The Extraterritorial Obligations of States for the Realization and Protection of the Right to Education


Thesis (M.A.), 2015

51 Pages, Grade: 73.0


Excerpt


ii
Table of Contents
I. Definition and Scope of the Right to Education ... 1
II. Exploring the Extraterritorial Obligations of States for the Right to Education ... 3
i. Obligations to respect the right to education extraterritorially ... 6
ii. Obligations to protect the right to education extraterritorially ... 8
iii. Obligations to fulfil the Right to Education Extraterritorially ... 10
III. ETOs and the concept of `jurisdiction' in IHRL ... 13
IV. Causality, division of responsibility and other challenges ... 18
V. ETOs for Education in Emergencies ... 19
i. International Disaster Response Law ... 23
ii. The Right to Education during Armed Conflict ... 24
a.
Special protection of education in IHL ... 24
b.
Education of interned children and young people ... 26
c.
Targeting ... 28
iii. The Right to Education during Occupation ... 30
VI. More Questions than Answers: Some Concluding Observations ... 33
BIBLIOGRAPHY ... v

iii
ACRONYMS
4As
Adaptability, Acceptability, Accessibility, Availability
API
Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and
relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts
(Additional Protocol I)
APII
Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and
Relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts
(Additional Protocol II)
CERD
Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discimination
CESCR
Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
CmRC
Committee on the Rights of the Child
CPR
Civil and Political Rights
CRC
Convention on the Rights of the Child
ECHR
European Convention on Human Rights
ECtHR
European Court of Human Rights
ESCR
Economic, social and cultural rights
ETOs
Extraterritorial
obligations
GCIV
Geneva Convention IV Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of
War
HRC
Human
Rights
Council
HRCm
Human Rights Committee
IAC
International armed conflict
IACtHR Inter-American
Court of Human Rights
ICCPR
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
ICESCR
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
ICJ
International Court of Justice
ICRC
International Committee of the Red Cross
ICRPD
International Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
IDRL
International disaster relief law
IFRC
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
IHL
International
Humanitarian Law
IHRL
International Human Rights Law
INEE
Inter-Agency Network for Education in Emergencies
MDGs
Millennium Development Goals

iv
MRT
Moldova Republic of Transdniestria Administration
NIAC
Non-international armed conflict
UDHR
Universal Declaration on Human Rights
UNGA
United Nations General Assembly
UNSC
United Nations Security Council
VCLT
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties

1
The concept of human rights conjures simultaneously visions of a utopian world free
from horrors, and images of the terrible suffering that can be endured by human beings. At
its core, it speaks of obligations that a State owes essentially to those on its territory.
However, increasingly we have seen violations occurring extraterritorially, as globalisation
transforms the relations of States and redistributes power and poverty. Recognizing that
States are thus mutually responsible for the realization of human rights seems like simply
the other side of that coin. The universal realization of the right to education in particular is
one of the most important rights, as it is through education that individuals escape poverty
and are able to fully participate in their communities.
According to the Maastricht Principles on Extraterritorial Obligations of States in the
Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights ­ a non-binding attempt by experts in
international law and human rights law to formulate the legal parameters of such
obligations ­ extraterritorial obligations (ETOs) can be defined as "(a) obligations relating
to the acts and omissions of a State, within or beyond its territory, that have effects on the
enjoyment of human rights outside of that State's territory; and, (b) obligations of a global
character that are set out in the Charter of the United Nations and human rights
instruments to take action, separately and jointly through international cooperation, to
realize human rights universally."
1
Fundamentally, these obligations are an expression of
what we already know: that all international actors should care about the universal
realization of human rights, including the right to education. Legally, however, such
obligations have a huge impact on the traditional framework of international human rights
law.
This dissertation attempts to delineate the framework within which the ETOs for the
realization of the right to education are actionable. It will first briefly explore the definition
and scope of the right to education, then attempt the same for the related ETOs. The
following section will explore the relationship between the concept of jurisdiction and
delimiting ETOs for human rights, education in particular. Following some brief comments
on challenges still unsolved in the field, the final section will explore how ETOs for the right
to education operate to ensure the right to education in emergencies, namely as relates to
the emerging field of International Disaster Relief Law (IDRL) and International
Humanitarian Law (IHL).
I. Definition and Scope of the Right to Education
The right to education is an empowerment right, which acts as a multiplier for the
enjoyment of other fundamental rights and freedoms and, consequently, forecloses this
1
The Maastricht Principles on Extraterritorial Obligations of States in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights (ETO Consortium, Heidelberg, January 2013), principle 8.

2
enjoyment when denied.
2
Likely in recognition of this character, the right to education is
included or referenced in numerous human rights instruments and is generally understood
as encompassing not only access, but further the elimination of discrimination in the
education system as well as setting minimum standards and improving quality.
3
While the
purpose of this dissertation is not to explore all of these provisions in detail, it is necessary
to briefly explore the content of education as human right before attempting to define ETOs
that may arise from it. This section will focus on the articulations of the right to education in
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and the
Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) as the right's two most detailed international
provisions.
Articles 13 and 14 of the ICESCR are considered the most exhaustive and inclusive
articles on the right to education and are often considered the elemental codification of the
right to education in international human rights law (IHRL). Under the ICESCR, a State
Party has the obligation to "take steps... to the maximum of its available resources" for
progressively achieving the full realization of the rights contained in the Covenant,
4
including the "right of everyone to education".
5
Incumbent in that right, the ICESCR
recognizes the right of everyone to free primary education - which shall be compulsory -
and the "progressive introduction of free education" for the secondary and higher levels.
6
The CRC also includes detailed provisions on education in articles 28 and 29, stating ­
among other obligations ­ that primary education must be free and different forms of
secondary education must be available to every child.
7
The concept of the right to education
is further broadened and strengthened through the obligation of States Parties to consider
the Convention's four core principles: non-discrimination; the best interests of the child; the
right to life, survival and development of the child to the maximum extent possible; the
right to express their views in all matters affecting them and for their views to be given due
weight in accordance with their age and maturity.
8
The general State obligations which arise from the right to education are further
delineated in light of the tripartite framework to respect, protect and fulfil economic, social
and cultural rights (ESCR). In terms of the right to education, the obligation to respect can
be defined as requiring States Parties to "avoid measures that hinder or prevent the
enjoyment of the right to education; the obligation to protect requires States Parties to take
measures that prevent third parties from interfering with the enjoyment of the right to
education; the obligation to fulfil (facilitate) requires States take positive measures that
2
CESCR, `General Comment 13: The right to Education' (1999) para 1.
3
UNESCO and UNICEF, `A Human Rights-Based Approach to Education for All' (2007) 7.
4
ICESCR (adopted 16 December 1966, entered into force 3 January 1976) 993 UNTS 3 art 2(1).
5
ibid art 13(1).
6
ibid art 13(2).
7
CRC (adopted 20 November 1989, entered into force 2 September 1990) 1577 UNTS 3 art 28.
8
CmRC, `General Comment 5: General measures of implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child'
(2003) para 12.

3
enable and assist individuals and communities to enjoy the right to education; and, States
Parties have an obligation to fulfil (provide) education."
9
Further, in its General Comment 3
on the nature of states parties' obligations ­ which as a General Comment of a treaty-
monitoring body constitutes a non-binding (yet authoritative) interpretation and definition of
the substantive provisions of the Convention ­ the Committee on Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights (CESCR) stated that States Parties have "a minimum core obligation to
ensure the satisfaction of, at the very least, minimum essential levels" of each of the rights
enunciated in the Covenant, including "the most basic forms of education".
10
Elements of
this core namely include the provision of free quality primary education for all on a non-
discriminatory basis in conformity with "minimum education standards".
11
Finally, with the purpose of clarifying the content of the right to education and the
corresponding State obligations, the CESCR and the former UN Special Rapporteur on the
Right to Education, Katarina Tomasevski, developed a framework (the `4As') wherein the
right to education includes four inter-related and essential features: availability (that there
is sufficient quantity of functioning educational institutions and programmes); accessibility
(that the system is non-discriminatory and accessible to all); acceptability (that the form
and substance of education is acceptable, relevant, culturally appropriate and of good
quality); and, adaptability (that education is flexible to the needs of changing societies and
communities and responds to the diverse social and cultural settings of students).
12
II. Exploring the Extraterritorial Obligations of States for the Right to
Education
While the framework above generally delimits State obligations for the right to
education in regards to its own territory, elements of the framework have been extended
extraterritorially to varying degrees. That being said, the area still lacks doctrinal clarity,
generally leaving the practical implications and the exact commitments of States open to
interpretation.
13
It should be noted, though, that none of these obligations should be
interpreted as allowing states to use the absence of international cooperation to justify the
failure to guarantee rights. Fulfilment rests primarily with the domestic state.
As it is relatively impossible to deny the globalized state of the world, it would be easy
enough to stage an ode to the moral responsibilities of States for the universal realization of
human rights. If we consider that States have recognized the "inherent dignity and [the]
9
See CESCR `General Comment 13' (no 2) para 47.
10
CESCR `General Comment No. 3: The nature of States Parties' obligations' (1990), para 10.
11
See CESCR `General Comment 13' (no 2) para 57; See ICESCR (no 4) art 13(3) and (4).
12
See CESCR `General Comment 13' (no 2) para 6; Katarina Tomasevski, Human Rights Obligations: Making
Education Available, Accessible, Acceptable and Adaptable (Novum Grafiska AB 2001) 13-15.
13
Malcolm Langford, Fons Coomans and Felipe Gómez Isa, `Extraterritorial Duties in International Law' in Malcolm
Langford and others (eds), Global justice, state duties: the extraterritorial scope of economic, social, and cultural
rights in international law (Cambridge University Press 2012), 57.

4
equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family" and have pledged
themselves to achieve "the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human
rights and fundamental freedoms",
14
it is not unreasonable to conclude that State
obligations towards individuals should transcend borders.
Indeed universality and human
dignity are certainly the foundational principles of human rights law. Yet, if we take a realist
attitude towards the relations of the international community, it is difficult to envision how
such a grandiose approach to ETOs could effectively hold States to account.
15
Indeed,
developed States often perceive international cooperation and assistance as an important
moral obligation, but not as a legal entitlement.
16
Still, the duty of states to cooperate is considered a "fundamental principle in...
international law",
17
and the specific duty to cooperate for the promotion of and respect for
human rights and fundamental freedoms is also well-established in international law.
18
The
Charter of the United Nations states that "all Members pledge themselves to take joint and
separate action" to promote "universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and
fundamental freedoms for all without distinction".
19
These provisions, "on their face at
least", impose positive legal duties and Member States are thus bound to cooperate for
those ends.
20
On top of this, the Universal Declaration on Human Rights (UDHR) - after recognizing
that "everyone, as a member of society... is entitled to realization, through national effort
and international cooperation..." of their ESCR
21
- declares that "everyone is entitled to a
social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in [the] Declaration
can be fully realized."
22
It has been argued that this statement constitutes a clear call for an
international order based on the shared responsibility and obligation of states for the
realization of such an order.
23
States have subsequently recognized that everyone is entitled
14
UDHR (adopted 10 December 1948) UNGA Res 217 A (III) Preamble.
15
Marko Milanovic, Extraterritorial Application of Human Rights Treaties: Law, Principles, and Policy (Oxford
University Press 2011) 56.
16
Open Ended Working Group on an Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights, Report of the Open-Ended Working Group to Consider Options Regarding the Elaboration of an
Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights on its Second Session, UN
Doc. E/CN.4/2005/52 (Third Session, 2005), para 76-77.
17
The Mox Plant Case (Ireland v. United Kingdom) (Request for Provisional Measures, Order of 3 December 2001)
ITLOS, para 82
18
Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in
accordance with the Charter of the United Nations (adopted 24 October 1970) A/Res/25/2625 art 1(3); Declaration
on the Right to Development (adopted 4 December 1986) A/Res/41/128 art 3.
19
Charter of the United Nations and Statute of the International Court of Justice (adopted 26 June 1945, entered
into force 24 October 1954) 1 UNTS XVI art 55, 56.
20
See Malcolm Langford, Fons Coomans and Felipe Gómez Isa (no 13) 54.
21
See UDHR (no 14) art 22.
22
See UDHR (no 14) art 28.
23
Fons Coomans, `Some Remarks on the Extraterritorial Application of the International Covenant on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights' in Fons Coomans and Menno T Kamminga (eds), Extraterritorial Application of Human
Rights Treaties (Intersentia Uitgevers N V 2004) 191.

5
to a rights enabling order in other IHRL documents,
24
apparently constituting a concession
that developing countries are often advantaged in the grand scheme of international
development and economic globalization. Overall, while the Charter, the UDHR and the
general framework of IHRL recognize the essential role of cooperation for human rights -
particularly for ESCR - they do not give those provisions specific meaning, leaving the
practical implications and the exact commitments of States open to interpretation.
25
It is on this note that it has been argued that the "ICESCR offers a wide extraterritorial
scope which has been largely under-utilised."
26
The central argument supporting ETOs for
States Parties to the ICESCR is the absence of a jurisdictional clause. Rather, article 2(1)
calls for States to "take steps, individually and through international assistance and
cooperation, especially economic and technical... [for] the full realization of the rights
recognized in the present Covenant..."
27
It is unclear whether this provision is enough to negate the principle of treaty law
which states that "unless a different intention appears from the treaty or is otherwise
established, a treaty is binding upon each party in respect of its entire territory."
28
While the
obvious intention of this provision is to prevent States from limiting the scope of a treaty to
certain parts of its territory, the concern has been raised that this could restrict the
application of the ICESCR extraterritorially. Thus, it must be indicated that this applicability
is `otherwise established'. Here we could once again turn to the principle of universality;
while not necessarily a workable framework for ETOs, as a concept it could be considered as
a presumption for extraterritoriality. Otherwise, international law indicates that recourse to
the preparatory work may be had as a supplementary means of interpretation.
29
Scholars
disagree in their interpretations of the travaux préparatoires, with authors such as Alston
and Quinn refuting that any obligations exists outside those to respect and protect, and
Coomans and Kamminga providing examples supporting such an interpretation.
30
Still, this
could be considered evidence of the extraterritorial application of the ICESCR.
Unlike the ICESCR, the CRC contains a jurisdiction clause; article 2 states that "States
Parties shall respect and ensure the rights set forth in the present Convention to each child
within their jurisdiction..." That being said, the Convention later goes on to state in article 4
24
Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action (adopted 12 July 1993) A/Conf.157/23, Preamble; Declaration on
the Establishment of a New International Economic Order (adopted 1 May 1994) A/Res/3201(S-VI).
25
Philip Alston and Gerard Quinn, `The Nature and Scope of States Parties' Obligations under the International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights' (1987) 9 Human Rights Quarterly 156, 188
26
Rolf Künnemann, `Extraterritorial Application of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights' in Fons Coomans and Menno T Kamminga (eds), Extraterritorial Application of Human Rights
Treaties(Intersentia Uitgevers N V 2004) 226
27
See ICESCR (no 4)
28
See Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (adopted 23 May 1969, entered into force 27 January 1980) 1155
UNTS, art 29.
29
ibid art 31.
30
See Philip Alston and Gerard Quinn (no 25) 191; See Fons Coomans and Menno T. Kamminga, `Comparative
Introductory Comments on Extraterritorial Application of Human Rights Treaties' in Fons Coomans and Menno T
Kamminga (eds), Extraterritorial Application of Human Rights Treaties (Intersentia Uitgevers N V 2004), 2.

