Jurisdiction and International Responsibility in Peace Support Operations: The Behrami and Saramati Cases

Abstract

The joined cases of Behrami and Behrami v France and Saramati v France , Germany and Norway1 arose out of events relating to the international territorial administration of Kosovo. In Banković and Others v Belgium and Others2 and Markovic and Others v Italy , 3 the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) addressed complaints relating to NATO's use of armed force against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) in 1999. Behrami and Saramati was the first case to be decided by the ECtHR concerning the conduct of the Kosovo Force (KFOR) deployed by NATO following the end of its air campaign against the FRY. Just as Banković prompted the ECtHR to enter into a detailed discussion of the extra-territorial application of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), 4 so the case of Behrami and Saramati led the ECtHR to examine the question of whether it was competent to scrutinise under the ECHR the participation of ECHR States in the international civil and security presences in Kosovo. The ECtHR held that it was incompetent ratione personae to review the conduct of these international presences and therefore declared the case inadmissible. The decision is of considerable interest as it has significant consequences for the protection of human rights in peace support operations.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 89 citations exist upstream.