if any, United Kingdom forces owed Convention obligations to Iraqi citizens when conducting security operations. For the Grand Chamber the case provided an opportunity to re-address the jurisdiction of the treaty under article 1.

Type
Current Developments: Decisions of International Courts and Tribunals
Information
International & Comparative Law Quarterly , Volume 61 , Issue 1 , January 2012 , pp. 301 - 312
Copyright
Copyright © British Institute of International and Comparative Law 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Al-Skeini and Others v United Kingdom (Application No 55721/07). Judgment of 7 July 2011 (‘Al-Skeini’). This application was heard jointly with Al-Jedda v United Kingdom (Application No 27021/08) also decided 7 July 2011. The present case note will focus solely on the decision in Al-Skeini and Others.

2 Kavaldjieva, S, ‘Jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights: exorbitance in reverse?’ (2006) 3 Georgetown JIntlL 507Google Scholar; Williams, J, ‘Al-Skeini: A flawed interpretation of Banković’ (2005) 23 (4) Wisconsin IntlLJ 687Google Scholar; Milanovic, M, ‘Applicability of the ECHR to British soldiers in Iraq’ (2011) 70 Cambridge LJ 4CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Leach, P, ‘The British military in Iraq—the applicability of the espace juridque doctrine under the European Convention on Human Rights’ (2005) Public Law 448Google Scholar; King, H, ‘Unravelling the extraterritorial riddle: an analysis of R. (on the application of Hassan) v Secretary of State for Defence’ (2009) 7(3) Journal of International Criminal Justice 633CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Altiparmak, K, ‘Bankovic: an obstacle to the application of the European Convention on Human Rights in Iraq? (2004) 9(2) Journal of Conflict and Security Law 213CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 4 November 1950, art 1.

4 Banković and Others v Belgium and Others, (2007) 44 EHRR SE5, 86 (Banković).

5 ibid.

6 Effective control of an area: Loizidou v Turkey (preliminary objections) (1995) 20 EHRR 99; Cyprus v Turkey (1997) 23 EHRR 244. State agent authority: Freda v Italy (1980) 21 European Commission Decisions and Reports 250; Sánchez Ramirez v France, Application No 28780/95, Judgment of 24 June 1996; Öcalan v Turkey (2003) 37 EHRR 10.

7 Al-Skeini (n 1) para 118.

8 The results of this inquiry were published in full on 8 September 2011 and can be found at: <http://www.bahamousainquiry.org/>.

9 Banković (n 4).

10 ibid 91.

11 Freda v Italy (1980) 21 European Commission Decisions and Reports 250; Reinette v France, Application No 14009/88, Judgment of 2 October 1989; Sánchez Ramirez v France, Application No 28780/95, Judgment of 24 June 1996.

12 Cyprus v Turkey (1982) 4 EHRR 482 (Commission Decision) 586.

13 Al-Skeini and Others v Secretary of State for Defence [2007] UKHL 26, 67.

14 Banković (n 4) 83.

15 ibid 91.

16 Al-Skeini (n 1) para 142.

17 Öcalan v Turkey (2005) 41 EHRR 45; Issa and Others v Turkey (2004) 41 EHRR 27; Al-Saadoon and Mufdhi v United Kingdom (2010) 51 EHRR 9; Medvedyev and Others v France (2010) 51 EHRR 39.

18 European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 4 November 1950, art 56: see discussion in Al-Skeini (n 1) para 140.

19 Banković (n 4) 91.

20 Cyprus v Turkey (n 12) 586.

21 Al-Skeini (n 1) para 140.

22 Ilaşcu and Others v Moldova and Russia, Application No 48787/99 Admissibility (Unreported), (ECtHR Grand Chamber 4 July 2001) as noted in BL Miltner 2011. “Revisiting Extraterritoriality: the ECHR and its Lessons” ExpressO. Available at: <http://works.bepress.com/barbara_miltner/1> 38.

23 Issa and Others v Turkey (n 17); Öcalan v Turkey (n 17); Medvedyev and Others v France (n 17); Mansur Pad and Others v Turkey, Application No 60167/00, Judgment of 28 June 2007.

24 Quark Fishing Ltd v the United Kingdom (2007) 44 EHRR SE4, 73.

25 Miltner (n 22).

26 Banković (n 4) 83. Also see R Lawson, ‘Life after Banković: on the extraterritorial application of the European Convention on Human Rights’ in F Coomans and M Kamminga (eds), Extraterritorial Application of Human Rights Treaties (Intersentia 2004).

27 Banković (n 4) 90.

28 Al-Skeini (n 1) para 138.

29 Al-Skeini (n 1) para 137.

30 Ilaşcu and Others v Moldova and Russia (2005) 40 EHRR 46.

31 A Ruth and M Trilsch, ‘‘Banković’ v Belgium (Admissibility). App. No. 52207/99’ (2003) 97 AJIL 168; Loucaides, L, ‘Determining the extra-territorial effect of the European Convention: facts, jurisprudence and the Bankovic case’ (2006) 4 European Human Rights Law Review 391Google Scholar; Happold, M, ‘Bankovic v Belgium and the territorial scope of the European Convention on Human Rights’ (2003) 3 Human Rights Law Review 77CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Williams, S and Shah, S, ‘Bankovic and others v Belgium and 16 other contracting states’ (2002) 6 European Human Rights Law Review 775Google Scholar.

32 Al-Skeini (n 1) para 136.

33 ibid para 149.

34 ibid para 150.

35 ibid para 12.

36 Ilse Hess v United Kingdom (1975) 2 European Commission Decisions and Reports 72.

37 Al-Skeini (n 1) para 21.

38 ibid para 22.

39 ibid para 149.

40 ibid para 144.

41 ibid para 145.

42 Similar observations are made in Milanovic, M, ‘From compromise to principle: clarifying the concept of state jurisdiction in human rights treaties’ (2008) 8(3) Human Rights Law Review 411–448, 417CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gondek, M, ‘Extraterritorial application of the European Convention on Human Rights: territorial focus in the age of globalization?’ (2005) Netherlands IntlLRev 349–387, 364CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Mantouvalou, V, ‘Extending Juridical Control in International Law: Human Rights Treaties and Extraterritoriality’ (2005) 9(2) International Journal of Human Rights 147–163, 160CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

43 Issa and Others v Turkey (n 17).

44 Öcalan v Turkey (n 17).

45 Medvedyev and Others v France (n 17).

46 Al-Saadoon and Mufdhi v United Kingdom (n 17).

47 Mansur Pad and Others v Turkey (n 23) para 54.

48 The term ‘innocent bystander’ is used only to denote the distant relationship between this particular victim and the fire fight which led to her death. It is not intended to define the other victims in the application.

49 Al-Skeini (n 1) Judge Bonello para 29.

50 Gondek, M, ‘Extraterritorial application of the European Convention on Human Rights: territorial focus in the age of globalization?’ (2005) 52 Netherlands IntlLRev 349CrossRefGoogle Scholar.