RSI today briefed the Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR) on the extraterritorial application of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the Human Rights Act 1998.
In response to the JCHR's call for evidence, RSI's submission asserts the necessity of upholding the application of the HRA to the UK's conduct overseas. Our submission mirrors our submission to the Independent Review of the Human Rights Act, which warns of the negative consequences which would result from limiting the HRA's extraterritorial application.
RSI identifies three principal advantages of the extraterritorial application of the HRA:
- Ensuring that victims of human rights abuses can obtain justice, regardless of where the violation occurred.
- Highlighting and remedying systemic flaws in decision-making, for example through inquiries and judicial processes.
- Promoting the UK's international reputation in the human rights and military spaces.
Some critics have nonetheless raised concerns with the HRA's extraterritorial scope, with RSI disproves:
- The interference of human rights with the application of the rules of armed conflict (IHL) -- and therefore on military effectiveness -- is overstated, as: 1) both laws amply co-exist in many instances; and 2) both domestic and European courts have explicitly accommodated the exigencies of conflict in their assessments.
- The rhetorical assertion that the extraterritorial application of the HRA has led to a proliferation of claims by enemy combatants is exaggerated. In fact, in the military context, the HRA is typically used by injured veterans and civilian victims seeking to claim redress against the Ministry of Defence.
RSI submits further that the principal advantages on the HRA's extraterritorial scope outweigh the disadvantages.
RSI asserts, therefore, that the extraterritorial scope of the HRA should not be limited.
For further information, please see the below briefing.
