Western democracies and extraterritorial human rights violations

在保护本国公民和领土上的人权方面，西方民主国家做得相当好。然而，当谈到保护境外外国人的人权时，西方民主国家的行为是矛盾的。一方面，西方民主国家并不回避犯下域外侵犯人权行为。人们可能会想到西方情报机构依赖的大规模监控，或者伊拉克美国监狱中的系统性酷刑案件。然而，另一方面，西方民主国家在过去几年里制定了域外保护人权的规定。在某些情况下，甚至出现了相对可靠的保护条款。在其他国家，保护条款的演变仍处于初级阶段。关于遵守人权准则的研究尚未系统地审查西方民主国家的这种矛盾行为。鉴于域外侵犯人权行为对世界各地个人的负面影响，以及西方民主国家人权政策对其他国家的溢出效应，这种无视导致了一个重要的研究空白。因此，提交的项目的目的是审查为什么西方民主国家规定了域外保护人权的规定，以及为什么在某些情况下出现了比其他国家更可靠的保护规定。该项目假设，如果有规范需求，就会出现规范，但这种需求并不是规范出现的充分条件。相反，需要动员行为者，使决策者认识到具体的规范并采取具体的措施，在我们的情况下，制定域外保护人权的规定。因此，该项目旨在评估哪一种或哪些因果机制可以解释西方民主国家建立域外保护人权规定的情况。运用理论检验过程追溯的方法，评估了条件性、诉讼性、羞耻性和说服性四种因果机制的解释价值。此外，按照比较逻辑，它打算揭示出现相对可靠的(而不仅仅是最基本的)域外保护人权规定的条件。为此，该项目将包括五个定性的案例研究，探讨自2001年9月11日以来美国与反恐政策有关的域外保护人权条款的演变。具体而言，该项目将涵盖关于域外保护免受酷刑的权利、免受任意拘留的权利、生命权(定向杀戮)、庇护权和隐私权(大规模监视)的条款演变的案例研究。

Western democracies do comparably well when it comes to protecting the human rights of their own citizens and on their territory. When it comes to protecting the human rights of foreigners beyond their borders, the behavior of Western democracies is ambivalent, however. On the one hand, Western democracies do not shy away from committing extraterritorial human rights violations. One may think of the mass surveillance Western intelligence agencies rely on or of the cases of systematic torture in US prisons in Iraq. Yet, on the other hand, Western democracies have established provisions for the extraterritorial protection of human rights in the past years. In some cases, even comparatively reliable protection provisions have emerged. In others, the evolution of protection provisions is still in its infancy. Research on compliance with human rights norms has not yet examined this ambivalent behavior of Western democracies in a systematic manner. In light of the negative effects of extraterritorial human rights violations on individuals all over the world, but also the spillover effects of Western democracies` human rights policy on other states, this disregard has given rise to an important research gap. The aim of the submitted project is therefore to examine why Western democracies establish provisions for the extraterritorial protection of human rights and why, in some cases, more reliable protection provisions emerge than in others. The project assumes that norms emerge if there is normative demand, but that such demand is not a sufficient condition of norm emergence. Rather, there need to be mobilized actors who make decision-makers recognize a specific norm and introduce specific measures, in our case establish provisions for the extraterritorial protection of human rights. As such, the project aims to assess which causal mechanism, or mechanisms, can explain the establishment of provisions for the extraterritorial protection of human rights in Western democracies. Applying the method of theory testing process tracing, the project is to assess the explanatory value of four causal mechanisms, i.e. conditionality, litigation, shaming and persuasion. Moreover, following a comparative logic it intends to uncover the conditions on which comparatively reliable (rather than only rudimentary) provisions for the extraterritorial protection of human rights emerge. For this purpose, the project will comprise five qualitative case studies on the evolution of provisions for the extraterritorial protection of human rights in the US in relation to counter-terrorism policies since September 11, 2001. Specifically, the project will cover case studies on the evolution of provisions for the extraterritorial protection of the right to be free from torture, of the right to protection from arbitrary detention, of the right to life (targeted killing), of the right to asylum, and of the right to privacy (mass surveillance).