ABSTRACT

In international human rights law ‘jurisdiction’ is the centre of the debate on extraterritorial obligations. The purpose of the present paper is to a) analyse how facts and principles contribute to the explanation of jurisdiction in international human rights law and b) to show how this analysis could help sharpen the debate in this area by making the grounds of disagreement between different accounts explicit. It first describes international practice regarding jurisdiction and shows that it is committed to jurisdiction being a principle that responds to facts on the ground. Second, the paper describes two academic views on jurisdiction in detail. Next, it introduces the framework on facts and principles developed by Jerry Cohen. The idea is that facts only support principles if their relevance is explained by another principle that does not depend on facts. Finally, section 4 combines the framework with our insights into jurisdiction. If jurisdiction is best understood as a principle that responds to facts, this implies that jurisdiction cannot be explained by facts alone. It must instead reflect principles that are themselves not fact-dependent. Adhering to this framework allows for better explanation of jurisdiction and a clearer understanding of the different views on jurisdiction.

摘要

在国际人权法中，“管辖权”是域外义务辩论的中心。本文的目的是 a) 分析事实和原则如何有助于解释国际人权法中的管辖权，以及 b) 展示这种分析如何通过提出不同意见之间的分歧理由来帮助加强该领域的辩论帐目明确。它首先描述了有关管辖权的国际实践，并表明它致力于将管辖权作为一项回应当地事实的原则。其次，论文详细描述了两种学术上的管辖权观点。接下来，它介绍了 Jerry Cohen 开发的关于事实和原则的框架。这个想法是，如果事实的相关性由另一个不依赖于事实的原则来解释，事实只会支持原则。最后，第 4 节将框架与我们对管辖权的见解结合起来。如果将管辖权最好理解为对事实作出反应的原则，这意味着管辖权不能仅用事实来解释。相反，它必须反映本身不依赖于事实的原则。坚持这一框架可以更好地解释管辖权，更清楚地理解关于管辖权的不同观点。相反，它必须反映本身不依赖于事实的原则。坚持这一框架可以更好地解释管辖权，更清楚地理解关于管辖权的不同观点。相反，它必须反映本身不依赖于事实的原则。坚持这一框架可以更好地解释管辖权，更清楚地理解关于管辖权的不同观点。