6
that for those provisions on ESCR, "State Parties shall undertake such measures to the
maximum extent of their available resources and, where needed, within the framework of
international cooperation." Indeed, while the jurisdiction provision seems to limit the
extraterritorial scope, the Committee on the Rights of the Child (CmRC) has interpreted the
Convention to assert that "children's rights are a shared responsibility between the
developed and the developing countries. States Parties must respect and protect ESR of
children in all countries with no exceptions, and take all possible measures to fulfil these
rights - whenever they are in a position to do so through development cooperation"
(emphasis added).
31
Furthermore, the Covenant has been described as "the most comprehensive call in a
binding human rights instrument addressed to the States Parties to cooperate
internationally in education matters."
32
While the general obligation of ESCR cooperation
may be ambiguously established, article 28 develops the specific obligation to "promote and
encourage international cooperation in matters relating to education". Noting cooperation
particularly in the context of a specific provision and reference to the travaux préparatoires
of this article construe strong indications that States considered their specific undertakings
as regards the right to education in the CRC to be binding obligations.
33
It is important to note that while ETOs for the right to education are discussed here
in general terms, each treaty provides its own framework through which specific obligations
(and associated violations) should be examined.
i. Obligations to respect the right to education extraterritorially
The principle that one state has a duty not to cause harm in or on the territory of
another state has long been recognized in the field of environmental law,
34
and is
considered to have customary status.
35
There is good reason, therefore, to subscribe to the
conclusion that international obligations to respect in the field of ESCR are more readily
established that those to protect and fulfil, especially as a minimum the obligation not to
undertake activities that will result in substantial harm to the rights of other States and
their citizens.
36
31
CmRC, Day of General Discussion on `Resources for the Rights of the Child-Responsibility of States' (Forty-sixth
Session, 2007) para 51.
32
Verheyde M, Commentary on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 28: The Right to
Education (Commentary on the United Nations Convention on the Rights Of) (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2006),
65.
33
Wouter Vandenhole, `Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in the CRC: Is There a Legal Obligation to Cooperate
Internationally for Development?' (2009) 17 The International Journal of Children's Rights 23, 34.
34
Trail Smelter Arbitration (United States v. Canada), III United Nations Reports of International Arbitral Awards
1911, 1938 (1941) 1965; Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, 8 July 1996 (Advisory Opinion), ICJ
Reports 1996, para 29.
35
See Malcolm Langford, Fons Coomans and Felipe Gómez Isa (no 13) 68-69.
36
See Fons Coomans (no 23) 199.

7
According to the Maastricht Principles, the obligation to respect encompasses
refraining from direct and indirect interference of the enjoyment of ESCR extraterritorially,
violations encompassing "where a state aids, assists, directs, controls or coerces another
state or international organization in breaching its international obligations regarding
ESCR."
37
Generally, States have an obligation to avoid causing harm and must "desist from
acts and omissions that create a real risk of nullifying or impairing the enjoyment of ESCR
extraterritorially. The responsibility of States is engaged where such nullification or
impairment is a foreseeable result of their conduct" (emphases added).
38
Under this
interpretation, State responsibility could, for example, potentially be engaged if it decides to
withdraw aid without reasonable justification, when that decision will lead to a foreseeable
worsening in education.
39
As a further example, the CESCR has specifically addressed that "whatever the
circumstances, [sanctions] should always take full account of the provisions of the
ICESCR."
40
Thus, according to the CESCR, should the right to education be affected by the
imposition of sanctions ­ as was the case when, for example, certain African States imposed
economic sanctions on Burundi in 1996 in alleged response to the military coup
41
­ States
Parties must take these rights fully into account. When taking such action, effective
monitoring should be undertaken throughout the period that sanctions are in force as the
external entity has an obligation to `take steps, individually and through international
assistance and cooperation' in order to respond to any disproportionate suffering
experienced by vulnerable groups within the sanctioned country.
42
This is not to comment
upon the legality of economic sanctions, but merely to indicate that where it is foreseeable
that these sanctions may have severe adverse impacts on the enjoyment of the right to
education, States have the obligation to carefully consider their adoption and to attempt to
mitigate their consequences.
A branch of this obligation could also relate to States' obligations to "take all
reasonable steps to ensure" that international organizations to which it transfers its
competencies or whose policy it influences acts consistently with its human rights
obligations.
43
The CESCR has stated that State Parties "should take steps" to ensure that
international agreements which it negotiates and ratifies do not adversely impact upon the
right to education, and further have "an obligation to ensure that their actions as members
37
Olivier De Schutter and others, `Commentary to the Maastricht Principles on Extraterritorial Obligations of States
in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights' (2012) 34 Human Rights Quarterly 1084, 1129.
38
See Maastricht Principles (no 1), principle 19.
39
See Fons Coomans (no 23) 187.
40
CESCR `General Comment 8: The relationship between economic sanctions and respect for economic, social and
cultural rights' (1997) E/C.12/1997/8 para 1.
41
Marc Bossuyt, `The Adverse Consequences of Economic Sanctions'' (Economic and Social Council, 2000)
E/CN.4/Sub.2/2000/33 para 75, 77.
42
See CESCR `General Comment 8' (no 40) para 11-14.
43
See Maastricht Principles (no 1), principle 15.

8
of international organizations" do not have similar consequences.
44
For instance, conditions
attached to loans and debt repayment in many economically suffering European countries
and corresponding austerity measures have resulted in wide-spread socioeconomic malaise,
including as regards the right to education; Spain cut its education budget by 21.4%
between 2011 and 2012, negatively affecting the quality, accessibility and affordability of
education.
45
Overall, it is increasingly accepted that States must always be guided by the
human rights obligations it has entered into.
46
ii. Obligations to protect the right to education extraterritorially
States can also be said to have positive obligations to regulate the actions and
protect against the risk of interference by third parties they are "able to influence".
47
This
obligation can be interpreted as one of "due diligence";
48
a State must do all that can
reasonably be expected to do to prevent the violation but also to respond to it as required.
This obligation would thus extend to acts by "authorised agents of a State", who
"remain under [State] jurisdiction when abroad".
49
Responding to such violations as
required includes a duty to investigate and ­ where necessary ­ to punish violations.
50
An
example of this could be a situation where the armed forces of a State, acting on the
territory of another State, cause damage to schools and/or the deaths of students and
academic staff. This will be explored further below.
In a 2006 study, Hausmann and Künnemann established that Germany was
complicity in violations of the right to education in India since Bayer - a German based
multinational chemical and pharmaceutical company ­ contracted child labour practices in
India.
51
Germany's ETO would arise here as a result of its competence to act; it is not
unfeasible that Germany is `able to influence' Bayer "by legal or other means".
52
According
to the CmRC, State obligations arise when there is a "reasonable link" between a business'
extraterritorial activities and operations and the State, such as "when a business enterprise
has its centre of activity, is registered or domiciled or has its main place of business or
substantial business activities in the State concerned."
53
44
See CESCR `General Comment 13' (no 2) para 56.
45
Council of Europe, `Safeguarding human rights in times of economic crisis' (Council of Europe Commissioner for
Human Rights, 2013) 20.
46
Maarten Den-Heijer and Rick Lawson, `Extraterritorial Human Rights and the Concept of "Jurisdiction"' in Malcolm
Langford and others (eds), Global justice, state duties: the extraterritorial scope of economic, social, and cultural
rights in international law (Cambridge University Press 2012) 182, 187.
47
CESCR, `General Comment 14: The right to the highest attainable standard of health (2000) E/C.12/2000/4,
para 39; see Olivier De Schutter and others (no 47) 1133-1134.
48
Vélásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, (IACtHR, 29 July 1988) Series C No. 4, 172.
49
Cyprus v. Turkey , App. No. 6780/74 & No. 6950/75 (ECHR, 26 May 1975), 136 para 8.
50
See Vélásquez Rodríguez (no 48), 166.
51
Ute Hausmann and Rolf Künnemann, `Germany's extraterritorial human rights obligations: Introduction and six
case studies' (Brot für die Welt, FIAN and Evangelischer Entwicklungsdienst e.V., 2006) 28
52
See CESCR `General Comment 14' (no 47).
53
CmRC, `General Comment 16: On State obligations regarding the impact of business on children's rights' (2013)
CRC/C/GC/16 para 43.

9
Indeed, the particular issue of child labour may be worth dwelling on a bit further. It
has been established that addressing child labour should include "special attention" to
adequate education facilities and ensuring attendance at school.
54
Further, the CRC article
calling for measures to protect children from `economic exploitation' notably calls for
"legislative, administrative social and educational measures".
55
Thus, to the degree that
States have committed themselves to the abolition of child labour,
56
and through obligations
of cooperation for the CRC, there is a clear obligation to ­ at the very least ­ take positive
measures to prevent third parties from engaging in that practice and, potentially, to assist
in using education as preventative tool.
Recently, the CmRC appeared to recognize the extraterritorial obligations of the Holy
See to protect and ensure the rights of children to quality education but the Pope and the
Holy See have long been held to account for the abuse of children in Catholic schools in the
court of public opinion. A report by Ireland's Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse found
that thousands of boys and girls were neglected and physically, emotionally and sexually
abused over decades in Irish Catholic schools
57
was met with calls for the Vatican to
investigate,
58
despite the abuses having occurred in Ireland.
In its observations, the Committee notes that "subordinates in Catholic religious
orders are bound by obedience to the Pope" and therefore, when it ratified the Convention
"it made a commitment to implement it not only within the territory of the Vatican City
State, but also as the supreme power of the Catholic Church, worldwide through individuals
and institutions under its authority".
59
The Committee further interpreted a number of
extraterritorial obligations for the Holy See, including as regard the teaching of the
Convention, eliminating gender stereotypes from textbooks and enacting guidelines and
rules against corporal punishment in schools.
60
Thus, the Committee established that the
Holy See has positive obligations to monitor respect for, protect and ensure the rights of
children to quality and safe education beyond the boundaries of Vatican City. That being
said, it could potentially be argued that the Committee sees this kind of extraterritorial
scope as exceptional, resulting from the "dual nature" of the Holy See's obligations, as both
the Government of Vatican City State and as a "sovereign subject of international law
having an original, non-derived legal personality independent of any territorial authority or
54
ILO Recommendation R146: Minimum Age Recommendation (Recommendation concerning Minimum Age for
Admission to Employment) (58
th
Conference Session Geneva 26 June 1973), art 2(d); Worst Forms of Child Labour
Convention (C182) (Convention concerning the Prohibition and Immediate Action for the Elimination of the Worst
Forms of Child Labour) (87
th
Conference Session adopted 17 June 19999, entered into force 19 November 2000),
art 7.
55
See CRC (no 7), art 32(2).
56
See Worst forms of Child Labour Convention (no 54); ibid; see ICESCR (no 4), art 10(3); Minimum Age
Convention (C138) (Convention concerning Minimum Age for Admission to Employment (58
th
Conference Session
adopted 26 June 1973, entered into for 19 June 1976).
57
The Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse, `Final Report of the Commission: Executive Summary' (2009)
58
Henry McDonald,''Endemic' rape and abuse of Irish children in Catholic care, inquiry finds' The Guardian
(Ireland, 20 May 2009)
59
CmRC, `Concluding observations on the second periodic report of the Holy See (2014) CRC/C/VAT/CO/2 para 8.
60
ibid para 28, 39.

10
jurisdiction."
61
Further, it is unclear what impact this case could have on the substance of
the law, as it has been noted that the Committee neither employs the jurisdiction language
of article 2(1) of the CRC nor makes it clear the ETO framework it is employing in its
analysis.
62
Still, such an analysis by the Committee illustrates the way which a State can
extraterritorially influence the right to education extraterritorially.
iii. Obligations to fulfil the Right to Education Extraterritorially
Probably the most contested aspect of ETOs is the obligation of States to fulfil ESCR
beyond their borders. It has been argued that since in most treaties with ESCR provisions
cooperation obligations are expressed in a singular and unified form, each treaty frames
international cooperation as part of the duty to (progressively) realize the human rights
obligations to which a State has committed.
63
These obligations of cooperation are
particularly incumbent upon States which are "in a position to assist others in this regard"
64
- a statement obviously directed towards donor States, but which could also include
burgeoning `South-South' cooperation, regional and neighbouring States as well as those
with historical ties.
In recent years, cooperation has tended to be interpreted as synonymous with both
development assistance and the broader concept of working together.
65
Therefore,
obligations of cooperation could take many forms, from technical, financial or in some cases
even diplomatic pressure. That being said, the focus of the debate for ETOs to fulfil tends to
centre on the provision of development assistance. Many developed States deny (quite
unsurprisingly) that there exists a binding obligation at a bilateral level to provide such
forms of assistance.
66
Indeed, it would difficult to make a case that ­ for example ­ Japan
must provide development assistance to Niger for the fulfilment of education. This is
especially true given the fact that assistance is not always delivered through bilateral
channels nor is it always an effective channel of human rights realization. On the other
hand, it could be argued that States who are reasonably found to be in a position to do so
have a "subsidiary obligation"
67
for the universal fulfilment of the right to education.
It has been established that in the context of the ICESCR the obligation to realize
ESCR `to the maximum available resources' was intended to refer to both the resources
existing within a State and those available from the international community through
61
ibid para 8.
62
Marko Milanovic, `CRC Concluding Observations on the Holy See' (EJIL: Talk!, 5 February 2014)
<http://www.ejiltalk.org/crc-concluding-observations-on-the-holy-see/>.
63
See Malcolm Langford, Fons Coomans and Felipe Gómez Isa (no 13) 63.
64
See CESCR, `General Comment 3: The nature of States parties' obligations' (2003) E/1991/23, para 14.
65
See Rolf Künnemann (no 26) 212.
66
See Malcolm Langford, Fons Coomans and Felipe Gómez Isa (no 13) 73.
67
Wouter Vandenhole and Wolfgang Benedek, `Extraterritorial Human Rights Obligations and the North-South
Divide' in Malcolm Langford and others (eds), Global justice, state duties: the extraterritorial scope of economic,
social, and cultural rights in international law (Cambridge University Press 2012) 361

11
international cooperation and assistance".
68
In that vein, an oft repeated political
commitment of the international community is the pledge to devote 0.7% of GDP to
development assistance
69
­ a commitment few States have lived up to. The CESCR has
`urged' States to meet this target,
70
as well as has made reference to a State's performance
on development assistance levels in its concluding observations.
71
While this commitment
has never been made in the substance of a legally binding instrument, Vandenhole argues
that this political commitment is "gradually evolving into a legal obligation at least not to
reduce the level of spending on development cooperation, and to take all possible steps with
the maximum use of available resources to reach and maintain the 0.7% target as soon as
possible..."
72
The primary role and sovereignty of the developing State should however be
recalled, as development assistance should be subject to the ownership of the developing
country and aligned with national development plans.
73
Of course, the scope of these obligations lack precision so as to be potentially
limitless ­ an especially unattractive prospect for many developed States. In response, it
has been argued that ETOs to fulfil may be triggered if a State is failing to meet it minimum
core obligations.
74
In the context of the right to education, the minimum core includes to
`work out and adopt' a detailed plan of action for primary education
75
­ an apparently
independent task. Yet, the CESCR has noted that where a State Party is clearly lacking the
financial resources and/or expertise required to realize this provision, the international
community has a clear obligation to assist.
76
Consider further that non-discrimination is a minimum core benchmark in the right
to education. Girls feature disproportionately in the children of primary school age who are
out of school,
77
and targeted interventions to reach the most marginalised ­ those with
disabilities, ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities, etc. ­ are essential to fulfilling education
obligations. This has been recognized by international instruments aiming to protect the
right to education of specific groups, a number of which contain specific provisions on
68
CESCR, `General Comment 3: The nature of States parties' obligations' (2003) E/1991/23 para 13.
69
UN, `Monterrey Consensus on Financing for Development' (International Conference on Financing for
Development, Monterrey, 2002) A/CONF.198/11 para 42.
70
See CmRC, `General Comment 5' (no 8) para 61.
71
CESCR, `Concluding Observations of the CESCR: Ireland' (2002) E/C.12/1/Add.77 para 37-38.
72
Wouter Vandenhole, `EU and Development: Extraterritorial Obligations under the ICESCR' in M. Salomon, A.
Tostensen and W. Vandenhole (eds.), Casting the Net Wider: Human Rights, Development and New Duty Bearers
(Antwerp-Oxford: Intersentia, 2007) 101 quoted in Malcolm Langford, Fons Coomans and Felipe Gómez Isa (no 13)
111.
73
`The Paris Declaration for Aid Effectiveness and the Accra Agenda for Action' (OECD, 2005/2008) <
http://www.oecd.org/dac/effectiveness/34428351.pdf> accessed 6 July 2015.
74
Fons Coomans, `Some Remarks on the Extraterritorial Application of the International Covenant on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights' in Fons Coomans and Menno T Kamminga (eds), Extraterritorial Application of Human
Rights Treaties (Intersentia Uitgevers N V 2004) 198; See Wouter Vandenhole and Wolfgang Benedek (no 67) 361.
75
See ICESCR (no 4) art 14; See CESCR `General Comment 13' (no 2), para 57.
76
CESCR, `General Comment 11: Plans of Action for Primary Education' (1999) E/1992/23 para 9.
77
UNESCO, `A growing number of children and adolescents are out of school as aid fails to meet the mark' (Policy
Paper 22/Fact Sheet 31, 2015).

