Kjetil Mujezinovic Larsen’s research while affiliated with University of Oslo and other places

This article examines the issue of when a State can be considered not to exercise jurisdiction under Article 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights in parts of its own territory. The starting point is that the notion of jurisdiction in the Convention is primarily territorial, and that a State is presumed to exercise jurisdiction throughout the entire territory. The presumption can be rebutted in exceptional circumstances. The author argues that this can happen only if the State is prevented from exercising authority and control in parts of the territory, and that the lack of authority and control must be caused by the influence of another State. Even if the State is considered to be in this position, the State retains a "reduced jurisdiction", and is under a positive obligation to take measures to protect the human rights of the population. The article examines the issue with particular reference to the Assanidze and Ilaşcu cases from the European Court of Human Rights, and illustrates the issue by reviewing briefly the current situation in four regions in the Caucasus.

The article addresses the issue of whether conduct in international peace operations is attributable to the troop contributing states or to the United Nations, taking the European Court of Human Rights admissibility decision in the Behrami and Saramati cases as a point of reference. The Court concluded that conduct by UNMIK and KFOR troops in Kosovo is attributable to the United Nations. The article examines the content of the ultimate authority and control test that is applied by the Court, and argues that the Court should have taken a different approach. The Court's test is in the author's view difficult to reconcile with the International Law Commission's work on the responsibility of international organizations, with United Nations practice on responsibility for unlawful conduct in peace operations, and with the Court's own jurisprudence concerning attribution of conduct to the state. The author argues further that the Court's arguments are incomplete even if the Court's approach were to be considered correct. The article concludes by expressing concern that the Court's decision, when seen in connection with previous case law, in practice renders the European Convention on Human Rights irrelevant in international peace operations.