An extraterritorial operation in international law is a law enforcement or militaryoperation that takes place outside the territory or jurisdiction of the state whose forces are conducting the operation, generally within the territory of another sovereign state. Under international law, these activities are generally highly restricted, and it is considered a violation of a state's sovereignty if any other state engages in law enforcement or military operations within another state without gaining that state's consent.[1]
The first and foremost restriction imposed by international law on a State is that—failing the existence of a permissive rule to the contrary—it may not exercise its power in any form in the territory of another State.
The policing of transnational and international crimes is a challenge to state-based law enforcement agencies, as jurisdiction restricts the direct intervention a state's agencies can legally take in another state's jurisdiction, with even basic law enforcement activities such as arrest and detention "tantamount to abduction" when carried out extraterritorially.[3] These explicit limits on extraterritorial law enforcement operations has therefore instead encouraged co-operation between law enforcement agencies of sovereign states, forming supranational agencies such as Interpol to encourage co-operation, and placing additional obligations on the state such as aut dedere aut judicare ("extradite or prosecute") to compel prosecution of certain types of transnational crime, including hijacking of civilian aircraft, taking of civilian hostages, and other acts of terrorism, as well as crimes against diplomats and other "internationally protected persons".[4]
Military operationsedit
While extraterritorial law enforcement activity is highly restricted and subject to the approval of the 'host' state, traditional interstate military operations assume some degree of extraterritorial operation. As Stigall points out, innate in 'just' war (jus ad bellum) is the expectation that one state may be conducting military activity against, and within the borders, of another state; the laws of armed conflict "[presuppose] extraterritoriality".[5] Therefore, "[i]f the circumstances exist for the lawful use of force under jus ad bellum, then so long as a state abides by the rules articulated in jus in bello [the law of war], that state’s extraterritorial actions are considered lawful."[5]
"Unwilling or unable"edit
Problems with the legitimacy of extraterritorial operations arise, according to Stigall, when one state is conducting military activity against non-state actors in a state "that is not party to the conflict".[5] Although some commentators suggest that the use of force is permitted in some of these cases, with Deeks' commentary on the 'Unwilling or Unable Test' mentioning sources that recommend that "neutrality law permits a belligerent to use force on a neutral state’s territory if the neutral state is unable or unwilling to prevent violations of its neutrality by another belligerent",[6] Stigall reminds "that such view is not universal, and textual authority for such cross-border attacks is limited".[7]
Humanitarian and human rights lawedit
For the Council of Europe, key tenets of its human rights law jurisdiction are laid down in Article 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), with the convention employed to complement and reinforce the more specific scope of humanitarian law.[8][a] The application of this to extraterritorial operations has been noted by Ryngaert as mixed, with Al-Skeini and others v United Kingdom in 2011 attempting "to square Bankovic [v. Belgium's "sufficient control" model of jurisdiction] with the personal model of jurisdiction",[9][10] and Al-Jedda v United Kingdom "tried to reconcile the ‘ultimate control and authority’ standard... with the ‘effective operational control’ standard endorsed by the UN's International Law Commission."[9] Ryngaert declares each of the two results to be "an awkward hybrid theory".[9]
^"This should be enough to dispel the assumption that, wherever human rights treaties such as the ECHR apply extra-territorially in situations of armed conflict and occupation, their effect could be curtailed by the more limited humanitarian law protection."[8]
Deeks, Ashley S. (2012). (PDF). Virginia Journal of International Law. 52 (3): 483–550. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2017-05-18. Retrieved 2015-10-19.
Holcroft-Emmess, Natasha (24 June 2013). "Extraterritorial Jurisdiction under the ECHR – Smith (and Others) v MOD (2013)". Oxford Human Rights Hub. Retrieved 21 September 2015.
Orakhelashvili, Alexander (2012). "Human Rights Protection During Extra-Territorial Military Operations: Perspectives at International and English Law". In White, N.; Henderson, C. (eds.). Research Handbook on Conflict and Security Law. Edward Elgar. SSRN 2042635.
Ryngaert, Cedric (2012). "Clarifying the Extraterritorial Application of the European Convention on Human Rights (Al-Skeini v the United Kingdom)". Merkourios. 28 (74): 57–60. doi:10.5334/ujiel.ba.
Stigall, Dan E. (3 February 2013). "Ungoverned Spaces, Transnational Crime, and the Prohibition on Extraterritorial Enforcement Jurisdiction in International Law". Notre Dame Journal of International & Comparative Law. SSRN 2211219.
