Extraterritorial jurisdiction

Abstract

States are on a trajectory to decouple extraterritorial migration control operations from extraterritorial accountability. They do so by artificially weakening the de facto and de jure jurisdictional links between the migrants and the conduct of the state. They push migration control farther away from their shores, notably by externalizing pushback/pullback and processing responsibilities to upstream migration states. International human rights supervisory bodies have stretched, almost to breaking point, the concept of jurisdiction to ensure accountability for human rights violations committed in the context of externalization practices. Courts, both national and international, have been somewhat more reluctant. Ultimately, however, rulings on states’ extraterritorial jurisdiction over migration do not shed much light on the appropriate division of institutional responsibilities towards migrants within the international community at large.