The “Colonial Clause” and Extraterritorial Application of Human Rights: The European Convention on Human Rights Article 56 and its Relationship to Article 1

Source at: https://arcticreview.no/index.php/arctic/article/view/43 Article 56 of the European Convention on Human Rights is often referred to as the «colonial clause» and it has received little attention by commentators, whereas there has been extensive writing on Article 1of the Convention regardi...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Frostad, Magne
Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
Language:English
Published: Nordic Open Access Scholarly Publishing 2013
Subjects:
Online Access:https://hdl.handle.net/10037/25649
id ftunivtroemsoe:oai:munin.uit.no:10037/25649
record_format openpolar
spelling ftunivtroemsoe:oai:munin.uit.no:10037/25649 2023-05-15T13:45:59+02:00 The “Colonial Clause” and Extraterritorial Application of Human Rights: The European Convention on Human Rights Article 56 and its Relationship to Article 1 Frostad, Magne 2013-04-30 https://hdl.handle.net/10037/25649 eng eng Nordic Open Access Scholarly Publishing Arctic Review on Law and Politics https://arcticreview.no/index.php/arctic/article/view/43 Frostad M. The “Colonial Clause” and Extraterritorial Application of Human Rights: The European Convention on Human Rights Article 56 and its Relationship to Article 1. Arctic Review on Law and Politics. 2013(1):21-42 FRIDAID 946164 1891-6252 2387-4562 https://hdl.handle.net/10037/25649 openAccess Copyright 2013 The Author(s) Journal article Tidsskriftartikkel Peer reviewed publishedVersion 2013 ftunivtroemsoe 2022-06-29T22:58:55Z Source at: https://arcticreview.no/index.php/arctic/article/view/43 Article 56 of the European Convention on Human Rights is often referred to as the «colonial clause» and it has received little attention by commentators, whereas there has been extensive writing on Article 1of the Convention regarding the extraterritorial reach of that treaty. Article 56 has nevertheless the effect of limiting the responsibility of Member States for acts and omissions of the authorities of its dependent territories, although the Member State is still responsible if it acts directly through its own metropolitan officials in such territories. By employing an example of Norway, this paper finds it unnecessary for this country to undertake obligations pursuant to Article 56 in relation to its dependent territories in and around Antarctica, since there is currently little activity there which is not already covered by the extraterritorial regime of Article 1 of the Convention. The paper additionally considers the pros and cons of extending the Convention to territories under Article 56 should future developments lead to a larger and more permanent population of these areas. Article in Journal/Newspaper Antarc* Antarctica Arctic Arctic Arctic review on law and politics University of Tromsø: Munin Open Research Archive Arctic Norway
institution Open Polar
collection University of Tromsø: Munin Open Research Archive
op_collection_id ftunivtroemsoe
language English
description Source at: https://arcticreview.no/index.php/arctic/article/view/43 Article 56 of the European Convention on Human Rights is often referred to as the «colonial clause» and it has received little attention by commentators, whereas there has been extensive writing on Article 1of the Convention regarding the extraterritorial reach of that treaty. Article 56 has nevertheless the effect of limiting the responsibility of Member States for acts and omissions of the authorities of its dependent territories, although the Member State is still responsible if it acts directly through its own metropolitan officials in such territories. By employing an example of Norway, this paper finds it unnecessary for this country to undertake obligations pursuant to Article 56 in relation to its dependent territories in and around Antarctica, since there is currently little activity there which is not already covered by the extraterritorial regime of Article 1 of the Convention. The paper additionally considers the pros and cons of extending the Convention to territories under Article 56 should future developments lead to a larger and more permanent population of these areas.
format Article in Journal/Newspaper
author Frostad, Magne
spellingShingle Frostad, Magne
The “Colonial Clause” and Extraterritorial Application of Human Rights: The European Convention on Human Rights Article 56 and its Relationship to Article 1
author_facet Frostad, Magne
author_sort Frostad, Magne
title The “Colonial Clause” and Extraterritorial Application of Human Rights: The European Convention on Human Rights Article 56 and its Relationship to Article 1
title_short The “Colonial Clause” and Extraterritorial Application of Human Rights: The European Convention on Human Rights Article 56 and its Relationship to Article 1
title_full The “Colonial Clause” and Extraterritorial Application of Human Rights: The European Convention on Human Rights Article 56 and its Relationship to Article 1
title_fullStr The “Colonial Clause” and Extraterritorial Application of Human Rights: The European Convention on Human Rights Article 56 and its Relationship to Article 1
title_full_unstemmed The “Colonial Clause” and Extraterritorial Application of Human Rights: The European Convention on Human Rights Article 56 and its Relationship to Article 1
title_sort “colonial clause” and extraterritorial application of human rights: the european convention on human rights article 56 and its relationship to article 1
publisher Nordic Open Access Scholarly Publishing
publishDate 2013
url https://hdl.handle.net/10037/25649
geographic Arctic
Norway
geographic_facet Arctic
Norway
genre Antarc*
Antarctica
Arctic
Arctic
Arctic review on law and politics
genre_facet Antarc*
Antarctica
Arctic
Arctic
Arctic review on law and politics
op_relation Arctic Review on Law and Politics
https://arcticreview.no/index.php/arctic/article/view/43
Frostad M. The “Colonial Clause” and Extraterritorial Application of Human Rights: The European Convention on Human Rights Article 56 and its Relationship to Article 1. Arctic Review on Law and Politics. 2013(1):21-42
FRIDAID 946164
1891-6252
2387-4562
https://hdl.handle.net/10037/25649
op_rights openAccess
Copyright 2013 The Author(s)
_version_ 1766234680660590592