How do States Perceive Extraterritorial Human Rights Obligations? Insights from the Universal Periodic Review

This article examines how states perceive their extraterritorial human rights obligations. Based on an analysis of recommendations made by states during the Universal Periodic Review, it suggests that the view that extraterritorial obligations form an integral part of a state's human rights obligations is fairly widespread. The article also shows that states perceive extraterritorial obligations as primarily negative. These obligations arise whether a state exercises control over territory or merely exercises factual control. The article concludes that the human rights doctrine is currently being reinterpreted and is becoming more closely aligned with its cosmopolitan roots.