SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Yeditepe Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 23 Sayı: 1

EXTRATERRITORIAL BINDING OF THE ECHR

AİHK’nin EXTRATERRİTORİAL BAĞLAYICILIĞI

Ayşe Füsun Arsava(ATILIM UNIVERSITY, FACULTY OF LAW)0000-0003-2275-7664
Pages
1–24
Publication Date
2026-01-08
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

This article examines the criteria underlying the interpretation of the concept of jurisdiction, the role played by the principle of effectiveness and universality of human rights in extraterritorial actions, and the obligations of Convention States, in light of the ECtHR's landmark decisions regarding the extraterritorial actions of Convention States.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In the extraterritorial application of the ECHR, the concept of jurisdiction appears to be poorly interpreted in ECtHR decisions.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The necessity to ensure effective and universal human rights protection, while simultaneously considering the potential for Convention States to be held accountable before the ECtHR, necessitates a distinction between positive and negative obligations arising from the ECHR in the context of extraterritorial human rights obligations.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:This article examines the criteria underlying the interpretation of the concept of jurisdiction, the role played by the principle of effectiveness and universality of human rights in extraterritorial actions, and the obligations of Convention States, in light of the ECtHR's landmark decisions regarding the extraterritorial actions of Convention States.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:İnsan Hakları’nın evrenselliği ve etkinliği prensibi · AİHK · AİHM içtihadı

Abstract

In the extraterritorial application of the ECHR, the concept of jurisdiction appears to be poorly interpreted in ECtHR decisions. The ECtHR's failure to consistently approach the concept of jurisdiction, coupled with its lack of a consistent approach and its preference for models tailored to specific circumstances, creates an unpredictable situation in terms of legal certainty. The necessity to ensure effective and universal human rights protection, while simultaneously considering the potential for Convention States to be held accountable before the ECtHR, necessitates a distinction between positive and negative obligations arising from the ECHR in the context of extraterritorial human rights obligations. This article examines the criteria underlying the interpretation of the concept of jurisdiction, the role played by the principle of effectiveness and universality of human rights in extraterritorial actions, and the obligations of Convention States, in light of the ECtHR's landmark decisions regarding the extraterritorial actions of Convention States.

Özet

AİHK’nin extraterritorial uygulanmasında AİHM kararlarında Jurisdiktion kavramının istikrarlı yorumlanmadığı görülmektedir. Jurisdiktion kavramının yorumunda AİHM’nin bazen ülkesel ve bazen kişisel Jurisdiktion modelinden hareket etmesi, istikrarlı bir yaklaşım ortaya koymaması, somut duruma göre model tercihi yapması hukuk güvenliği bakımından öngörülemez bir durum yaratmaktadır. Bir taraftan etkin ve üniversal bir insan hakları koruması sağlama, diğer taraftan Konvansiyon devletlerinin AİHK muvacehesinde sorumlu tutulabilmeleri için etkin olma olanaklarının dikkate alınma gerekliliği extraterritorial insan hakları mükellefiyetleri bağlamında AİHK’den doğan pozitif ve negatif yükümlülükler arasında ayrım yapılmasını gerektirmektedir. Makalede AİHM’nin Konvansiyon devletlerinin extraterritorial tasarrufları bağlamında kilometre taşı teşkil eden kararları ışığında Jurisdiktion kavramının yorumuna esas olan kriterler yanısıra insan haklarının etkinliği ve evrenselliği prensibinin extraterritorial tasarruflarda oynadığı rol ve Konvansiyon devletlerinin yükümlülükleri ele alınmaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Arsava, A. F. (2026). EXTRATERRITORIAL BINDING OF THE ECHR. Yeditepe Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 23 Sayı: 1, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.63117/yuhfd.1812278

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (24)

