The Relationship between Jurisdiction and Attribution after Jaloud v. Netherlands

Rooney, Jane

doi:10.1007/s40802-015-0041-y

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Public international legal conceptions of 'jurisdiction', in contrast to the jurisprudential notion, concern the scope and applicability of the legal authority of the State (Besson 2017;Waldron 2017). It is through the exercise of this authority over individuals, whether territorially, personally or kinetically, that the State acquires responsibility to uphold and ensure the protections of specific obligations (Milanovic 2018;Besson 2017;Rooney 2015;Ryngaert 2015). Importantly, jurisdiction in this sense expresses authority as technical, thus missing how authority is performed through the language of norms located in institutions (Mussawir 2011, pp.…”

Section: Responsibility In Its Protein Charactermentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This continues to be the approach pursued by States attempting to limit their responsibility abroad. 15 However, with the growing number of international obligations that States are bound by, and the increasing overreach of State authority beyond sovereign borders; this traditional concept is dissolving (Milanovic 2018;Rooney 2015; den Heijer and Lawson 2012). 16 Jurisdiction for the enforcement and prescription of international rules is no longer limited to the State sovereign space, and by extension responsibility for upholding international law is also extending beyond State territory (Milanovic 2018;Wilde 2012).…”

Section: State Responsibilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Responsible Migrant, Reading the Global Compact on Migration

Oelgemöller

Allinson

2020

Law Critique

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 2016, the international community, in reaction to the growing number of 'tragedies' occurring as people attempted to move across borders, met to discuss large movements of refugees and migrants. The outcome of this meeting was an agreement to negotiate two Global Compacts, one on refugees and one on migrants, with the aim of facilitating 'orderly, safe, regular and responsible migration and mobility of people'. This article explores how responsibility in the Global Compact on Migrant is expressive of a changed way of 'doing' migration. The language of 'responsibility' raises questions about how the international community views international migration and, by extension, prepares the ground for policy and practice on international migration. Taking a genealogical, jurisprudential approach, we follow the logic which brings migration, development and human rights language together to construct a new subjectivity: that of the 'responsible' migrant. The migrant human will be a rights-bearer because they will contribute to development in particular gendered ways. We argue that assuming a narrow understanding of responsibility misses expressive dynamics in the normalizing of international migration within a new framing to inform international law making.

show abstract

Section: Responsibility In Its Protein Charactermentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: State Responsibilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

The Responsible Migrant, Reading the Global Compact on Migration

Oelgemöller

Allinson

2020

Law Critique

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Secession, International Responsibility and Human Rights

Álvarez

2022

Legal Implications of Territorial Secession in Spain

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Title to Territory and Jurisdiction in International Human Rights Law: Three Models for a Fraught Relationship

Raible¹

2018

Leiden Journal of International Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is by now uncontroversial that states may owe human rights obligations to individuals outside their territory. The debate about extraterritoriality has, so far, focused on the concept and interpretation of jurisdiction. The role of territory in general, and title in particular, in the conceptual landscape has received less attention in comparison. This article aims to fill this gap by showing that (a) title to territory continues to shape interpretations of jurisdiction, and (b) that this should be avoided. To this end, the article first defines jurisdiction in international human rights law and title to territory. Jurisdiction is best understood as a threshold criterion that triggers human rights obligations of states towards particular individuals. Title to territory, on the other hand, is a set of claims to territory designed to uphold minimal stability. The article then introduces three models – the approximation model, the differentiation model, and the separation model – of the relationship between title to territory and jurisdiction in international human rights law and evaluates them in light of their fit with the relational nature of human rights. The result is that the approximation and differentiation models – that is, those that maintain title's influence on the interpretation of jurisdiction in various degrees – fail the success criterion, while the separation model satisfies it.

show abstract

The Relationship between Jurisdiction and Attribution after Jaloud v. Netherlands

Cited by 3 publications

References 20 publications

The Responsible Migrant, Reading the Global Compact on Migration

The Responsible Migrant, Reading the Global Compact on Migration

Secession, International Responsibility and Human Rights

Title to Territory and Jurisdiction in International Human Rights Law: Three Models for a Fraught Relationship

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About