12
international cooperation and/or are absent a jurisdiction clause.
78
Indeed, it is worth
recalling that non-discrimination should be recalled throughout the human rights protection
frameworks, and the especial needs of disadvantaged groups should be emphasised.
The repeated commitment to the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) seem to
reflect this approach,
79
potentially contributing a skeletal framework for the exercise of
ETOs to fulfil the right to education. Partially reinforcing this is the fact that the Education
for All goals and the Education First Initiative ­ which go above what could be described as
the core of the right to education - have received much less attention. In contrast, Goal 2 of
the MDGs aims to "ensure that, by 2015, children everywhere, boys and girls alike, will be
able to complete a full course of primary schooling",
80
seeming to reflect the minimum core
of the ICESCR and CRC education provisions. Indeed, while the MDGs are not drafted in
`rights language', they nevertheless have a human rights dimension,
81
including - it has
been argued - as an iteration of the "global safety net" representing minimum core levels of
their responding rights.
82
It does not seem unreasonable to assume that States meant what they said when
they made their MDG commitments. It has even been argued ­ although is in no way
established ­ that through these repeated pledges States have undertaken of obligation
which should have some legal consequences.
83
It has been further suggested that Goal 8 to
develop a global partnership for development ­ which includes indicators on development
assistance ­ should be read within the framework of the obligations of international
assistance and cooperation assumed by States Parties to the ICESCR.
84
So while it would be
difficult to bind States to human rights obligations through the MDGs, they represent a
commitment to, and perhaps a framework for, the realization of ETOs. But with those goals
set to go expire, and the ambition of the proposed Sustainable Development Goal on
78
See for example: Convention Against Discrimination in Education (adopted 14 December 1960); International
Convention on the Protection of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families (adopted 18 December 1990)
UNGA Res 45/158, art 30; Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (adopted
18 December 1969) 1249 UNTS 13, art 10; Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (adopted 2 October
2007) UNGA Res 61/295, art 14; Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (adopted 24 January 2007)
UNGA Res 61/106, arts 4(2), 24, 32.
79
See for example: UNGA, `United Nations Millennium Declaration' (adopted 18 September 2000) A/RES/55/2; UN,
`Report of the World Summit on Sustainable Development' (Johannesburg, 26 August - 4 September 2002)
A/CONF.199/20; UN, `Follow-up International Conference on Financing for Development to Review the
Implementation of the Monterrey Consensus' (Doha, 9 December 2008) A/CONF.212/L/Rev,1; UNGA, `High-level
Meeting of the General Assembly on the realization of the MDGs and other internationally agreed development
goals for persons with disabilities' (27 February 2012) A/Res/66/124.
80
UN, `Goal 2: Achieve Universal Primary Education' (Millennium Development Goals and Beyond 2015) <
http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/education.shtml>
81
Sigrun Skogly, Beyond National Borders: States' Human Rights Obligations in International Cooperation
(Intersentia Uitgevers N V 2006) 143.
82
Jean-Michel Severino, `MDGs: looking beyond 2015' (Ideas for Development, 3 October 2007).
83
Philip Alston, `A Human Rights Perspective on the Millennium Development Goals' (UN Millennium Project 2004).
84
Magdalena Sepúlda Carmona, `The obligations of `international assistance and cooperation' under the ICESCR. A
possible entry point to a human rights based approach to MDG 8' (2009) 13(1) IJHR 86.

13
education aiming beyond the core of the right,
85
the relevance of such an interpretation is
called into question.
III. ETOs and the concept of `jurisdiction' in IHRL
It has become clear that in today's globalized world, States and other actors exert
considerable influence over the realization or the failure to realize ESCR in other States.
Courts have generally reduced extraterritorial obligations for human rights to questions of
jurisdiction. There is no single definition of jurisdiction of international law,
86
but in its
essence jurisdiction represents "the right of States to regulate conduct, international law
setting the limits to this right and domestic laws prescribing the extent to which States
make use of this right."
87
It can also be used more generally to refer to power, authority, or
control.
88
Any limit of human rights protections along jurisdictional lines should not presume
that States act only within defined legal bounds; unlawful exercises of `jurisdiction' are
certainly not uncommon. ETOs arise not as a result of legitimacy of exercise, but of the
relationship between the individual and the State in relation to the violation.
89
With some notable exceptions, drafters of human rights treaties have often delimited
human rights protections along `jurisdictional' lines. As we have seen, the scope of the CRC
is limited to "each child within [the] jurisdiction" of a State Party, excepting those
obligations of international cooperation in article 4.
90
In the realm of civil and political rights
(CPR), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) is limited "to all
individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction",
91
although this provision has
repeatedly been interpreted disjunctively.
92
The Courts and human rights treaty bodies suggest a two-fold approach to situations
of establishing foreign State `jurisdiction'. The first type ­ where a State exercises control
over foreign territory as a result of occupation or otherwise ­ leads to the establishment of
prima facie `jurisdiction' over all individuals within that territory.
93
Perhaps less widely
accepted, jurisdiction resulting from control over a person as a consequence of link between
the individual and the State has also been established. Generally, human rights bodies seem
to be quite willing to apply the doctrine of positive and negative obligations extraterritorially
provided the State has the `power' or capability to positively influence a person's human
85
See Goal 4: Ensure inclusive and quality education for all and promote lifelong learning at: UN, `Sustainable
Development Goals' (2015) <http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/>.
86
See Milanovic (no 15), 39.
87
See Maarten Den-Heijer and Rick Lawson (no 46) 155.
88
See Milanovic (no 15), 39.
89
Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa)
[Advisory Opinion] (ICJ Reports, 1971), para 118.
90
See CRC (no 7) article 2(1).
91
ICCPR (adopted 16 December 1996, entered into force 23 March 1976) 999 UNTS 171, article 2(1).
92
HRCm, `General Comment 31: Nature of the General Legal Obligations on States Parties to the Covenant' (2004)
CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.13, para 10.
93
Ilascu and others v. Moldova and Russia [GC], App. No. 48787/99 (ECtHR, 9 July 2004), para 311-319.

14
rights situation.
94
However, this has been curbed by stipulations of exceptionality and
practicality.
In situations where a State has established control over territory ­ whether by
peaceful or aggressive means and whether in whole or in part ­ it would seem logical to
extend human rights obligations therein, at the very least in terms of obligations to respect
and protect. This is for two main reasons: (i) that the controlling State could have a notable
impact on the rights of those residing there by nature of its control, and (ii) as otherwise
the persons on that territory may otherwise be in a rights vacuum, rendered void of any
effective protection. The clearest demonstration of this would be in cases of occupation -
explored further in the subsequent section.
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has extended the scope of the European
Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) ­ which is limited to "everyone within [the State's]
jurisdiction"
95
­ to exercises of effective control of an area. This fact (as opposed to the
right to exercise that control) enlivens the obligation "to secure, in such an area, the rights
and freedoms set out in the Convention" regardless of whether such control is exercised
"directly, through its armed forces, or through a subordinate local administration".
96
In the
most general terms, to have `effective control' means that the State has "enough power in
the territory and its inhabitants to broadly do as it pleases".
97
In the much discussed Bankovi and others v. Belgium, the ECtHR forcefully rejected
an approach under which "anyone adversely affected by any act imputable to a Contracting
State" is under the jurisdiction of a State.
98
Instead, the Court adopted a strict spatial,
territorial model of jurisdiction, noting that such jurisdiction is "exceptional".
99
The Court
also appeared to raise the bar for establishing territorial jurisdiction to almost solely
situations of occupation, requiring that the controlling State "exercise all or some of the
public powers normally to be exercised by [the national] government".
100
Thus establishing
a relationship between the individual and the State to meet the Bankovi definition of
`jurisdictional link'
would appear to require that the exercise of State authority be of certain
duration or has overall repercussions for the person concerned.
101
The ECtHR would later
backtrack from this stringent interpretation of the territorial control requirement.
102
In Issa
v. Turkey the Court allowed for the possibility that jurisdiction could be exercised over a
94
See Olivier De Schutter and others (no 47), 106-1109.
95
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human
Rights, as amended) (entered into force 3 September 1953) art 1.
96
Loizidou v. Turkey, App. No. 15318/89 (ECtHR, 23 February 1995), para 62.
97
See Milanovic (no 15), 137.
98
Bankovic and Others v. Belgium and Others [GC] App. No. 52207/99 (ECtHR, 12 December 2001), para 75.
99
ibid, paras 61, 71.
100
ibid, para 71.
101
See Maarten Den-Heijer and Rick Lawson (n 46) 177
102
See Milanovic (no 15), 137; See Ilacu and others v. Moldova and Russia, (no 93).

15
limited area, for a short period of time, on condition of less permanence and without any
exercise of public power.
103
In Catan and Others v. Moldova and Russia, the ECtHR specifically addressed the ETOs
of States party to the ECHR in relation to education. The case concerned violations of the
right to education in the Transdniestrian region of the Republic of Moldova, which was under
the de facto control of Russian Federation-backed separatists - the Moldovan Republic of
Transdniestria (MRT) administration. The forced closure of schools and acts of harassment
and intimidation of ethnic Moldovans were conducted by the MRT authorities following the
introduction of a law whereby schools in the region could only operate in and teach the
Moldovan language as written in the Cyrillic alphabet, rather than the much more commonly
used Latin one. This effectively prescribed that Moldavian-speaking children received an
education that provided children with full functional literacy in no recognized language at all.
The ECtHR emphasised that the same relevant period was already considered in
Ilacu and Others v. Moldova and Russia, where the Court found that the MRT survived by
virtue of the military, economic and financial and political support of the Russian Federation
and thus that it "remains under the effective authority, or at the very least under the
decisive influence, of the Russian Federation".
104
Thus, while the Court clearly applied the
spacial model of jurisdiction, it apparently lowered the threshold of the needed control to
one of `decisive influence'.
105
Such a threshold could have an interesting interpretation for
the right to education more broadly, since it is not difficult to imagine a political relationship
between States which could be characterized as one of `decisive influence'. Consider, for
example, the policy impacts of conditionalities previously imposed on development
assistance.
It is unclear from the Court's judgement what exactly are the obligations of Russia in
relation to education. The actions of the MRT are obviously contrary to the negative
formulation of the right to education in the Protocol to the ECHR ­ that "no person shall be
denied the right to education"
106
­ as it has clear and tangible effects on the `4As' of the
education of ethnic Moldovan schoolchildren.
107
Still, the Court has held that "it cannot be
concluded that the State has no positive obligation to ensure respect for such a right"
(emphasis added).
108
As in Ilacu, the Court did not clarify the concrete human rights
obligations of Russia in relation to the controlled territory of Transdniestria. Could the
Russian Federation have an obligation to finance education in the region if required, for
103
Issa and others v. Turkey, Ap. no. 31821/96 (ECtHR, 16 November 2004), para 69-71.
104
See Ilacu (no 93), para 392.
105
Marko Milanovic, `Grand Chamber Judgement in Catan and Others' (EJIL: Talk!, 21 October 2012).
106
Protocol to the ECHR for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (as amended by Protocol
No 11)(entered into force 1 November 1998)
20.III.1952, art 2
.
107
Diana Elena Balanescu, `Safeguarding Education Beyond Borders' (2014) 8 (4) Vienna Journal on International
Constitutional Law 34.
108
Case "Relating to Certain Aspects of the Laws on the Use of Languages in Education in Belgium" v. Belgium
(Merits)(Belgian linguistic case), Ap. No. 1474/62, 1677/62; 1691/62; 1769/63, 1994/63, 2126/64 (ECtHR, 23 July
1968).

16
example? It is unclear, although in this case it was noted that the Moldovan Government
provided financial resources in order for the schools to continue to function as part of its
positive obligation to fulfil education on its sovereign territory.
In this vein, the ECtHR has
only said that the "the controlling State has the responsibility ... to secure, within the area
under its control, the entire range of substantive rights".
109
Jurisdiction has also been conceived as embodying any exercise of State authority
which causes `incidental' effects in a foreign territory, including acts by authorized State
agents. On reflection, this test constitutes a very low threshold, rather encompassing an
approach where States must always act in conformity with their human rights obligations,
irrespective of territorial constraints.
110
This form of authority establishes jurisdiction in
based on an existing relationship between the individual and the State. What is decisive is
that there is a "causal nexus between the extraterritorial conduct of the State and the
alleged violation of the rights and freedoms of an individual".
111
This approach was earnestly
rejected by the ECtHR in Bankovi as it would render would render the words `within their
jurisdiction' "superfluous and devoid of any purpose".
112
It would appear from some recent
decisions, however, that the Court is slowly distancing itself from that interpretation in
favour of a more generous understanding of `jurisdiction'. Indeed, the Court has adopted
the formula that jurisdiction clauses "cannot be interpreted so as to allow a State party to
perpetrate violations of the Convention on the territory of another State, which it could not
perpetrate on its own territory".
113
Overall, the application of the effective control test by the ECtHR has been rather
dissonant. As the stakes in Bankovi were quite high ­ as a legally binding and politically
charged decision ­ the Court may have been concerned that States would find themselves
ill-equipped to live up to each and every human rights standard of the ECHR when they
engage in foreign countries.
114
It does not seem correct, however, to assume that because
a State is unable to guarantee everything, it is to guarantee nothing.
115
Rather, where a
State exercises control, the obligation should be to do all that it can to secure human rights.
So far, this analysis has dwelled quite extensively on cases pertaining to CPR. This is
generally because legal pronouncements on the extraterritorial application of ESC are far
more rare, but also because the obligations of the two sets of rights are not totally different.
While it has been argued that CPR obligations extraterritorially focus on general negative
109
Al Skeini and others v. United Kingdom [GC], Ap. no. 55721/07(ECtHR, 7 July 2011), para 138.
110
Celiberti de Caseriego v. Uruguay, comm. no. 52/1979 (HRCm, 1981) CCPR/C/13/D/56/1979, para 10; Lopez
Burgos v. Uruguay, comm. no. 52/1979 (HRCm, 1981) CCPR/C/13/D/52/1979, para 12.
111
Franklin Guillermo Aisalla Molina, Ecuador v. Colombia (Admissibility), report no. 112/10 (IACrtHR, 21 October
2010) OEA/Ser.L/V/II.140, para 99.
112
See Bankovi (no 98), para 75.
113
First established in Lopez Burgos v Uruguay (no 110),para 12(3);See Issa and others v. Turkey (no 103),para
71.
114
See Maarten den Heijer and Rick Lawson (no 46) 180.
115
R. (on the application of Al-Skeini and Others) v. Secretary of State for Defence) (2005) EWCA Civ 1609, ALL
ER (D) 337 (Dec) (Response from Judge Sedley), paras 194, 196 and 197.

