ABSTRACT
Human rights bodies, and in particular, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), have been more willing to apply the theory of positive obligations in order to hold Member States responsible for human rights violations connected to acts committed by other States. Traditionally, a State’s jurisdiction, for purposes of its human rights obligations, was assumed to be limited primarily, if not exclusively, to its territory. As international human rights law has evolved, it is now accepted that a State’s jurisdiction for human rights purposes can extend to persons outside its territorial limits, whenever the State exercises ‘effective control’ over them, or over the territory in which they are located. Because the concept of jurisdiction as ‘effective control’ sets too high a threshold, it however risks failing in most cases of externalized controls where the State does not enjoy direct control, but only exercises some kind of influence.
