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

Authors

  • Magne Frostad

Abstract

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 devel- opments lead to a larger and more permanent population of these areas.

Keywords: European Convention on Human Rights, extraterritoriality, dependencies, South Atlantic, Antarctica

Citation: Arctic Review on Law and Politics, vol. 4, 1/2013 pp. 21–41. ISSN 1891-6252

Usage Statistics
Total downloads:
Download data is not yet available.

Full text

Published

2013-04-30

How to Cite

Frostad, M. (2013). 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, 4(1). Retrieved from https://arcticreview.no/index.php/arctic/article/view/43

Issue

Section

Original Articles

Keywords:

European Convention on Human Rights, extraterritoriality, dependencies, South Atlantic, Antarctica