Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T09:29:57.005Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Al-Skeini v. United Kingdom

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Miša Zgonec-Rožej
Miša Zgonec-Rožej*
Affiliation:
Amnesty International, International Secretariat
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In Al-Skeini v. United Kingdom, decided on July 7, 2011, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg (the Court) found that the human rights obligations of the United Kingdom applied to its actions in Iraq and that the United Kingdom had violated Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Convention or ECHR) by failing to investigate the circumstances of the deaths of the relatives of five of the six applicants. The case deals with the extraterritorial application in Iraq of the Convention, which is part of UK domestic law by virtue of the Human Rights Act, 1998, and involves the concepts of jurisdiction, effective control, and the scope of the right to life.

Keywords

European Convention on Human Rightsextraterritorial applicationterritorial and personal jurisdictioneffective controlright to lifeoccupation of Iraq
Type
International Decisions
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 106 , Issue 1 , January 2012 , pp. 131 - 137
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International 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 v. United Kingdom, App. No. 55721/07 (Eur. Ct. H.R. July 7, 2011), 50 ILM 995 (2011). Judgments and decisions of the Court are available online at http://www.echt.coe.int/.

2 Nov. 4, 1950, ETS No. 5, 213 UNTS 222.

3 Human Rights Act, 1998, c. 42 (Eng.).

4 R (on the Application of Al-Skeini) v. Sec’y of State for Defence (Redress Trust Intervening), [2007] UKHL 26, [2007] All E.R. 106, para. 132 [hereinafter Lords Al-Skeini Judgment].

5 Banković v. Belgium, 2001-XII Eur. Ct. H.R. 333, para. 82; see also Alexandra Rüthe & Mirja Trilsch, Case Report: Belgium, Banković v. (Admissibility), in 97 AJIL 168 (2003)Google Scholar.

6 Lords Al-Skeini Judgment, paras. 83, 97, 132; see also Ralph Wilde, Case Report: R (on the Application of Al-Skeini) v. Sec’y of State for Defence (Redress Trust Intervening), in 102 AJIL 628 (2008).

7 SC Res. 1511, para. 13 (Oct. 16, 2003).

8 The Report of the Bath Mousa Inquiry (2011), available at http://www.bahamousainquiry.org/report/index.htm.

9 See, e.g., Loizidou v. Turkey, 1996-VI Eur. Ct. H.R. 2216.

10 See, e.g., Cyprus v. Turkey, App. Nos. 6780/74, 6950/75, 2 Eur. Comm’n H.R. Dec. & Rep. 125 (1975).

11 Banković v. Belgium, 2001-XII Eur. Ct. H.R. 333, para. 82.

12 Id., para. 61; see also para. 67.

13 Id., para. 71.

14 Id., para. 73.

15 Id., para. 75.

16 Id., para. 80.

17 Id. (footnote omitted).

18 Id.

19 Issa v. Turkey, App. No. 31821/96 (2004), 41 Eur. H.R. Rep. 27 (2005).

20 Id., para. 69.

21 Id., para. 71.

22 Id. (citation omitted).

23 Solomou v. Turkey, App. No. 36832/97 (Eur. Ct. H.R. June 24, 2008); Andreou v. Turkey, App. No. 45653/99 (Eur. Ct. H.R. June 3, 2008); Pad v. Turkey, App. No. 60167/00 (Eur. Ct. H.R. June 28,2007); Isaak v. Turkey, App. No. 44587/98 (Eur. Ct. H.R. Sept. 28, 2006).

24 Medvedyev v. France, App. No. 3394/03, 51 Eur. H.R. Rep. 39 (2010); Al-Saadoon v. United Kingdom, App. No. 61498/08, 49 Eur. H.R. Rep. SE11 (2009).

25 Lords Al-Skeini Judgment, supra note 4, para. 76.

26 Id., para. 127.

27 Banković v. Belgium, 2001-XII Eur. Ct. H.R. 333, paras. 70-71.

28 Lords Al-Skeini Judgment, para. 78.

29 The questions left open are analyzed in Marko Milanovic, Al-Skeini and Al-Jedda in Strasbourg, 23 Eur. J. Int’l L. (forthcoming 2012).