17
obligations to refrain from actions which violate human rights,
116
they also include positive
measures such as investigatory, legislative or financial duties. Yet, unlike CPR treaties,
ESCR treaties often impose specific obligations upon States to engage in cooperation with
other States. Making these general obligations dependent on the existence of a
`jurisdictional link' would largely deprive them of any applicability. For example, it would be
challenging ­ if not impossible ­ to establish Germany's jurisdiction over the children
affected by the activities of Bayer using the test of effective control. That being said, this
does not mean that a jurisdiction framework is inapplicable to extending ETOs for ESCR.
A number of the Optional Protocols establishing complaints mechanisms for treaties
containing ESCR rights contain jurisdiction clauses,
117
presupposing a jurisdictional link at
least for matters of justiciability. Further, in connection to Israel's obligations regarding the
occupied Palestinian Territories, the ICJ and the CESCR delimited Israel's extraterritorial
duties by reference to "territorial" and "geographical, functional or personal jurisdiction"
respectively.
118
Thus, while jurisdiction might not be workable for all situations of
extraterritorial obligations, it is still generally used to delimit specific responsibilities.
In Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial
Discrimination (CERD), the ICJ did not find it necessary to first establish that the Russian
authorities asserted jurisdiction or some form of authority or control over persons there,
focusing exclusively on the `actions' of the States parties. As the CERD lacks a jurisdiction
clause, the ICJ seemed to operate on the presumption that human rights treaties apply
extraterritorially unless a treaty provisions contains a specific territorial limitation. In this
case, the ICJ held that Russia had the obligation "to do all in [its] power to ensure that
public authorities and public institutions under [its] control or influence do not engage in
acts of racial discrimination".
119
Firstly, this is notable as `under its control or influence' is a
much lower threshold than that of `effective control' as generally interpreted for jurisdiction
clauses. Secondly, in relation to Russia's obligations under the CERD, the ICJ did not seem
to balk in interpreting positive obligations in respect to persons not under the control of the
State. Here, obligations were derived from the capacity of Russia to act.
It seems clear from the object and purpose of human rights conventions generally
that States Parties should be bound to secure the rights of all persons under their actual
authority and responsibility, including through their authorised agents. Having signed onto
them, a State should be guided by its human rights obligations regardless of territorial
considerations. Still, this sounds strikingly close to a universality-based conception of ETOs,
116
See Fons Coomans (no 23) 186.
117
See for example the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
(adopted 5 March 2009) A/Res/63/117, art 2.
118
Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, 9 July 2004 (Advisory
Opinion) ICJ Reports 2004 <http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1671.pdf> accessed 30 June 2015, para 112;
CESCR, `Concluding observations on Israel' (1999) E/1999/22, para 232-234.
119
Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Georgia v.
Russia) 15 October 2008 (Order- Request for Provisional Measures) ICJ Reports 2008, para 109

18
which has already been framed herein as rather unworkable. Instead, obligations should be
framed as ones of due diligence, i.e. for the State to do what is within its power to
contribute to the fulfilment of the right to education extraterritorially.
120
According to the
Maastricht Principles, ETOs arise when a State "is in a position to exercise decisive influence
or to take measures to realize economic, social, and cultural rights extraterritorially, in
accordance with international law".
121
This is a much broader understanding of `jurisdiction'
than what has been employed ­ namely by the ECtHR ­ to delineate ETOs for CPRs.
IV. Causality, division of responsibility and other challenges
There is an absence of consensus among States and academics as to the precise scope
of extraterritorial human rights obligations. For example, at this point in delimiting the ETOs
for ESCR, it is not clear when and to what extent a State is deemed to be in a position to
assist, other than that it depends on availability of resources.
122
Who has obligations to
whom, and how these obligations are discharged (bilaterally or multilaterally, financially or
technically, etc.) is at present unclear. This section has attempted to outline the general
framework as regards the right to education, however it is worth noting that a number of
challenges similar to this have been sidelined, not for lack of relevancy but rather limited
space.
As human rights are in essence rights that people hold against a State, ETOs would
then consist of a "diagonal relationship of individuals expressing their grievances against
foreign States".
123
Further, it should be recalled that State responsibility and jurisdiction are
not synonymous. When trying to determine State responsibility for an extraterritorial
human rights violation, it is necessary to not only link the foreign State to the event, but
also establish that its acts or omissions were sufficiently close or significant to cause the
violation (`real risk'), or perhaps maybe have been a foreseeable consequence of that
action.
124
This can be extremely challenging in situations of ETOs, for ESCR especially. For
example, determining that violations on the right to education were the direct result of
sanctions on Burundi may be challenging in itself; to then attribute those consequences to
each State imposing those sanctions, or a single State in the bunch, may be even more
difficult. On a similar note, ensuring a remedy for ETOs would be a further challenge,
120
See Milanovic (no 15), 210; See Vélásquez Rodríguez (no 48), 172.
121
See Maastricht Principles (no 1), principle 9.
122
Ashfaq Khalfan , `Division of Responsibility amongst States' in Malcolm Langford and others (eds), Global
justice, state duties: the extraterritorial scope of economic, social, and cultural rights in international law
(Cambridge University Press 2012), 324.
123
Malcolm Langford and others, `Introduction: An Emerging Field' in Malcolm Langford and others (eds), Global
justice, state duties: the extraterritorial scope of economic, social, and cultural rights in international law
(Cambridge University Press 2012), 5.
124
ILC, `Draft Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, with Commentaries' (Report
of the International Law Commission on the Work of its Fifty-third Session, 2001) A/56/10, arts 1 and 2; See
Olivier de Schutter et al. (no 47), 112-115; Sigrun I. Skogly, `Causality and Extraterritorial Human Rights
Obligations' in Malcom Langfor and others (eds), Global justice, state duties: the extraterritorial scope of economic,
social and cultural rights in international law (Cambridge University Press 2012), 233.

19
although it has been argued that "in meeting their obligations to ensure remedy, States
would not be starting from an entirely blank slate."
125
It is not difficult to imagine, though,
the extent that accountability would be contingent on political processes.
Suffice to say that at present the framework for the ETOs for the right to education
have perhaps not quite reached a level of lucidity so as to be effective. While the existence
of such obligations is clear, the doctrine lacks clarity and predictability, as can be seen by
the varied opinions of human rights bodies, the high standards generally set by Courts and
the potentially limitless scope of cooperation obligations.
V. ETOs for Education in Emergencies
Education in emergencies is about normalcy, continuing development, and can even
be about survival. For the purposes of this dissertation, "emergencies" are "any crisis
situations due to natural causes such as earthquake, tsunami, flood or hurricane, or to
armed conflict, which may be international (including military occupation) or internal, as
defined in international humanitarian law (IHL)".
126
While this section may not be able to
address each of the issues presented with the depth they warrant, it is nevertheless an
important area to explore given the consequences these situations have on the realization
of the right to education. Nearly half of the world's out-of-school children live in countries
where there is or has recently been an armed conflict, and recurrent and calamitous natural
disasters - particularly in impoverished regions - have devastating consequences for school
infrastructure, teaching and educational opportunities for affected children.
127
States are "under permanent and universal obligation" to respect and ensure the
IHRL obligations by which they are bound.
128
Thus, the right to education continues to apply
even when disaster strikes. That being said, emergency situations often necessitate special
measures which may limit the enjoyment of ESCR such as a constraint on the `maximum of
its available resources' or by recourse to article 4 of ICESCR which recognizes that rights
may be subject to certain limitations "for the purpose of promoting the general welfare in a
democratic society".
It would be unreasonable to expect that the enjoyment of the right to education
would be unaffected by an emergency situation. Nevertheless, the right to education
continues to apply, particularly with reference to a "minimum level of quality, access and
125
Ashfaq Khalfan , `Accountability Mechanisms' in Malcolm Langford and others (eds), Global justice, state duties:
the extraterritorial scope of economic, social, and cultural rights in international law (Cambridge University Press
2012), 415.
126
Vernor Muñoz, `Right to education in emergency situations: Report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to
education' (UNGA, 2008) A/HRC/10, para 5.
127
ibid para 6-7.
128
Educardo Valencia-Ospina, `Preliminary report on the protection of persons in the event of disasters' (UNILC,
2008) A/CN.4/598, para 25; Declaration on the Protection of Women and Children in Emergency and Armed
Conflict (adopted 14 December 1974) UNGA Res 3318(XXIX)), art 6.

20
accountability".
129
While the domestic State's primary responsibility in responding to
disasters - and concurrently securing education - is well recognized,
130
other States are also
stakeholders of education in emergencies. The CESCR has highlighted that "States Parties
have a joint and individual responsibility... to cooperate in providing disaster relief and
humanitarian assistance in times of emergency... Each State should contribute to this task
to the maximum of its capacities."
131
Humanitarian action ­ assistance, protection and
advocacy actions undertaken on an impartial basis in response to an emergency -
132
thus
becomes an essential component of cooperation obligations in relation to the affected State,
not only in its existence, but also the manner in which it is actualized.
For instance, it has been suggested that ­ while as yet untested ­ a State could be
held accountable for misconduct or malpractice by an international NGO delivering
assistance on behalf of that State, or with the assistance of government structures.
133
It
could also be argued that state responsibility is engaged for the quality of the humanitarian
assistance donors support, as has been suggested in the right to food.
134
This argument is
further supported by frequent references to international standards and professional codes,
namely the INEE Minimum Standards for Education: Preparedness, Response, Recovery.
135
Obviously, the provision of humanitarian assistance plays a large role in responses to
emergencies. Humanitarian assistance can be defined as "aid that seeks to save lives and
alleviate suffering of a crisis-affected population".
136
Regardless of the perceived
righteousness of humanitarian assistance, it is also contentious. Affected States often raise
concerns about the way in which humanitarian action is undertaken, particularly with regard
to State sovereignty and territorial integrity as well as coordination and organization. In
situations of armed conflict, there may be a fear that the humanitarian assistance will be
intercepted and support the opposing side. As a result, governments tend to stress the need
to respect the humanitarian principles of `impartiality, neutrality and independence'
137
and
the need to ensure `safe and unhindered access'.
138
While this discussion sidelines critiques
129
INEE, `Minimum Standards for Education in Emergencies, Chronic Crises and Early Reconstruction' (2004), 6.
130
See for example UNGA Res 46/182 (19 December 1991) UN Doc A/RES/46/182.
131
See CESCR, `General Comment 14' (no 47) para 40.
132
`Glossary of Humanitarian Terms' (ReliefWeb, 2008), 31 <http://www.who.int/hac/about/reliefweb-
aug2008.pdf>.
133
Caroline Ford, `The accountability of states in humanitarian response (2003) 24 Humanitarian Exchange
Magazine.
134
Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN, `The Right to Food Guidelines: Information Papers and Case
Studies' (2007), 15.
135
See for example `Interim report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to education' (Sixty-sixth session, 5
August 2011) A/66/269, paras 62, 84.
136
See `Glossary of Humanitarian Terms' (no 132), 31.
137
OCHA, `What are Humanitarian Principles' (June 2012) <https://docs.unocha.org/sites/dms/Documents/OOM-
humanitarianprinciples_eng_June12.pdf>.
138
ICRC, Customary IHL Database (2015), rule 55 <https://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_rul_rule55>.

21
on the model of international relief efforts, humanitarian responses have been criticised for
undermining national capacities as well as poor coordination on the ground.
139
Thus, the centrality of sovereignty in international law must be recalled;
140
the
delivery of humanitarian assistance is dependent on the consent of the government of the
affected country.
141
There is an emerging debate - inflamed by the Syrian context - that
when a government continues to unreasonably withhold its consent arbitrarily, the
international community can undertake humanitarian action forcibly.
142
However, for ease of
analysis, this discussion assumes that State consent is hypothetically established, and a
non-issue.
A debate that is potentially at issue here is whether necessity to provide
humanitarian assistance has evolved to become a fundamental right. The traditional
understanding of humanitarian assistance as a solely charitable operation is slowly being
eroded by examinations of the issue through the legal realm. The Code of Conduct for the
International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and Non-Governmental Organisations
(NGOs) in Disaster Relief states that "the right to receive humanitarian assistance, and to
offer it, is a fundamental humanitarian principle which should be enjoyed by all citizens of
all countries" (emphasis added).
143
A comparable articulation is included in the similarly
soft-law Guiding Principles of Internal Displacement
144
as well as the Humanitarian Charter
and Minimum Standards in Humanitarian Response.
145
These instruments are relevant
insofar as they are evidence of practice, however do not necessarily prove that such a right
exists.
According to the classical sources of international law,
146
international law rules are
primarily found in treaties, international custom and general principles of law recognized by
civilized nations. As there is presently no multilateral treaty directly
147
setting out the right
139
Active Learning Network for Accountability and Performance in Humanitarian Action, `The role of national
governments in international humanitarian response to disasters: Meeting background paper' (26
th
ALNAP Meeting,
Kuala Lumpur, 16-17 November 2010) 4.
140
See Charter of the UN (no 19), art 2(1).
141
Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of
International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I) (adopted 8 June 1977, entered into force 8 June 1977) 1125 UNTS 3, art
70(2); Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims
of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol (AP) II) (adopted 8 June 1977, entered into force 7 December 1978)
1125 UNTS 609, art 18(2).
142
See for example `Syria: open letter to the UN on humanitarian aid' (International Bar Association, 28 April 2014)
<http://www.ibanet.org/Article/Detail.aspx?ArticleUid=73b714fb-cb63-4ae7-bbaf-76947ab8cac6>; Naz
Modirzadeh, `Strong Words Weak Arguments: A response to the open letter to the UN on humanitarian assistance
in Syria' (Opinio Juris, 12 May 2014) <http://opiniojuris.org/2014/05/12/guest-post-strong-words-weak-
arguments-response-open-letter-un-humanitarian-access-syria-part-1/>.
143
IFRC and ICRC, `The Code of Conduct for the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and Non-
Governmental Organisations (NGOs) in Disaster Relief' (1994), 3.
144
OCHA, `Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement' (1998)
E/CN.4/1998/53/Add.2, principle 3(2).
145
The Sphere Project, `Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Humanitarian Response' (Practical Action
Publishing, 2011)
146
Statute of the International Court of Justice (18 April 1946), art. 38.
147
The following provisions indirectly reference humanitarian assistance: African Charter on the Rights and Welfare
of the Child (adopted 11 July 1990, entered into force 29 November 1999) CAB/LEG/24.9/49, art 23; See ICRPD
(no 78), art 11; African Union Convention for the Protection and Assistance of Internally Displaced Persons in Africa
(`Kampala Convention') (adopted 22 October 2009, entered into force 6 December 2012), art 9(2)(b).

