Filtern
Erscheinungsjahr
- 2023 (2) (entfernen)
Dokumenttyp
- Wissenschaftlicher Artikel (2) (entfernen)
Sprache
- Englisch (2) (entfernen)
Institut
- MenschenRechtsZentrum (2) (entfernen)
In the past decades, scholars and courts have paid considerable attention to the extraterritorial applicability of human rights treaties. By contrast, the extraterritorial application of constitutional rights has received comparable scholarly attention only in the United States. Specifically, there is a paucity of comparative research in this area, which contributes to the prevailing view that human rights law provides the proper framework under which domestic courts should examine extraterritoriality questions under constitutional law.
This article argues that domestic constitutional regimes and their judicial enforcers can and should provide an important counterweight to the deadlocked extraterritoriality debate at the international level. Using two case studies from Germany and the United States, it shows that domestic constitutional courts are sometimes better suited than treaty bodies to guard the normative values of human dignity and universality in an extraterritoriality context. This is most apparent in the case of Germany, which has a long tradition of integration into international multi-level governance systems and "bottom-up" resistance based on fundamental rights within such systems. Recent cases from the Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) about the extraterritorial application of the Basic Law (Grundgesetz) to foreign intelligence gathering and climate change support this theory. However, an independent constitutional approach can also achieve some normative effects in domestic systems that are more isolated from the international human rights system. Thus, the US Supreme Court likewise used domestic constitutional doctrine to sidestep the American government's strictly territorial interpretation of the ICCPR and employ a functional approach to the extraterritorial applicability of fundamental rights in the case of detention of suspected terrorists in the Guantánamo Bay naval base.
The study of these two examples does not purport to be comprehensive or even representative of the world’s diverse array of constitutions and their relationships with international human rights law. However, the independent power of constitutional frameworks in these two disparate cases should all the more provide an impetus for increased comparative research into constitutional extraterritoriality regimes and their value for the project of human rights.
Thus far, research into reservations to treaties has often overlooked reservations formulated to both European Social Charters (and its Protocols) and the relevant European Committee of Social Rights practices. There are several pressing reasons to further explore this gap in existing literature. First, an analysis of practices within the European Social Charters (and Protocols) will provide a fuller picture of the reservations and responses of treaty bodies. Second, in the context of previous landmark events it is worth noting the practices of another human rights treaty monitoring body that is often omitted from analyses. Third, the very fact that the formulation of reservations to treaties gives parties such far-reaching flexibility to shape their contractual obligations (à la carte) is surprising. An important outcome of the research is the finding that, despite the far-reaching flexibility present in the treaties analysed, both the States Parties and the European Committee of Social Rights generally treat them as conventional treaties to which the general rules on reservations apply. Consequently, there is no basis for assuming that the mere fact of adopting the à la carte system in a treaty with no reservation clause implies a formal prohibition of reservations or otherwise discourages their formulation.