Abstract

ABSTRACT:

This article examines how states perceive their extraterritorial human rights obligations. Based on an analysis of recommendations made by states during the Universal Periodic Review, it suggests that the view that extraterritorial obligations form an integral part of a state's human rights obligations is fairly widespread. The article also shows that states perceive extraterritorial obligations as primarily negative. These obligations arise whether a state exercises control over territory or merely exercises factual control. The article concludes that the human rights doctrine is currently being reinterpreted and is becoming more closely aligned with its cosmopolitan roots.

pdf

Additional Information

ISSN
1085-794X
Print ISSN
0275-0392
Pages
pp. 521-546
Launched on MUSE
2018-07-20
Open Access
No
Back To Top

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Without cookies your experience may not be seamless.