Abstract
This article contends that in the upcoming Human Rights Committee proceedings, the U.S. should abandon the categorical argument that its human rights obligations do not apply extraterritorially in favor of a more nuanced approach that reflects the majority position reached by the range of human rights treaty bodies and courts as well as the legal framework applicable to our coalition partners and other allies. The U.S. failure to acknowledge limited, well-established, and principled exceptions to a strictly territorial application of its human rights obligations ultimately undermines the legitimacy of other, more efficacious, arguments at its disposal—such as its position on IHL as the lex specialis in situations of armed conflicts and well-developed justifications for its actions on the merits—as well as its commitment to the human rights system more broadly.
html
Accessibility Request
Some items in this repository were created or digitized prior to implementation of the accessibility standards under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and are preserved in their original, unmodified state for research, reference, or historical recordkeeping. In accordance with the ADA Title II Final Rule, the College provides accessible versions of archival materials upon request. To request a version of a file or resource, please submit an Accessible File Request Form.
