Freeing Soering: the ECHR, state complicity in torture, and jurisdiction

Over the last 10 years, there have been numerous cases of ECHR-state party complicity in torture carried out by foreign states. Some of these cases have been entirely extraterritorial – that is, the victim was never within the territory of the complicit state. Applying the orthodox rules of attribut...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Jackson, M
Format: Journal article
Published: Oxford University Press 2016
_version_ 1797106436219600896
author Jackson, M
author_facet Jackson, M
author_sort Jackson, M
collection OXFORD
description Over the last 10 years, there have been numerous cases of ECHR-state party complicity in torture carried out by foreign states. Some of these cases have been entirely extraterritorial – that is, the victim was never within the territory of the complicit state. Applying the orthodox rules of attribution in international law and the current understanding of jurisdiction under Article 1 of the ECHR, these cases of extraterritorial complicity appear not to lead to the responsibility of the complicit state under the Convention. This is an unprincipled gap in the protections provided by the Convention. This article argues (i) that this unprincipled gap may be overcome by re-imagining the rule in Soering as a preventive complicity rule and extending it to other forms of complicity in torture and (ii) that such a re-imagination is supported by principles deeply embedded in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. For these reasons, an expansive interpretation of Article 1 of the ECHR to capture cases of state complicity in extraterritorial torture would be justified.
first_indexed 2024-03-07T07:02:25Z
format Journal article
id oxford-uuid:fff2174f-cf95-4fbf-a8de-a03a924795de
institution University of Oxford
last_indexed 2024-03-07T07:02:25Z
publishDate 2016
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format dspace
spelling oxford-uuid:fff2174f-cf95-4fbf-a8de-a03a924795de2022-03-27T13:48:53ZFreeing Soering: the ECHR, state complicity in torture, and jurisdictionJournal articlehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_dcae04bcuuid:fff2174f-cf95-4fbf-a8de-a03a924795deSymplectic Elements at OxfordOxford University Press2016Jackson, MOver the last 10 years, there have been numerous cases of ECHR-state party complicity in torture carried out by foreign states. Some of these cases have been entirely extraterritorial – that is, the victim was never within the territory of the complicit state. Applying the orthodox rules of attribution in international law and the current understanding of jurisdiction under Article 1 of the ECHR, these cases of extraterritorial complicity appear not to lead to the responsibility of the complicit state under the Convention. This is an unprincipled gap in the protections provided by the Convention. This article argues (i) that this unprincipled gap may be overcome by re-imagining the rule in Soering as a preventive complicity rule and extending it to other forms of complicity in torture and (ii) that such a re-imagination is supported by principles deeply embedded in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. For these reasons, an expansive interpretation of Article 1 of the ECHR to capture cases of state complicity in extraterritorial torture would be justified.
spellingShingle Jackson, M
Freeing Soering: the ECHR, state complicity in torture, and jurisdiction
title Freeing Soering: the ECHR, state complicity in torture, and jurisdiction
title_full Freeing Soering: the ECHR, state complicity in torture, and jurisdiction
title_fullStr Freeing Soering: the ECHR, state complicity in torture, and jurisdiction
title_full_unstemmed Freeing Soering: the ECHR, state complicity in torture, and jurisdiction
title_short Freeing Soering: the ECHR, state complicity in torture, and jurisdiction
title_sort freeing soering the echr state complicity in torture and jurisdiction
work_keys_str_mv AT jacksonm freeingsoeringtheechrstatecomplicityintortureandjurisdiction