  1. Allen S. Weiner/Duncan B. Hollis/Chimene Keitner, International Law, 8.bası, Burlington, Aspen Publishing, 2023, ss.1-1330
  2. Andreas von Arnauld, Völkerrecht, 5.bası, Heidelberg, C.F.Müller Verlag, 2023, Rn.649
  3. Dominic McGoldrick, “Extraterritorial Application of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights”, bknz.: Fons Coomans/Menno T.Kamminga (eds.), Extraterritorial Application of Human Rights Treaties, Antwerpen/Oxford, 2004, ss.41-72
  4. Donald Shelton/Ariel Gould, Positive and negative Obligations, The Oxford Handbook of International Human Rights Law, Oxford University Press, 2013, ss.562-584,
  5. Erik Roxstrom/Mark Gibney/Terje Einarsen, “The NATO Bombing Case (Bankovic et al. v. Belgium et al. ) and the Limits of Western Human Rights Protection”, Boston University International Law Journal, C.23, No.1, 2005, ss.55-136
  6. Edward N. Cain, “European Court of Human Rights Ruling in Georgia v. Russia (II) and its Application to the Current Crisis in Ukraine”, Loyola University, Chicago International Law Review, C:19, No.2:2023, ss. 206-229
  7. Eszter Polgári, “The Role of the Vienna Rules in the Interpretation of the ECHR: A Normative Basis or a Source of Inspiration?”, Erasmus Law Review, C:14, No.2, 2021, ss. 82-95
  8. Floris Tan/Marten Zwanenburg, “One Step Forward, Two Steps Back? Georgia v. Russia II, European court of Human Rights, Appl. No 38263/08”, Melbourne Journal of International Law, C.22, No.1, 2021, ss.136-155
  9. James Crawford, Brownlie’s Principles of Public International Law, 9.bası, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2019, s.440
  10. Joshua Halikos, “Carter v. Russia: The Birthplace of Global Obligations?”, Australien International Law Journal, C.28, 2021, International Law Association - Australian Branch, ss.213-218
  11. Kerem Altıparmak, “Bankovic”: An Obstacle to the Application of the European Convention on Human rights in Iraq”, Journal of Conflict & Security Law, C.9, No.2 (Summer 2004), ss. 213-251
  12. Marko Milanovic, Extraterritorial Application of Human Rights Treaties, Law Principles and Policy, NewYork/Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2011, ss.1-276
  13. Marko Milanovic, “The European Court’s Admissibility Decision in Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia, The Good, the Bad and the Ugly”, Part II, EJIL:Talk!, 26.03.2023; https://www.ejiltalk.org/the-european-courts-admissibility-decision-in-ukraine-and-the-netherlands-v-russia-the-ugly-part-ii
  14. Marten Breuer, “Art.45 (Begründung der Urteile und Entscheidungen), Rn.45”, bknz.: Ulrich Karpenstein/Franz C. Meyer (eds.), Konvention zum Schutz der Menschenrechte und Grundfreiheiten: Kommentar, 3.bası, München, C.H.BECK, 2022
  15. Michal Gondeck, “Extraterritorial Application of the European Convention on Human Rights: Territorial Focus in the Age of Globalization?”, Netherlands International Law Review 52, 2005, s.364
  16. Noam Lubell, “Human Rights Obligations in Military Occupation”, Internal Review of the Red Cross, C.94, No.885, 2012, s.s317- 336
  17. Noam Lubell, Extraterritorial use of Force Against Non-State Actors, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2010, ss.1-320
  18. Ralph Wilde, “Triggering State Obligations Extraterritorially: The Spatial Test in Certain Human Rights Treaties”, Israil Law Review C.40, No.2, 2007, ss.503-526
  19. Ralph Wilde, “Legal Black Hole - Extraterritorial State Action and International Treaty Law on Civil and Political Rights”, Michigan Journal of International Law, C.26, No.3, 2005, ss.740-806
  20. Rick Lawson, “Life after Bankovic: On the Extraterritorial Application of the European Convention on Human Rights”, bknz.: Fons Coomans/Menno T.Kamminga (eds.), Extraterritorial Application of Human Rights Treaties, Antwerpen/Oxford, 2004, ss.83-123
  21. Stefka Kavaldjieva, “Jurisdiktion of the European Court of Human Rights: Exobitance in Reverse”, Georgetown Journal of International Law C.37, No.3, 2006, ss.507-539
  22. Stuart Wallace/Conall Mallory, “Applying the European Convention on Human Rights to the Conflict in Ukraine”, Russian Law Journal, C.6, No.3, 2018, ss.8-78
  23. Tabriz Musayev, “Georgia v. Russia (II): Jurisdiktional Contradiction in Light of the ECtHR’s Consistent Case Law on the Extraterritorial Application of the ECHR”, Humanitäres Völkerrecht, C.6, No.3-4, 2023, Berliner Wissenschafts-Verlag, ss.166-181
  24. Tatyana Eatwell, “Adjudicating Armed Conflicts: Georgia v. Russia II, Jurisdiktion and the Right to Life in “context of Chaos”, European Human Rights Law Review, No.3, 2021, Thomas Reuters, ss.294-308