January 01, 1970
extraterritorial, operation, extraterritorial, operation, international, enforcement, military, operation, that, takes, place, outside, territory, jurisdiction, state, whose, forces, conducting, operation, generally, within, territory, another, sovereign, stat. An extraterritorial operation in international law is a law enforcement or military operation that takes place outside the territory or jurisdiction of the state whose forces are conducting the operation generally within the territory of another sovereign state Under international law these activities are generally highly restricted and it is considered a violation of a state s sovereignty if any other state engages in law enforcement or military operations within another state without gaining that state s consent 1 Contents 1 Background 2 Law enforcement 3 Military operations 3 1 Unwilling or unable 3 2 Humanitarian and human rights law 4 See also 5 Notes and references 5 1 Notes 5 2 Citations 5 3 ReferencesBackground editThe first and foremost restriction imposed by international law on a State is that failing the existence of a permissive rule to the contrary it may not exercise its power in any form in the territory of another State Permanent Court of International Justice 1923 2 Law enforcement editThe policing of transnational and international crimes is a challenge to state based law enforcement agencies as jurisdiction restricts the direct intervention a state s agencies can legally take in another state s jurisdiction with even basic law enforcement activities such as arrest and detention tantamount to abduction when carried out extraterritorially 3 These explicit limits on extraterritorial law enforcement operations has therefore instead encouraged co operation between law enforcement agencies of sovereign states forming supranational agencies such as Interpol to encourage co operation and placing additional obligations on the state such as aut dedere aut judicare extradite or prosecute to compel prosecution of certain types of transnational crime including hijacking of civilian aircraft taking of civilian hostages and other acts of terrorism as well as crimes against diplomats and other internationally protected persons 4 Military operations editWhile extraterritorial law enforcement activity is highly restricted and subject to the approval of the host state traditional interstate military operations assume some degree of extraterritorial operation As Stigall points out innate in just war jus ad bellum is the expectation that one state may be conducting military activity against and within the borders of another state the laws of armed conflict presuppose extraterritoriality 5 Therefore i f the circumstances exist for the lawful use of force under jus ad bellum then so long as a state abides by the rules articulated in jus in bello the law of war that state s extraterritorial actions are considered lawful 5 Unwilling or unable edit Problems with the legitimacy of extraterritorial operations arise according to Stigall when one state is conducting military activity against non state actors in a state that is not party to the conflict 5 Although some commentators suggest that the use of force is permitted in some of these cases with Deeks commentary on the Unwilling or Unable Test mentioning sources that recommend that neutrality law permits a belligerent to use force on a neutral state s territory if the neutral state is unable or unwilling to prevent violations of its neutrality by another belligerent 6 Stigall reminds that such view is not universal and textual authority for such cross border attacks is limited 7 Humanitarian and human rights law edit For the Council of Europe key tenets of its human rights law jurisdiction are laid down in Article 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights ECHR with the convention employed to complement and reinforce the more specific scope of humanitarian law 8 a The application of this to extraterritorial operations has been noted by Ryngaert as mixed with Al Skeini and others v United Kingdom in 2011 attempting to square Bankovic v Belgium s sufficient control model of jurisdiction with the personal model of jurisdiction 9 10 and Al Jedda v United Kingdom tried to reconcile the ultimate control and authority standard with the effective operational control standard endorsed by the UN s International Law Commission 9 Ryngaert declares each of the two results to be an awkward hybrid theory 9 See also editExtraterritoriality Extraterritorial jurisdiction Interpol Transnational repressionNotes and references editNotes edit This should be enough to dispel the assumption that wherever human rights treaties such as the ECHR apply extra territorially in situations of armed conflict and occupation their effect could be curtailed by the more limited humanitarian law protection 8 Citations edit Stigall 2013 pp 16 17 S S Lotus Fr v Turk 1927 P C I J ser A No 10 45 Sept 7 quoted in Stigall 2013 p 16 Stigall 2013 p 18 Stigall 2013 pp 19 21 a b c Stigall 2013 p 31 Deeks 2012 p 499 Stigall 2013 p 31 32 a b Orakhelashvili 2012 p 2 a b c Ryngaert 2012 p 60 Holcroft Emmess 2013 References edit Deeks Ashley S 2012 Unwilling or Unable Toward a Normative Framework for Extraterritorial Self Defense PDF Virginia Journal of International Law 52 3 483 550 Archived from the original PDF on 2017 05 18 Retrieved 2015 10 19 Holcroft Emmess Natasha 24 June 2013 Extraterritorial Jurisdiction under the ECHR Smith and Others v MOD 2013 Oxford Human Rights Hub Retrieved 21 September 2015 Orakhelashvili Alexander 2012 Human Rights Protection During Extra Territorial Military Operations Perspectives at International and English Law In White N Henderson C eds Research Handbook on Conflict and Security Law Edward Elgar SSRN 2042635 Ryngaert Cedric 2012 Clarifying the Extraterritorial Application of the European Convention on Human Rights Al Skeini v the United Kingdom Merkourios 28 74 57 60 doi 10 5334 ujiel ba Stigall Dan E 3 February 2013 Ungoverned Spaces Transnational Crime and the Prohibition on Extraterritorial Enforcement Jurisdiction in International Law Notre Dame Journal of International amp Comparative Law SSRN 2211219 Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title Extraterritorial operation amp oldid 1211636986, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,