22
to receive humanitarian assistance, it is consequently most likely to derive from
international custom. For a norm to be considered customary international law, it must be
supported by extensive and virtually uniform state practice guided by the perception of its
legally binding character (opinio juris).
148
The multitude of agreements related to relief
operations and the scale of those operations support state practice, however the
"willingness of States to render assistance does not necessarily imply the existence of a
right under international law for victims of natural disasters to receive humanitarian aid."
149
As current positive international law does not explicitly recognize a right to
humanitarian assistance,
150
and an obligation cannot be formed through custom, it is
submitted that obligations surrounding its provision exist as a complementary entitlement
to other human rights rather than as a self-standing right. The responsibility of those in a
position to do so to provide humanitarian assistance is thus actionable through the
intermediation of the component rights.
151
If the emergence of humanitarian assistance as a
legal entitlement for the fulfilment of human rights in emergencies is accepted, wherein
does the right to education apply? Humanitarian relief has traditionally been understood as
the provision of food, shelter, water and sanitation and healthcare.
This approach has been criticised as "merely suppl[ying] calories for the stomach
and water for the throat reduc[ing] people to things".
152
Thus, it has been argued that the
inclusion of education within humanitarian response is now considered "critical".
153
Indeed
the UN General Assembly (UNGA) has identified "that protecting schools and providing
education in emergencies should remain a key priority of the international community and
Member States."
154
Still, funding and investment in education during emergencies remains
low; less than 2% of emergency assistance went to education and learning opportunities in
2013.
155
The impacts of emergencies vary in intensity and duration. It is well known that in
some situations, people displaced as a result of disaster or conflict can spend decades in
camps or in host countries (often developing countries themselves) with the `4As' of
education varying greatly. These host countries are often unable to independently cope with
the burden of such an influx of people. For example, the five main countries hosting Syrian
148
North Sea Continental Shelf Cases (Federal Republic of Germany/Denmark; Federal Republic of
Germany/Netherlands) 20 February 1969 (Judgement), ICJ Reports 1969, para 74.
149
Rohan J. Hardcastle and Adrian T.L. Chua, `Humanitarian Assistance: Towards a Right of Access to Victims of
Natural Disasters' (1998) 38 International Review of the Red Cross 589.
150
Annalisa Creta, `A (Human) Right to Humanitarian Assistance in Disaster Situations? Surveying Public
International Law' in Andrea de Gutrry, Marco Gestri and Gabriella Venturini (eds), International Disaster Response
Law (TMC Asser Press 2012) 353.
151
David Fisher, `The Right to Humanitarian Assistance' in Walter Kälin and others (eds), Incorporating the Guiding
Principles on Internal Displacement into Domestic Law: Issues and Challenges (The American Society of
International Law 2010), 53.
152
See Vernor Muñoz, `Education in Emergencies' (no 126) para 31.
153
See INEE (no 129), 2.
154
UNGA Res 64/290 (27 July 2010) UN Doc A/RES/64/290.
155
UNICEF, `Education Under Fire: How conflict in the Middle East is depriving children of their schooling' (2015),
34.

23
refugees have generally allowed Syrian students access to public schools, but demands
have far outstretched their limited resources.
156
Humanitarian assistance is often an actionable channel for the realization of the right
to education in these situations, arising not from obligations of jurisdiction, but from an
enhanced vision of obligations of cooperation. The CESCR has highlighted this `joint and
individual responsibility', demonstrating that in times of emergency ­ perhaps especially ­
international cooperation for those `in a position to do so' is envisaged as a duty rather than
a free choice.
157
Once again, the obligations are ones of due diligence, but should not be
limited to extenuating situations of emergency; education should recommence "as soon as
possible after any disruption caused by the emergency" (emphasis added).
158
Finally, it is
worth noting that promptly addressing education needs during and following an emergency
also limits the subsequent and sometimes lasting shocks to the affected country's overall
development.
i. International Disaster Response Law
Unlike armed conflicts, natural disasters have no legally binding framework to govern
the actions of actors involved in delivering assistance and recovery. That being said, an
emerging corpus of law - termed International Disaster Response Law (IDRL) - has been
framed by more than 300 hard-law and soft-law instruments for the protection of persons
when disasters strike,
159
and covers "the laws, rules and principles applicable to the access,
facilitation, coordination, quality and accountability of international disaster response".
160
Although IDRL is still in its infancy and gaps remain in its framework, its emphasis
on international humanitarian assistance seems to support the affirmed juridical character
of such relief in the current international legal order. The International Federation of Red
Cross and Red Crescent (IFRC) has played a major role in the development of this body of
law, including presenting the non-binding Guidelines for the domestic facilitation and
regulation of international disaster relief and initial recovery assistance which received wide
support from States. Echoing both IHL and HRL, the Guidelines affirm that the secondary
responsibility of the international community for the welfare of the population.
Included in those documents making framing the development of IDRL
161
is the
Manual to the Operation Guidelines on Human Rights and Natural Disasters, which affirms
that "as soon as conditions permit, children affected by disasters, whether displaced or not,
156
ibid, 33.
157
Gabriella Venturini, `International Disaster Response Law in Relation to Other Branches of International Law' in
Andrea de Guttry, Marco Gestri and Gabriella Venturini (eds), International Disaster Response Law (TMC Asser
Press 2012) 62.
158
See INEE (no 129), 42.
159
For a list see UNILC, `Second Addendum to the Memorandum of the Secretariat on the Protection of Persons in
the Event of Disasters' UN Doc A/CN.4/590/Add.2.
160
IFRC, `Introduction to the Guidelines for the domestic facilitation and regulation of international disaster relief
and initial recovery assistance' (2011), 13 at 1.
161
See UNILC (no 159), no 347.

24
have the right to receive education that shall be free and compulsory at the primary level"
and that this education "should respect their cultural identity, language and tradition".
162
While the role of education in this emerging body of law is perhaps not as yet sufficiently
developed for an in-depth analysis, this seems to suggest that (i) education is recognized as
being encompassed in the definition of humanitarian relief and, given the broader
framework of IDRL, (ii) there is a perceived extraterritorial role for States in its realization.
ii. The Right to Education during Armed Conflict
In times of international (IAC) or non-international armed conflict (NIAC),
international humanitarian law (IHL) regulates humanitarian assistance and access as well
as provides a set of rules which - in seeking to limits the effects of armed conflict - protect
education. Unlike IHRL, IHL does not set out particular right to education, but rather
protects people ­ and education ­ during armed conflict by prohibiting certain conduct. It is
important to note that IHL does not recognize a single concept of `armed conflict' but rather
differentiates between IACs and NIACs armed conflicts, as defined in the relevant provisions
of the Geneva Conventions and its Additional Protocols.
163
Where relevant, this distinction
will be made clear.
While IHL and IHRL are separate legal regimes, it has now been established that
they apply concurrently.
164
The extent to which they overlap is a matter of interpretation,
and determining the more specific and thus overriding rule (lex specialis) in various
situations has been the pursuit of much scholarly and judicial exertion. The ICJ, in its
Advisory Opinion on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied
Palestinian Territory, notes three possibilities saying "some may be exclusively matters of
[IHL]; others may be exclusively matters of [IHRL]; yet others may be matters of both"
with IHL characterised as the lex specialis.
165
As regards education, the possible interplay
and overlap between these two bodies in certain situations will be explored forthwith.
a. Special protection of education in IHL
Under customary IHL, children who are affected by armed conflict are entitled to
special respect and protection, including as regards access to education.
166
The Geneva
Convention IV relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (GC IV),
applicable in IACs, protects the education of children under 15 who have been orphaned or
separated from their families.
167
The Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions relating
to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Additional Protocol (AP) I)
162
Brookings-Bern Project on Internal Displacement, `Human Rights and Natural Disasters: Operational Guidelines
and Field Manual on Human Rights Protection in Situations of Natural Disaster' (Pilot version, 2008), 40.
163
See GCIV, (no 167), common arts 2 and 3; APII (no 141), art 1.
164
See Nuclear Weapons Case (no 34), para 25.
165
See Wall Case (no 118), para 106.
166
ICRC, Customary IHL Database (2015), rule 135 <https://www.icrc.org/customary-
ihl/eng/docs/v1_cha_chapter39_rule135>.
167
Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (Fourth Geneva Convention)
(adopted 12 August 1949, entered into force 21 October 1950) 75 UNTS 287, art 24.

25
further contains special protections for all children in IAC, stipulating in article 77 that "the
Parties to the conflict shall provide them with the care and aid they require, whether
because of their age or for any other reason".
168
This rule forms part of customary
international law, applicable in both IACs and NIACs.
169
Although it does not specifically
mention education, this could be interpreted in the facilities required for the `care and aid'
children required, which should be provided "as far as possible in armed conflict".
170
It has
been argued that the purpose of this provision is broad enough to support the provision of
education, and indeed that a relatively broad interpretation of the right to education can be
interpreted into the `care and aid' required in armed conflict.
171
Further, the article requires
that children be given care and aid ­ and thus education ­ appropriate to their specific
needs, whether age "or any other reason". This phrase was deliberately included by the
drafters to encompass children with physical and mental disabilities.
172
As regards NIACs specifically, article 4(3)(a) on the fundamental guarantees of
Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions and Relating to the Protection of Victims of
NIACs (Additional Protocol (AP) II) states that children shall be provided "with the care and
aid they require", in particular that they shall "receive an education". As this provision is
phrased to address the individual needs of children (`the care and aid they require'), it has
been argued that this protection supports the interpretation that the education needs of
children, including those with disabilities and from disadvantaged groups, ought to be taken
into account.
173
The requirement that education is acceptable permeates the provisions
protecting education in IHL. For those articles specifically referencing education, it is clear
from the commentaries that `education' should be understood in a broad sense, including
moral and religious instruction.
174
Further, these provisions include references to culturally
appropriate education,
175
parental input and wishes,
176
and - as we have seen ­
inclusiveness.
Of course, these provisions are addressed to the parties to the conflict, so would
obviously apply extraterritorially when one of those parties is engaged on the territory of
another. Further, though, the Geneva Conventions are absent a jurisdiction clause,
requiring that all States Parties "respect and ensure respect...in all circumstances".
177
The
Commentary to this provision ­ a non-binding authoritative interpretation of the provisions
168
See API, (no 141), art 77.
169
See ICRC, Customary IHL Database (2015), rule 135 <
https://www.icrc.org/customary-
ihl/eng/docs/v1_cha_chapter39_rule135>
170
ibid.
171
Horowitz JT, `The Right to Education in Occupied Territories: Making more room for human rights in occupation
law' (2004) 7 Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law 233, 273.
172
Kristin Hausler, Nicole Urban and Robert McCorquodale, `Protecting Education and Insecurity and Armed
Conflict: An International Law Handbook' (British Institute of International and Comparative Law and Education
Above All, 2012), 105.
173
Kristin Hausler, Nicole Urban and Robert McCorquodale (no *), 107.
174
Jean Pictet (ed.) Commentary on the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 (ICRC, 1952-1960) Vol. 4, 187.
175
See GCIV (no 167), art 24.
176
See APII (no 141) art 4(3)(a).
177
See Geneva Convention IV, (no 167), Common Article 1.

26
of the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols ­ makes it clear that "in the event of a
Power failing to fulfil its obligations, the other Contracting Parties (neutral, allied or enemy)
may, and should, endeavour to bring it back to an attitude of respect for the Convention",
178
including those provisions directed to education.
These obligations are of course curbed by practicality and the realities of military
necessity and State capacity. This is perhaps where the ambiguity surrounding the interplay
of IHRL and IHL lies. As it would seem that the right to education in IHRL is more specified
than the IHL articles protecting education, fundamentally an argument could be made that
IHRL should be the lex specialis. At the same time, though, IHRL was in essence developed
for times of peace. Thus, it is clear that "various, quite plausible prescriptions can be argued
for",
179
and any decision which body of law to apply is ultimately a policy one. If we revert
back to the interpretation of the ICJ in the Wall case ­ that IHL is ultimately the lex specialis
­ it is possible to employ human rights principles to interpret the above obligations, for
example as regards the `4As'.
This could be done, for example, by reference to content. IHRL contains a wide scope
and distinct extraterritorial obligations for the rehabilitation and reintegration of children
who have been involved in armed conflict,
180
including education as a key component.
181
Both IHL and IHRL contain prohibitions on the direct participation of children in armed
conflict.
182
Many States have committed to "enhanced international cooperation and/or
assistance" for universal education as a tool for preventing such occurrences.
183
The
appropriateness of education for children who have been involved in conflict could thus be
informed through human rights frameworks of rehabilitation and social reintegration. ETOs
for the right to education could also potentially be read into the obligation of States to
`ensure respect' for the prohibition of the use of child soldiers and as part of their obligation
to "take all feasible measures in order that children who have not attained the age of fifteen
years do no take direct part in hostilities".
184
b. Education of interned children and young people
In 2008 it was reported that since 2002 the U.S. had detained hundreds of children
suspected of being `unlawful enemy combatants' and of engaging in `anti-coalition activity'
178
See Pictet (ed.) (no 174), 242.
179
Rosalyn Higgins, Problems and Process: International Law and How We Use It (OUP 1994), 267
180
These include the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children
in armed conflict (adopted 25 May 200, entered into force 12 February 2002) A/Res/54/263, art 7; See CRC (no
7), art 38.
181
Beth Verhey, `Child Soldiers: Preventing, Demobilizing and Reintegrating' (African Region Working Paper Series
No. 23, November 2001) <http://www.worldbank.org/afr/wps/wp23.pdf>.
182
See CRC (no 7), art. 38; See Optional Protocol on the involvement of children in armed conflict (no 180); See
Convention on the Worst forms of Child Labour (no 54); ICRC, Customary IHL Database (2015), rule 136 <
https://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_cha_chapter39_rule136>.
183
See Convention on the Worst Forms of Child Labour (no 54), art 8.
184
See API (no 141), art 77.

27
in the armed conflict in Iraq in detention centres in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay.
185
During
international armed conflict, parties are entitled to detain civilians where security makes it
`absolutely necessary'.
186
IHL provides protections to children in detention, including that
the detaining power should ensure that children taken into custody be treated according to
their status as children.
187
In particular, access to prompt judicial mechanisms for children
in detention is provided for in IHRL,
188
and is essential so that children can return to their
regular education as soon as possible. Of course, it should also be kept in mind that children
may also be detained with their parent, and the education of these children should also be
guaranteed.
In the case of an IAC, GC IV states that "[a]ll possible facilities shall be granted to
internees to continue their studies or take up new subjects. The education of children and
young people shall be ensured; they shall be allowed to attend schools either within the
place of internment or outside."
189
As Detaining Power, the U.S. thus had clear
extraterritorial obligations to guarantee the education of detained children. While it appears
that the U.S. undertook efforts to fulfil this obligation, it has been reported that many
detainees under its control were excluded from those programs and did not receive any
other educational services.
190
Still, when undertaking such an analysis it is important to
note that such obligations may differ depending on the duration of the child's detention and
the "practical measures"
191
available to the Detaining Power.
Of course, much academic exertion has been dedicated to the classification of the
conflict in Iraq through its various stages.
192
Should the conflict be classified as a NIAC ­ as
extraterritoriality could still apply in internal conflicts as a result of the potential
`internationalization' of recent NIACs
193
­ the right to education of these children would
nevertheless be protected through article 4(3)(a) of APII, as introduced above.
Thus, while IHL may not include a right to education, it nevertheless includes
protections of education, including in situations of detention. In situations of armed conflict,
the IHL rules addressing rules of detention would generally be the lex specialis, yet it is
submitted that the rules of IHRL relevant to the right to education ­ which has been
recognized as continuing in situations of detention
194
­ may clarify the obligations which
185
`U.S. Detains about 500 `Enemy Combatant' Children in Iraq, 10 in Afghanistan' (Fox News, 19 May 2008);
Walter Pincus, `U.S. Has Detained 2,500 Juveniles as Enemy Combatants' (Washington Post, 15 May 2008).
186
See Geneva Convention IV (no 167), art 42.
187
See GCIV (no 167), art 94; API (no 141), art 77.
188
See CRC (no 7), art 40.
189
See Geneva Convention IV (no 167), art 94.
190
Human Rights Watch, `US: Respect Rights of Child Detainees in Iraq' (19 May 2008).
191
See Geneva Convention IV (no 167), art 94.
192
David Turns, `The International Humanitarian Law Classification of Armed Conflicts in Iraq since 2003' in Raul
`Pete' A Pedrozo (ed), The War in Iraq: a legal analysis, International Law Studies Volume 86 (Naval War College
Press 2010).
193
Hans-Peter Gasser, `International non-International Armed Conflicts: Case Studies of Afghanistan, Kampuchea,
and Lebanon (1983) 33 The American University Law Review 145, 145.
194
CmRC, `General Comment 10: Children's rights in juvenile justice (2007) CRC/C/GC/10, para 89; Juvenile
Reeducation Institute v. Paraguay, Series C No. 112 (IACtHR, 2 September 2004), para 174.

