A groundbreaking legal analysis published in the *Journal of Constitutional Law* is challenging the European Court of Human Rights’ (ECtHR) approach to extraterritorial jurisdiction, with significant implications for human rights protections during armed conflicts. The article, titled “Concept of Extraterritorial Jurisdiction in the Prism of the Case Georgia V. Russia (II),” critiques the Court’s 2008 ruling in *Georgia v. Russia (II)*, arguing that the judgment failed to establish a coherent legal basis for excluding the active phase of the war from Russia’s jurisdiction under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
Authored by Eva Gotsiridze, a Professor at St. Andrews Georgian University and a Doctor of Law, the article contends that the ECtHR missed an opportunity to strengthen human rights protections by recognizing Russia’s extraterritorial jurisdiction during the August 2008 conflict. Gotsiridze argues that the Court could have applied either the “effective control over an area” or the “state agent authority and control over an individual” models to establish jurisdiction, or even expanded these concepts to create a new framework.
“The exclusion of the active phase of armed conflict from the scope of responsibility grants implicit permission for states to act beyond their borders in ways that would be prohibited under the Convention within their own territory,” Gotsiridze writes. This critique underscores the broader implications of the ECtHR’s ruling, suggesting that the Court’s narrow interpretation may inadvertently enable human rights violations during military operations abroad.
The article also emphasizes the role of causality in determining extraterritorial jurisdiction. Gotsiridze argues that a jurisdictional link should be recognized if there is a causal connection between a state’s actions and the alleged violation of individuals’ rights, provided that this connection was reasonably foreseeable. “The foreseeability of the causal link should give rise to a presumption of jurisdiction,” she writes, shifting the burden of proof to the respondent state.
This research could reshape future legal debates on state accountability in armed conflicts, particularly as military operations increasingly extend beyond national borders. By challenging the ECtHR’s narrow interpretation, Gotsiridze’s analysis opens the door for a more expansive understanding of extraterritorial jurisdiction, one that aligns with the evolving nature of modern warfare and the need for robust human rights protections.
As geopolitical tensions continue to rise, the legal framework governing state actions in conflict zones will be under increasing scrutiny. Gotsiridze’s work provides a timely and critical perspective, urging the international community to rethink how human rights obligations apply beyond a state’s territory. The article’s publication in the *Journal of Constitutional Law* (translated from Georgian as *Constitutional Law Journal*) ensures that this debate will reach a wide audience of legal scholars, policymakers, and human rights advocates.
The implications of this research extend beyond the courtroom, influencing military strategy, diplomatic negotiations, and the development of international law. As states navigate the complexities of modern warfare, the need for clear and consistent legal standards becomes ever more pressing. Gotsiridze’s analysis serves as a call to action, urging the ECtHR and other international bodies to adopt a more comprehensive approach to extraterritorial jurisdiction—one that prioritizes human rights and accountability in an increasingly interconnected world.