Well-Meant Is not Well-Done: The UN Treaty Bodies’ Approach to the Extraterritoriality of Human Rights

In the absence of a universal human rights court, the individual communications before the United Nations (UN) treaty bodies allow for a low-threshold ‘court-like’ and, therefore, indispensable complaint mechanism for individuals. Notably surpassing national courts and regional mechanisms in their progressive interpretation of law, these bodies play a crucial role in expanding the extraterritorial application of human rights treaties, a stance that has sparked scholarly controversy. This article questions whether this progressive ‘adjudication’ practice by the treaty bodies is advisable. It argues that UN treaty body decisions show a pattern in their line of argumentation that has rightly been put under academic scrutiny and that the effects of this methodological inadequacy extend beyond academia, adversely affecting the legitimacy and practical implementation of their decisions.