28
arise in such situations, such as issues of acceptability and applicability. For example, this
could include giving attention to traditionally marginalized groups ­ i.e. acceptability ­
including women, minority and indigenous groups and persons with physical, learning and
psychosocial disabilities.
195
Jurisdiction over children in detention ­ and thus an obligation of due diligence to
secure the right to education ­ can most easily be established through a test of effective
control over territory. In the specific case of the situation above, it could suffice simply to
say that Iraq was Occupying Power during that period, as has indeed been argued.
196
This
model is explored in a following subsection. Conversely, it is possible that detention by a
state on a foreign territory does not take place in a situation where is has control over a
territory, but rather something more like a place - such as a base or a lone building. Here
we can perhaps turn to a personal conception of jurisdiction; for example, in Al-Jedda v. the
United Kingdom the ECtHR found that the applicant's internment by British forces in Iraq
was attributable to the UK and the UK was thus required to `secure' his EtCHR rights.
197
Indeed, physical custody seems one of the most entrenched ­ and indeed logical ­ forms of
personal jurisdiction.
c. Targeting
Unlike detention, `instantaneous extraterritorial acts' such as an actual attack have
been much less accepted as encompassing extraterritorial State jurisdiction, notably being
forcefully rejected in Bankovi, which dealt with deaths caused by the NATO bombing of a
radio and TV station in Belgrade by NATO aircraft. While the existing case law on the matter
has lacked clarity ­ if not been outright contradictory ­ the ECtHR and other human rights
bodies have ­ prior to and following Bankovi ­ established that extraterritorial killings can
bring the victims within State jurisdiction,
198
some in circumstances strikingly similar to
those in Bankovic.
199
Of course, the condition of `exceptionality' dots many of the
decisions.
200
It is notable that it has been accepted - although somewhat erratically at the ECtHR
- that the use of force extraterritorially is sufficient to bring the victims within the
jurisdiction of the State Party. Under IHL, parties to the conflict must at all times distinguish
between civilians and combatants.
201
Attacks may only be directed against military
195
Vernor Muñoz, `The right to education of persons in detention' (Report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to
education, 2009) A/HRC/11/8, 26.
196
See David Turns (no 192).
197
Al-Jedda v. the United Kingdom [GC], Ap. no. 27021/08 (ECtHR, 7 July 2011), para 86.
198
Armando Alejandre Jr., Carlos Costa, Mario de la Peña an Pablo Morales v. Cuba (Brothers to the Rescue), case
no 11.590, report no 86/99 (IACHR, 29 September 1999) OEA/Ser.L/V/II.106, para 23; Pad and Others v. Turkey,
ap. no. 60167/00 (ECrtHR 28 June 2007), para 54-55; Solomou and Others v. Turkey, ap. no. 36832/97 (ECtHR,
24 June 2008, para 50-1.
199
For example, the case of Pad concerned fire discharged from Turkish helicopters over the border with Iran,
causing the killing of the applicant's relatives. In this case, the ECtHR found that the victims were within the
jurisdiction of Turkey. Ibid, para 54-55.
200
See for example Bankovi (no 98), para 67; Solomou (no 198), para 44; Al-Skeini (no 109), 131.
201
See ICRC, Customary IHL Database, rule 1 <
https://www.icrc.org/customary-
ihl/eng/docs/v1_cha_chapter1_rule1>

29
objectives and those taking active part in hostilities. Moreover, in the conduct of military
operations, States must take "all feasible precautions" to minimize or avoid incidental loss
of civilian life or damage to civilian objects.
202
Further, the parties to the conflict must take
all feasible precautions to also protect the civilian population and civilian objects from the
effects of attacks.
203
Finally, "launching an attack which may be expected to cause
incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination
thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage
anticipated, is prohibited".
204
While this is a rather general overview of IHL targeting rules,
it is clear that direct or incidental attacks or damage to schools, teachers or students are
contrary to IHL.
As we have seen, where IHL and the right to education appear to clash, IHL will
prevail. So, if a school becomes a military objective, it may be attacked, even if such an
attack could deprive the local students their education. Otherwise, attacks against a school
­ or using it for military purposes
205
­ constitute clear violations of IHL. Is it possible that
such an attack could constitute a violation of the right to education, depending on the
circumstances?
It does not seem unreasonable to conclude that attacks on schools (which are not
used as military objects) constitute violations from the standpoint of both bodies in law. For
example, it has been reported that Israeli attacks have caused vast destruction to the
education system in Gaza; half of all schools, kindergartens and university buildings were
damaged or destroyed, including the only school for children with disabilities.
206
Such
attacks on schools, students and their staff represent more than an issue of targeting, of
killings and generalised threat to safety. They have an unquantifiable impact on the
education system overall; a single attack on a school can keep hundreds of children out of
school for years and have lasting consequences for the development of a system of quality
education, particularly as regards the availability and accessibility of education.
207
Teachers
have also been victims of attacks, abandoned their posts, or been forced to undertake
overwhelming workloads as a result of staff shortages,
208
clearly resulting in a detrimental
impact to the education system. In 2013 alone, statistics from UNICEF suggest that 12,000
202
ICRC, Customary IHL Database, rule 15 < https://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_rul_rule15>; API
(no 141), art 57(1).
203
ICRC, Customary IHL Database, rule 22 < https://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_rul_rule22>; See
API (no 141), art 58(c); See APII (no 141), art 13(1).
204
See ICRC, Customary IHL Database, rule 14 < https://www.icrc.org/customary-
ihl/eng/docs/v1_cha_chapter4_rule14>; API (no 141), art 51(5)(b).
205
ICRC, Customary IHL Database, Rule 7 <
https://www.icrc.org/customary-
ihl/eng/docs/v1_cha_chapter2_rule7> ; See API (no 141), art 48; APII (no 141), art 13(1).
206
Fred Abrahams, `Dispatches: Dreading School in Gaza' (Human Rights Watch, 9 July 2015) <
https://www.hrw.org/it/node/279087>.
207
Save the Children, `Attacks on Education: The impact of conflict and grave violations on children's futures'
(2013), 7.
208
See UNICEF, `Education under Fire' (no 155), 8.

30
Palestinian children were affected by the disruption of classes and damage to schools from
Israeli offensives.
209
iii. The Right to Education during Occupation
During the occupation of Iraq, the U.S. signed over 90 contracts aimed removing
propaganda from school books and renovating schools, as well as facilitated training
programs for teachers and administrators.
210
Under the law of occupation, the Occupying
Power has positive obligations to ensure the well-being of the civilian population, including
as regards education. But, it would seem that in Iraq, the U.S. as Occupying Power sought
to change the country beyond the allowances of IHL and thus inflamed a discourse on
how/if the conservationist character of occupation could be reconciled with transformative
processes.
211
Military occupation is one of the least controversial circumstances of extraterritorial
exercises of jurisdiction,
212
although­ analogous to the rest of the body of law in this area ­
is not uncontroversial. Under IHL, "a territory is considered occupied when it actually placed
under the authority of the hostile army."
213
It thus extends beyond the mere presence of
military forces to include the substitution of the authority of the Occupying Power for that of
the local authorities.
214
This threshold is generally recognized as one of `effective control',
215
even reaching the Bankovi threshold.
216
Jurisdiction can further be established on the
premise that the Occupying Power is the acting administrator of the territory and thus must
abide by human rights obligations in its interactions with people in the territory under its
control.
217
At the same time, the rules of occupation law and the objectives of human rights
seem to clash. Article 43 of the Hague Regulations (IV) states that the Occupying Power
shall "resp[ect], unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country". It is
submitted here that the continued application of the right to education in occupation is
unmistakable; indeed, the Occupying Power has to `respect' the human rights obligations of
the displaced administration under article 43 of the Hague Regulations. Nevertheless, the
rules of Occupation Law continue to be relevant as they reign in the discretion and latitude
209
Adri Nieuwhof, `School near Nablus repeatedly attacked by Israel' (The Eletronic Intifada; 20 February 2015).
210
Horowitz JT, `The Right to Education in Occupied Territories: Making more room for human rights in occupation
law' (2004) 7 Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law 233, 245-6.
211
Gerd Oberleitner, Human Rights in Armed Conflict: Law, Practice, Policy (Cambridge University Press, 2015),
228-229.
212
See Wall Case (no 118); See Cyprus v Turkey (no 49); See Maastricht Principles (no 1), principle 18; See
Olivier de Schutter et al. (no 47), 1124-1126.
213
Hague Convention (IV) Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land and its Annex: Regulations
Concerning the laws and Customs of War on Land (adopted 18 October 1907, entered into force 26 January 1910),
art 42.
214
Case Concerning Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v Uganda),
19 December 2005 (Judgement), ICJ Reports 2005, para 173.
215
See Milanovic (no 15), 142.
216
Horowitz JT, `The Right to Education in Occupied Territories: Making more room for human rights in occupation
law' (2004) 7 Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law 233, 245-6.
217
Noam Lubell, `Human rights obligations in military occupation' (2012) 94 (885) IRRC 317, 319.

31
provided under IHRL to determine how such obligations are met, powers which are
obviously meant for the sovereign authority. Otherwise, social and legal changes made by
the Occupying Power could masquerade as human rights initiatives but in fact be
superfluous or ineffective, or for the sole benefit of the occupant.
218
It could also be that the
changes are unsustainable transformations. For example, should an Occupying Power
generously establish legislation making secondary education mandatory and free, it is
possible that this move would constitute more a giant leap of realization, rather than one of
`progressive realization'. The sovereign power ­ once re-established ­ may find itself unable
to fulfil such legislation.
In theory, occupation is meant to be "essentially a temporary, de facto situation,
which deprives the occupied power of neither its statehood nor its sovereignty".
219
The
protections afforded by IHL reflect this. The existing law of occupation points simply to an
understanding that children should be education as they were prior to the occupation, which
can be somewhat challenging given the impact of armed conflict on education as a whole.
Article 50 of GCIV states that the Occupying Power should "[i] with the cooperation of the
national and local authorities, facilitate the proper working of all institutions devoted to the
care and education of children... [and [ii]] should local institutions be inadequate for the
purpose, the Occupying Power shall make arrangements for the maintenance and
education, if possible by persons of their own nationality, language and religion, of children
who are orphaned or separated from their parents... and who cannot be adequately cared
for by a near relative or friend." Further, the continued application of article 77 of API in
occupation, which as we have since includes the provision of education, could potentially
extend this obligation to all children. According to the Commentary, article 50 is meant to
ensure the continuity of education, with the Occupying Power only entering into the matter
when local authorities are unable to carry out their duties.
220
Thus, the IHL rules on
education in occupation are not very transformative, and do not envision situations where
the native education system was arguably in conflict with right to education norms.
While some Occupants have been criticised for their actions in relation to education
under IHL as well as IHRL, these criticisms have almost exclusively been directed at the
occupant's obstruction of the normal workings of educational institutions rather than not
doing enough to make sure they were working properly.
221
Indeed, in the context of the
Occupied Palestinian Territories ­ ignoring debates as to whether this situation actually
constitutes one of occupation
222
­ the ICJ merely noted that Israel was under the obligation
"not to raise any obstacles to the exercise of such rights in those fields where competence
218
See Horowitz (no 171), 235.
219
See Pictet (no 174), 275.
220
See Pictet (no 174), 288.
221
See Horowitz (no 171), 246.
222
See for example Iyad v. State of Israel, CrimA 6659/06 (Supreme Court of Israel, 11 June 2008), para 11.

32
has been transferred to Palestinian authorities."
223
This obviously engenders obligations to
respect and protect, however whether occupation enlivens a duty of ensuring or fulfilling the
right to education throughout the occupied territory is unclear.
It is unclear what powers an occupant has to make changes to education if it
disagrees with the way the system functions, or if it considers the system contrary to
human rights norms. Having established the laws of occupation are still relevant, it is
submitted here that sweeping changes to the education system are contrary to the lex
specialis of Occupation Law, even if they may be targeted towards the fulfilment of human
rights obligations of the right to education. As a result, these changes are more exposed to
critiques. For example, the efforts of the US have been criticized for ­ among other critiques
­ implementing an American curriculum which "brainwashes Iraqi children".
224
Further, it
would be disconnected from the realities of occupation to expect the Occupying Power to
fully apply IHRL rather than to `do all that it can'.
225
That does not mean that there is no
room for a rights-based approach to education in occupation.
Horowitz suggests that right to education standards can be read into relevant
occupation law provisions. Although "this can be a hindrance in some cases, this more
closely coincides with the non-interference principles of occupation law".
226
Moreover, he
suggests that support for this approach is found in the drafting history of the GCIV and API
as records indicate that some states were willing to accept that Occupying Powers should be
obligated to follow certain international standards.
227
Horowitz goes so far as to suggest that
introducing legislation for compulsory primary education could potentially be justified
through interpretations of obligations to `take all feasible measures' to ensure children
under 15 do not take direct part in hostilities.
228
While recourse to the principles of
Occupation Law should generally and reasonably create hesitancy to such an interpretation,
it should not necessarily be thrown out directly; each setting is unique, and there may be an
exceptional situation of occupation in the future where such measures may be necessary
and warranted. An example would be if a law is outright discriminatory,
229
for example
barring girls from education. Roberts suggests that where conservationist and
transformative principles of occupation clash, the Occupying Power could seek specific
authorization from international bodies.
230
For example, he notes, the U.N. Security Council
played such a role in Iraq.
231
That being said ­ as he himself notes ­ such an approach
223
See Wall Case (no 118), 112.
224
Ghali Hassan, `The Destruction of Iraq's Educational System under US Occupation' (Global Research, 11 May
2005) <http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/HAS505B.html>.
225
See Lubell (no 217), 322.
226
See Horowitz (no 171), 256.
227
ibid.
228
ibid, 254.
229
See VCLT (no 28), art 27.
230
Adam Roberts, `Transformative Military Occupation: Applying the Laws of War and Human Rights' (2006) 100
AJIL 580, 621.
231
ibid.

33
"raises the question of the extent to which the Security Council has a free hand to vary the
application of even quite fundament rules of international law".
232
Generally, obligations of due diligence when effective control over territory is
established will be generally similar to those interpreted through the Geneva Conventions,
since we have established that legislation modifying the education system would generally
be contrary to Occupation Law and that a broad scope of the right to education can be
interpreted through IHL provisions. As occupation is essentially meant to be temporary, and
as occupation law generally bars any lasting changes, the specific right to education
obligations of an Occupying Power are essentially those of effective control over territory,
albeit with a potentially heightened due diligence threshold.
It is ultimately concluded that in academic and legal circles it remains to be
articulated clearly what are the exact positive obligations of an Occupying Power as regards
education. This author is certainly not brave enough to attempt such an articulation. While a
reflex approach would be to advocate for applying a transformative approach to occupation,
the reality is that such an approach is incompatible with existing occupation law. Despite
some critiques,
233
this body of law is still relevant, including due to "historically well-founded
doubts about the extent to which foreign armed forces, arriving suddenly in a society with
deep-seated problems, are really capable of bringing about fundamental change in that
society".
234
Indeed, returning once again to the example of Iraq, it has been argued that
"today Iraq is more illiterate than it was twenty-five years ago, because the Occupying
Power began its occupation by destroying every aspect of Iraq's education."
235
VI. More Questions than Answers: Some Concluding Observations
Declaring the existence of ETOs for the right to education should not be construed as
a claim that each State is responsible for ensuring the right to education of every person in
the world. Still, the decisions attempting to delimit ETOs lack consistency and clarity, and
the specific scope of these obligations have yet to be defined. The Maastricht Principles
constitute a promising development in the field, yet still lack practicality in their application.
Challenges such as the coordination and allocation of responsibility, accountability, and the
interplay of ETOs with other bodies of international law still remain. Indeed, readers may
find themselves with more questions than they had at the start of this analysis.
What should at this point be clear is that ETOs for the realization of the right to
education exist, and are subject to the capacity of States to act. Those responsibilities of
respecting and protecting education may be more entrenched ­ and more easy to identify ­
232
ibid, 622.
233
For example, Harris argues that "the international law of occupation is meant to govern an outdate model of
occupation." Grant T. Harris, `The Era of Multilateral Occupation' (2006) 24(1) JIL, 1.
234
See Roberts, (no 230), 622.
235
Human Rights Council, `Joint written statement submitted by the International Youth and Student Movement for
the UN and others: The Iraqi education system 2003-2013' (2013) A/HRC/22/NGO/169.

34
but obligations of cooperation for the fulfilment of education and obligations to ensure
education in situations of control are nevertheless present. In an attempt to clarify these
obligations, it was suggested ­ in line with the Maastricht Principles
236
­ that States should
prioritize the realization of the rights of disadvantaged, marginalized and vulnerable groups
as well as ensuring a minimum universal core for the right to education. In this vein,
ensuring education in emergencies is an essential feature to universal protection of the right
to education.
The law is perhaps underdeveloped, but the right to education is too important for
States to throw their hands in the air and declare themselves incapable of acting. It is
increasingly apparent that the obligations exist, and that States should be guided by their
human rights obligations in all their international relations. The obligations are ones of due
diligence, and of good faith.
237
But perhaps, more than that, it would be banal to objectives
of universal realization to assume that obligations for the right to education exist in isolation
delimited by borders. Were that the case, then where the right to education is being
seriously undermined ­ let us once again bring to mind the on-going situation faced by
Syrians ­ "the rest of the world [could] shake their heads saying "tut-tut" without feeling
any sense of duty to intervene".
238
As the brutal conflict in Syria rages on threatening an
entire generation of children and demolishing the system of education,
239
a pessimist may
indeed argue that this is the current reality. What we have seen in the framework explored
herein is that this is neither morally nor legally sound.
236
See Maastricht Principles (no 1), principle 32.
237
See VCLT (no 28), preamble, art 26.
238
Andrew Heard, `Human Rights: Chimeras in Sheep's Clothing? (1997) < http://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/intro.html>
239
See UNICEF, `Education Under Fire' (no 155), 4.

v
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Cases
Al Skeini and others v. United Kingdom [GC], Ap. no. 55721/07(ECtHR, 7 July 2011).
Al-Jedda v. the United Kingdom [GC], Ap. no. 27021/08 (ECtHR, 7 July 2011).
Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial
Discrimination (Georgia v. Russia) 15 October 2008 (Order- Request for Provisional
Measures) ICJ Reports 2008 <
http://www.icj-
cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=1&case=140> accessed 2 July 2015.
Armando Alejandre Jr., Carlos Costa, Mario de la Peña an Pablo Morales v. Cuba (Brothers
to the Rescue), case no 11.590, report no 86/99 (IACHR, 29 September 1999)
OEA/Ser.L/V/II.106, para 23; Pad and Others v. Turkey, ap. no. 60167/00 (ECrtHR 28 June
2007).
Bankovic and Others v. Belgium and Others [GC] App. No. 52207/99 (ECtHR, 12 December
2001).
Case "Relating to Certain Aspects of the Laws on the Use of Languages in Education in
Belgium" v. Belgium (Merits)(Belgian linguistic case), Ap. No. 1474/62, 1677/62; 1691/62;
1769/63, 1994/63, 2126/64 (ECtHR, 23 July 1968).
Case concerning Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the
Congo v. Uganda), 19 December 2005, ICJ Reports 2005 < http://www.icj-
cij.org/docket/files/116/10455.pdf> accessed 2 July 2015.
Celiberti de Caseriego v. Uruguay, comm. no. 52/1979 (Human Rights Committee, 1981)
CCPR/C/13/D/56/1979.
Cyprus v. Turkey , App. No. 6780/74 & No. 6950/75 (ECHR, 26 May 1975).
Franklin Guillermo Aisalla Molina, Ecuador v. Colombia (Admissibility), report no. 112/10
(IACrtHR, 21 October 2010) OEA/Ser.L/V/II.140.
Ilascu and others v. Moldova and Russia [GC], App. No. 48787/99, Judgement, 9 July 2004.
Issa and others v. Turkey, Ap. no. 31821/96 (ECtHR, 16 November 2004).
Iyad v. State of Israel, CrimA 6659/06 (Supreme Court of Israel, 11 June 2008)
Juvenile Reeducation Institute v. Paraguay, Series C No. 112 (IACtHR, 2 September 2004).

vi
Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South
West Africa), 21 June 1971 (Advisory Opinion) ICJ Reports 1971 < http://www.icj-
cij.org/docket/files/53/5597.pdf> accessed July 2 2015.
Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, 9
July 2004
(Advisory Opinion) ICJ Reports 2004 <http://www.icj-
cij.org/docket/files/131/1671.pdf> accessed 30 June 2015.
Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, 8 July 1996 (Advisory Opinion), ICJ
Reports 1996 < http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/95/7497.pdf> accessed 3 July 2015.
Loizidou v. Turkey App. No. 15318/89 (ECtHR, 23 February 1995).
Lopez Burgos v Uruguay, Comm. No. R,12/52 (Human Rights Committee, 1981) A/36/40.
Mox Plant Case (Ireland v. United Kingdom) (Request for Provisional Measures, Order)
(International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, 3 December 2001).
North Sea Continental Shelf Cases (Federal Republic of Germany/Denmark; Federal Republic
of Germany/Netherlands) 20 February 1969 (Judgement), ICJ Reports 1969 <
http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=3&code=cs&case=51&k=e2> accessed
4 July 2015.
Solomou and Others v. Turkey, ap. no. 36832/97 (ECtHR, 24 June 2008).
Trail Smelter Arbitration (United States v. Canada), III United Nations Reports of
International Arbitral Awards 1911, 1938 (1941) 1965.
Vélásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, Series C No. 4, (IACrtHR, 29 July 1988).
Treaties
-- `The Paris Declaration for Aid Effectiveness and the Accra Agenda for Action' (OECD,
2005/2008) < http://www.oecd.org/dac/effectiveness/34428351.pdf> accessed 6 July
2015.
African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child (adopted 11 July 1990, entered into
force 29 November 1999) CAB/LEG/24.9/49.
African Union Convention for the Protection and Assistance of Internally Displaced Persons
in Africa (`Kampala Convention') (adopted 22 October 2009, entered into force 6 December
2012).
Charter of the United Nations (adopted 26 June 1945, entered into force 24 October 1954)
1 UNTS XVI.
Convention Against Discrimination in Education (adopted 14 December 1960).

vii
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European
Convention on Human Rights, as amended) (entered into force 3 September 1953).
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (adopted 18
December 1969) 1249 UNTS 13.
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (adopted 24 January 2007) UNGA Res
61/106.
Convention on the Rights of the Child (adopted 20 November 1989, entered into force 2
September 1990) 1577 UNTS 3 (CRC).
Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation
among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations (adopted 24 October
1970) A/Res/25/2625.
Declaration on the Establishment of a New International Economic Order (adopted 1 May
1994) A/Res/3201(S-VI).
Declaration on the Protection of Women and Children in Emergency and Armed Conflict
(adopted 14 December 1974) UNGA Res 3318(XXIX)).
Declaration on the Right to Development (adopted 4 December 1986) A/Res/41/128.
Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (adopted 2 October 2007) UNGA Res
61/295.
Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (Fourth
Geneva Convention) (adopted 12 August 1949, entered into force 21 October 1950) 75
UNTS 287.
Hague Convention (IV) Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land and its Annex:
Regulations Concerning the laws and Customs of War on Land (adopted 18 October 1907,
entered into force 26 January 1910).
ICCPR (adopted 16 December 1996, entered into force 23 March 1976) 999 UNTS 171.
ILO Recommendation R146: Minimum Age Recommendation (Recommendation concerning
Minimum Age for Admission to Employment) (58
th
Conference Session Geneva 26 June
1973)<http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO:12100:P12100
_INSTRUMENT_ID:312484:NO> accessed 3 September 2015.
International Convention on the Protection of All Migrant Workers and Members of their
Families (adopted 18 December 1990) UNGA Res 45/158.
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (adopted 16 December
1966, entered into force 3 January 1976) 993 UNTS 3 (ICESCR).

viii
Minimum Age Convention (C138) (Convention concerning Minimum Age for Admission to
Employment (58
th
Conference Session adopted 26 June 1973, entered into for 19 June
1976).
Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of
children in armed conflict (adopted 25 May 200, entered into force 12 February 2002)
A/Res/54/263.
Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
(adopted 5 March 2009) A/Res/63/117.
Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the
Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol (AP) II) (adopted 8
June 1977, entered into force 7 December 1978) 1125 UNTS 609
Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the
Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I) (adopted 8 June 1977,
entered into force 8 June 1977) 1125 UNTS 3.
Statute of the International Court of Justice (18 April 1946).
UNGA, `United Nations Millennium Declaration' (adopted 18 September 2000) A/RES/55/2.
Universal Declaration Human Rights (adopted 10 December 1948) UNGA Res 217 A (III).
Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action (adopted 12 July 1993) A/Conf.157/23.
Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention (C182) (Convention concerning the Prohibition and
Immediate Action for the Elimination of the Worst Forms of Child Labour) (87
th
Conference
Session adopted 17 June 19999, entered into force 19 November 2000).
UN Documents
-- `Interim report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to education' (Sixty-sixth session,
5 August 2011) A/66/269.
Commitee on the Rights of the Child, `Concluding observations on the second periodic report
of the Holy See (2014) CRC/C/VAT/CO/2
<http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/Treaties/CRC/Shared%20Documents/VAT/CRC_C_VAT_CO_2_
16302_E.pdf> accessed 25 June 2015.
Commitee on the Rights of the Child, `General Comment 10: Children's rights in juvenile
justice (2007) CRC/C/GC/10.
Commitee on the Rights of the Child, `General Comment 16: On State obligations regarding
the impact of business on children's rights' (2013) CRC/C/GC/16.

ix
Commitee on the Rights of the Child, `General Comment 5: General measures of
implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child' (2003) CRC/GC/2003/5.
Commitee on the Rights of the Child, Day of General Discussion on `Resources for the Rights
of the Child-Responsibility of States' (Forty-sixth Session, 2007)
<http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:g0AnUqA87woJ:www.ohchr.org/
Documents/HRBodies/CRC/Discussions/Recommendations/Recommendations2007.doc+&cd
=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk&client=safari> accessed 16 July 2015..
Committee on Economic Social and Cultural Rights, `Concluding Observations of the CESCR:
Ireland' (2002) E/C.12/1/Add.77.
Committee on Economic Social and Cultural Rights, `General Comment 3: The nature of
States parties' obligations' (2003) E/1991/23.
Committee on Economic Social and Cultural Rights, `General Comment 8: The relationship
between economic sanctions and respect for economic, social and cultural rights' (1997)
E/C.12/1997/8.
Committee on Economic Social and Cultural Rights, `General Comment 11: Plans of Action
for Primary Education' (1999) E/1992/23.
Committee on Economic Social and Cultural Rights, `General Comment 13: The right to
education' (1999) E/C.12/1999/10.
Committee on Economic Social and Cultural Rights, `General Comment 14: The right to the
highest attainable standard of health (2000) E/C.12/2000/4.
Educardo Valencia-Ospina, `Preliminary report on the protection of persons in the event of
disasters' (UNILC, 2008) A/CN.4/598.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN, `The Right to Food Guidelines: Information
Papers and Case Studies' (2007)
<http://www.fao.org/docs/eims/upload/214344/RtFg_Eng_draft_03.pdf> accessed 8
August 2015.
Human Rights Committee, `General Comment 31: Nature of the General Legal Obligations
on States Parties to the Covenant' (2004) CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.13.
Human Rights Council, `Joint written statement submitted by the International Youth and
Student Movement for the UN and others: The Iraqi education system 2003-2013' (2013)
A/HRC/22/NGO/169.
Marc Bossuyt, `The Adverse Consequences of Economic Sanctions'' (Economic and Social
Council, 2000) E/CN.4/Sub.2/2000/3.

x
Muñoz, V., `Right to education in emergency situations: Report of the Special Rapporteur on
the right to education' (UNGA, 2008) A/HRC/10.
Muñoz, V., `The right to education of persons in detention' (Report of the Special Rapporteur
on the right to education, 2009) A/HRC/11/8, 26.
OCHA, `Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement' (1998) E/CN.4/1998/53/Add.2.
OCHA, `What are Humanitarian Principles' (June 2012)
<https://docs.unocha.org/sites/dms/Documents/OOM-
humanitarianprinciples_eng_June12.pdf> accessed 5 September 2015.
Open Ended Working Group on an Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Report of the Open-Ended Working Group to Consider
Options Regarding the Elaboration of an Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights on its Second Session (Third Session, 2005) UN Doc.
E/CN.4/2005/52.
UN, `Follow-up International Conference on Financing for Development to Review the
Implementation of the Monterrey Consensus' (Doha, 9 December 2008)
A/CONF.212/L/Rev,1.
UN, `Monterrey Consensus on Financing for Development' (International Conference on
Financing for Development, Monterrey, 2002) A/CONF.198/11.
UN, `Report of the World Summit on Sustainable Development' (Johannesburg, 26 August -
4 September 2002) A/CONF.199/20.
UN, `Sustainable Development Goals' (2015)
<http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/> accessed
26 July 2015.
UNESCO and UNICEF, `A Human Rights-Based Approach to Education for All' (2007)
<http://www.unicef.org/publications/files/A_Human_Rights_Based_Approach_to_Education
_for_All.pdf> accessed 26 July 2015.
UNESCO, `A growing number of children and adolescents are out of school as aid fails to
meet the mark' (Policy Paper 22/Fact Sheet 31, 2015)
<http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002336/233610e.pdf> accessed 15 August 2015.
UNGA `Developing Countries, Hardest Hit by Global Financial Crisis, Urgently Need Pledged
Assistance, Assembly's Economic Committee is Told' (15 October 2009) GA/EF/3248.
UNGA Res 46/182 (19 December 1991) UN Doc A/RES/46/182.
UNGA Res 64/290 (27 July 2010) UN Doc A/RES/64/290.

xi
UNGA, `High-level Meeting of the General Assembly on the realization of the MDGs and
other internationally agreed development goals for persons with disabilities' (27 February
2012) A/Res/66/124.
UNICEF, `Education Under Fire: How conflict in the Middle East is depriving children of their
schooling' (2015) <
http://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/EDUCATION_FINAL_English.pdf >
accessed 6 September 2015.
UNILC, `Second Addendum to the Memorandum of the Secretariat on the Protection of
Persons in the Event of Disasters' UN Doc A/CN.4/590/Add.2.
Books
Higgins, R., Problems and Process: International Law and How We Use It (OUP 1994).
ICRC,
Customary IHL Database (2015)
<https://www.icrc.org/customary-
ihl/eng/docs/home> accessed 6 September 2015.
Oberleitner, G., Human Rights in Armed Conflict: Law, Practice, Policy (Cambridge
University Press, 2015).
Pictet, J. (ed.) Commentary on the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 (ICRC, 1952-
1960) Vol. 4 < https://www.icrc.org/ihl/INTRO/380 > accessed 25 August 2015.
Skogly, S., Beyond National Borders: States' Human Rights Obligations in International
Cooperation (Intersentia Uitgevers N V 2006).
Verheyde M, Commentary on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child,
Article 28: The Right to Education (Commentary on the United Nations Convention on the
Rights Of) (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2006).
Articles and Book Chapters
Alston, P. and G. Quinn, `The Nature and Scope of States Parties' Obligations under the
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights' (1987) 9 Human Rights
Quarterly 156.
Alston, P., `Ships Passing in the Night' (2005) 27(3) Human Rights Quarterly 755.
Balakrishnan, R. and J. Heintz, `Extraterritorial Obligations, Financial Globalisation and
Macroeconomic Governance' in Aoife Nolan (ed),Economic and Social Rights After the Global
Financial Crisis (Cambridge University Press 2014).

xii
Balanescu, D.E., `Safeguarding Education Beyond Borders' (2014) 8 (4) Vienna Journal on
International Constitutional Law 34.
Begley T, `The Extraterritorial Obligation to Prevent the Use of Child Soldiers' (2012) 27 (3)
American University International Law Review 613.
Carmona, M.S., `The obligations of `international assistance and cooperation' under the
ICESCR. A possible entry point to a human rights based approach to MDG 8' (2009) 13(1)
IJHR 86.
Coomans, F. and M. Kamminga, `Comparative Introductory Comments on the
Extraterritorial Application of Human Rights Treaties', in F. Coomans and M. Kamminga
(eds.), Extraterritorial Application of Human Rights Treaties (Intersentia, Antwerp, 2004).
Coomans, F., `Some Remarks on the Extraterritorial Application of the International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights' in Fons Coomans and Menno T
Kamminga (eds), Extraterritorial Application of Human Rights Treaties (Intersentia
Uitgevers N V 2004).
Creta, A., `A (Human) Right to Humanitarian Assistance in Disaster Situations? Surveying
Public International Law' in Andrea de Gutrry, Marco Gestri and Gabriella Venturini (eds),
International Disaster Response Law (TMC Asser Press 2012).
De Schutter, O. and others, `Commentary to the Maastricht Principles on Extraterritorial
Obligations of States in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights' (2012) 34 Human
Rights Quarterly 1084.
Den-Heijer, M. and R. Lawson, `Extraterritorial Human Rights and the Concept of
"Jurisdiction"' in Malcolm Langford and others (eds), Global justice, state duties: the
extraterritorial scope of economic, social, and cultural rights in international law (Cambridge
University Press 2012).
Fisher, D., `The Right to Humanitarian Assistance' in Walter Kälin and others (eds),
Incorporating the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement into Domestic Law: Issues
and Challenges (The American Society of International Law 2010),
<http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2010/1/19-internal-
displacement/0119_internal_displacement_complete.pdf> accessed 30 July 2015> accessed
12 August 2015.
Gasser, H.P., `International non-International Armed Conflicts: Case Studies of Afghanistan,
Kampuchea, and Lebanon (1983) 33 The American University Law Review 145.
Hardcastle, R.J. and A.T.L. Chua, `Humanitarian Assistance: Towards a Right of Access to
Victims of Natural Disasters' (1998) 38 International Review of the Red Cross 589
<https://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/misc/57jpjd.htm> accessed 10 July 2015.

xiii
Harris, G.T., `The Era of Multilateral Occupation' (2006) 24(1) Journal International Law.
Horowitz J.T., `The Right to Education in Occupied Territories: Making more room for human
rights in occupation law' (2004) 7 Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law 233.
Khalfan ,A,, `Accountability Mechanisms' in Malcolm Langford and others (eds), Global
justice, state duties: the extraterritorial scope of economic, social, and cultural rights in
international law (Cambridge University Press 2012).
Khalfan, A., `Division of Responsibility amongst States' in Malcolm Langford and others
(eds), Global justice, state duties: the extraterritorial scope of economic, social, and cultural
rights in international law (Cambridge University Press 2012).
Künnemann, R., `Extraterritorial Application of the International Covenant on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights' in Fons Coomans and Menno T Kamminga (eds), Extraterritorial
Application of Human Rights Treaties(Intersentia Uitgevers N V 2004).
Langford M., Vandenhole, W., Scheinin, M. and W. van Genugten, `Introduction: An
Emerging Field' in Malcolm Langford and others (eds), Global justice, state duties: the
extraterritorial scope of economic, social, and cultural rights in international law (Cambridge
University Press 2012).
Langford, M., F. Coomans and F.G. Isa, `Extraterritorial Duties in International Law' in
Malcolm Langford and others (eds), Global justice, state duties: the extraterritorial scope of
economic, social, and cultural rights in international law (Cambridge University Press 2012).
Milanovic, M. Extraterritorial Application of Human Rights Treaties: Law, Principles, and
Policy (Oxford University Press 2011).
Oraa Oraa, J., `The Legal Value of the Universal Declaration' in Felipe Gomez Isa and Koen
De Feyter (eds), International Protection of Human Rights: Achievements and Challenges
(University of Deusto 2006).
Roberts, A., `Transformative Military Occupation: Applying the Laws of War and Human
Rights' (2006) 100 AJIL 580.
Skogly, S.I., `Causality and Extraterritorial Human Rights Obligations' in Malcom Langfor
and others (eds), Global justice, state duties: the extraterritorial scope of economic, social
and cultural rights in international law (Cambridge University Press 2012).
Tomasevski, K., Human Rights Obligations: Making Education Available, Accessible,
Acceptable and Adaptable (Novum Grafiska AB, Right to Education Primer no 3, 2001) <
http://www.right-to-education.org/sites/right-to-education.org/files/resource-
attachments/Tomasevski_Primer%203.pdf > accessed 11 July 2015.

xiv
Turns, D., `The International Humanitarian Law Classification of Armed Conflicts in Iraq
since 2003' in Raul `Pete' A Pedrozo (ed), The War in Iraq: a legal analysis, vol International
Law Studies Volume 86 (Naval War College Press 2010).
Vandenhole W. and W. Benedek, `Extraterritorial Human Rights Obligations and the North-
South Divide' in Malcolm Langford and others (eds), Global justice, state duties: the
extraterritorial scope of economic, social, and cultural rights in international law (Cambridge
University Press 2012).
Vandenhole, W., `Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in the CRC: Is There a Legal
Obligation to Cooperate Internationally for Development?' (2009) 17 The International
Journal of Children's Rights 23.
Venturini, G., `International Disaster Response Law in Relation to Other Branches of
International Law' in Andrea de Guttry, Marco Gestri and Gabriella Venturini (eds),
International Disaster Response Law (TMC Asser Press 2012).
Other Secondary Sources
--, `Glossary of Humanitarian Terms' (ReliefWeb, 2008)
<http://www.who.int/hac/about/reliefweb-aug2008.pdf> accessed 15 August 2015.
--, `U.S. Detains about 500 `Enemy Combatant' Children in Iraq, 10 in Afghanistan' (Fox
News, 19 May 2008) <http://www.foxnews.com/story/2008/05/19/us-detains-about-500-
enemy-combatant-children-in-iraq-10-in-afghanistan.html> accessed 6 July 2015.
Abrahams, F., `Dispatches: Dreading School in Gaza' (Human Rights Watch, 9 July 2015)
<https://www.hrw.org/it/node/279087> accessed 18 July 2015.
Active Learning Network for Accountability and Performance in Humanitarian Action, `The
role of national governments in international humanitarian response to disasters: Meeting
background paper' (26
th
ALNAP Meeting, Kuala Lumpur, 16-17 November 2010).
Alston, P., `A Human Rights Perspective on the Millennium Development Goals' (UN
Millennium Project 2004) <
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:iyiHTTr3wIYJ:pacific.ohchr.org/do
cs/A_HR_perspective_on_MDGs_P_Alston.doc+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk&client=safari
> accessed 12 July 2015.
Brookings-Bern Project on Internal Displacement, `Human Rights and Natural Disasters:
Operational Guidelines and Field Manual on Human Rights Protection in Situations of Natural
Disaster' (Pilot version, 2008) <http://www.refworld.org/pdfid/49a2b8f72.pdf> accessed 17
July 2015.

xv
Council of Europe, `Safeguarding human rights in times of economic crisis' (Council of
Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, 2013)
<http://www.enetenglish.gr/resources/article-
files/prems162913_gbr_1700_safeguardinghumanrights_web.pdf> accessed 18 July 2015.
Ford, C., `The accountability of states in humanitarian response (2003) 24 Humanitarian
Exchange Magazine <http://www.odihpn.org/humanitarian-exchange-magazine/issue-
24/the-accountability-of-states-in-humanitarian-response> accessed 2 July 2015.
Hassan, G., `The Destruction of Iraq's Educational System under US Occupation' (Global
Research, 11 May 2005) <http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/HAS505B.html> accessed
16 August 2015.
Hausler, K., Urban, N., and R. McCorquodale, `Protecting Education and Insecurity and
Armed Conflict: An International Law Handbook' (British Institute of International and
Comparative Law and Education Above All, 2012)
<http://www.biicl.org/files/6099_protecting_education_handbook.pdf> accessed 6
September 2015.
Hausmann U., and R. Künnemann, `Germany's extraterritorial human rights obligations:
Introduction and six case studies' (Brot für die Welt, FIAN and Evangelischer
Entwicklungsdienst e.V., 2006)
<http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/fass/projects/humanrights/documents/FIAN_Oct06_Casestudi
es.pdf> accessed 21 July 2015.
Heard, A. `Human Rights: Chimeras in Sheep's Clothing? (1997) <
http://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/intro.html> accessed 2 September 2015.
Human Rights Watch, `US: Respect Rights of Child Detainees in Iraq' (19 May 2008)
<https://www.hrw.org/news/2008/05/19/us-respect-rights-child-detainees-iraq> accessed
22 July 2015.
IFRC and ICRC, `The Code of Conduct for the International Red Cross and Red Crescent
Movement and Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) in Disaster Relief' (1994)
<http://www.ifrc.org/Global/Publications/disasters/code-of-conduct/code-english.pdf>
accessed 5 July 2015.
IFRC, `Introduction to the Guidelines for the domestic facilitation and regulation of
international disaster relief and initial recovery assistance' (2011)
<https://www.ifrc.org/PageFiles/41203/1205600-IDRL%20Guidelines-EN-LR%20(2).pdf >
accessed 27 August 2015.
INEE, `Minimum Standards for Education in Emergencies, Chronic Crises and Early
Reconstruction' (2004) <

xvi
http://www.unicef.org/violencestudy/pdf/min_standards_education_emergencies.pdf>
accessed 6 September 2015.
Lubell, N., `Human rights obligations in military occupation' (2012) 94 (885) International
Review of the Red Cross 317 < https://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/review/2012/irrc-885-
lubell.pdf> accessed 1 September 2015.
McDonald, H., '`Endemic' rape and abuse of Irish children in Catholic care, inquiry finds' The
Guardian (Ireland, 20 May 2009) <http://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/may/20/irish-
catholic-schools-child-abuse-claims> accessed 7 August 2015.
Milanovic, M., `CRC Concluding Observations on the Holy See' (EJIL: Talk!, 5 February 2014)
<http://www.ejiltalk.org/crc-concluding-observations-on-the-holy-see/> accessed 1
August 2015.
Milanovic, M., `Grand Chamber Judgement in Catan and Others' (EJIL: Talk!, 21 October
2012) <http://www.ejiltalk.org/grand-chamber-judgment-in-catan-and-others/> accessed
2 August 2015.
Nieuwhof, A., `School near Nablus repeatedly attacked by Israel' (The Eletronic Intifada; 20
February 2015) <https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/adri-nieuwhof/school-near-nablus-
repeatedly-attacked-israel> accessed 12 June 2015.
Pincus, W., `U.S. Has Detained 2,500 Juveniles as Enemy Combatants' (Washington Post, 15
May 2008) <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/story/2008/05/14/ST2008051404032.html> accessed 6 July 2015.
Save the Children, `Attacks on Education: The impact of conflict and grave violations on
children's futures' (2013) <http://www.savethechildren.org/atf/cf/%7B9def2ebe-10ae-
432c-9bd0-df91d2eba74a%7D/ATTACKS_ON_EDUCATION_FINAL.PDF> accessed 9 August
2015.
Severino, J.M., `MDGs: looking beyond 2015' (Ideas for Development, 3 October 2007)
<http://ideas4development.org/en/millennium-development-goals-looking-beyond-2015/>
accessed 15 July 2015.
The Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse, `Final Report of the Commission: Executive
Summary' (2009) <http://www.childabusecommission.ie/rpt/ExecSummary.php> accessed
23 August 2015.
The Maastricht Principles on Extraterritorial Obligations of States in the Area of Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights (ETO Consortium, Heidelberg, January 2013)
<http://www.etoconsortium.org/nc/en/library/maastricht-
principles/?tx_drblob_pi1%5BdownloadUid%5D=23> accessed 7 September 2015.

xvii
The Sphere Project, `Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Humanitarian
Response' (Practical Action Publishing, 2011) <
http://www.sphereproject.org/resources/download-
publications/?search=1&keywords=&language=English&category=22 > accessed 6 July
2015.
UN, `Goal 2: Achieve Universal Primary Education' (Millennium Development Goals and
Beyond 2015) < http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/education.shtml> accessed 1 July
2015.
Verhey, B., `Child Soldiers: Preventing, Demobilizing and Reintegrating' (African Region
Working Paper Series No. 23, November 2001)
<http://www.worldbank.org/afr/wps/wp23.pdf> accessed 8 July 2015.
Excerpt out of 51 pages

Details

Title
The Extraterritorial Obligations of States for the Realization and Protection of the Right to Education
College
University of Nottingham
Grade
73.0
Author
Year
2015
Pages
51
Catalog Number
V352795
ISBN (eBook)
9783668391536
ISBN (Book)
9783668391543
File size
736 KB
Language
English
Notes
Awarded Distinction
Keywords
Education, Human Rights, International Law
Quote paper
Elysia Buchanan (Author), 2015, The Extraterritorial Obligations of States for the Realization and Protection of the Right to Education, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/352795

Comments

  • No comments yet.
Look inside the ebook
Title: The  Extraterritorial Obligations of States for the Realization and Protection of the Right to Education



Upload papers

Your term paper / thesis:

- Publication as eBook and book
- High royalties for the sales
- Completely free - with ISBN
- It only takes five minutes
- Every paper finds readers

Publish now - it's free