Human rights, extraterritoriality and the good international citizen: a cosmopolitan perspective
| DOI | 10.1177/0047117819897310 |
| Date | 01 June 2020 |
| Published date | 01 June 2020 |
| Author | Richard Shapcott |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/0047117819897310
International Relations
2020, Vol. 34(2) 246 –264
© The Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0047117819897310
journals.sagepub.com/home/ire
Human rights,
extraterritoriality and the
good international citizen:
a cosmopolitan perspective
Richard Shapcott
The University of Queensland
Abstract
This article revisits the possibilities of the good international citizen (GIC) as a civilising agent
in international society. It argues that an underdeveloped resource for thinking about state
responsibilities as GIC is the idea of cosmopolitan extraterritoriality (ET) in relation to human
rights. ET, the assertion of jurisdiction beyond territorial borders, has long been associated with
statist and nationalist purposes; however, a significant cosmopolitan, and civilising, potential can
be found within practices of ET in relation to human rights and certain aspects of criminal law
such as in the practices of child sex tourism and trafficking. This form of ETallows states to
restrain their own citizens abroad and potentially restrain their own foreign policies and practices
by accepting limits on their freedom of action derived from respect for human rights and respect
for the rule of law.
Keywords
cosmopolitanism, English school, extraterritoriality, good international citizen, human rights
Introduction
The possibility that certain states may be considered ‘good international citizens’ is a
minor but persistent thread among theorists of international society. A good international
citizen (GIC) is a state that acknowledges it has national, international and humanitarian
(or cosmopolitan) responsibilities that place limits on its pursuit of its narrow self-inter-
est. This article identifies the value of self-restraint as a virtue of the GIC and advances
the claim that such states can be ‘civilising’ agents in international relations. It identifies
the theory and practice of extraterritoriality (ET) in relation to human rights as an unex-
plored resource for the GIC. ET, the exercise of legal jurisdiction beyond a state’s
Corresponding author:
Richard Shapcott, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia.
Email: r.shapcott@uq.edu.au
897310IRE0010.1177/0047117819897310International RelationsShapcott
research-article2019
Article
Shapcott 247
territorial borders, is a commonly accepted practice permitted under international law.
While ET has long been associated with statist and nationalist purposes, the article argues
that correctly formulated ET can be used to pursue more cosmopolitan goals such as the
protection of human rights. More specifically, a significant cosmopolitan, and civilising,
potential can be found within the law and practice of ET based on the widely accepted
‘active nationality’ principle. The article argues that this principle provides a template for
how ET can be used to place internal, that is, domestic, legal-restraints and accountabil-
ity upon states and their citizens in regard to human rights abroad. States wishing to be
GICs should develop and adopt consistent practices of human rights ET based on the
active nationality principle. The argument follows from Shapcott in exploring the idea
that states can institutionalise and constitutionalising their negative duties to avoid viola-
tions of human rights extraterritorially.1
The article begins by introducing the idea of the GIC as a civilising agent; it then
discusses the idea of the GIC and its relationship with human rights, before outlining the
varieties of ET and making the case for a limited cosmopolitan variant based on the
active nationality principle. The article concludes with reflection upon the implications
and possibilities of such a move for the idea of the GIC. It argues that such an approach
is both consistent with current international law and practice, and therefore this applica-
tion is a plausible non-utopian measure which can enhance cosmopolitan values in inter-
national society.
Civilising processes and the GIC
According to Andrew Linklater, growing webs of interdependence create increased
capacities for interstate harm as well as awareness of the sources and impacts of those
harms. In such conditions, states are more likely to know the impact of their activities
upon outsiders and vice versa and to ask for restraint in relation to them. Linklater’s
recent treatment of harm in world politics, foregrounds the role of ‘civilizing’ processes
whereby social actors develop ‘standards of self-control and (learn) to tame violent and
aggressive behaviour’2 under such conditions. A civilising process involves ‘shifts in
the standards of self-restraint that people have imposed on themselves and on each other
in the course of responding to new potentials for organising harm’.3 Such processes are
common to many societies and indicate that norms and conventions of self-restraint
limiting the acceptable use of violence and harm in the pursuit of interests are needed as
interaction increases. To be more or less civilised is to have greater or fewer such
restraints. Civilisation in this sense intends to be non-evaluative; it is not a judgement
of the moral worth of any particular society or culture but of its regulation by self-
imposed and widely accepted standards of restraint. As Linklater notes, ‘all societies
have civilising processes in the technical non-evaluative use of the concept’.4 Such
processes occur at an individual, societal and international level, that is, in relations
between states. The evolution of the international society of states is evidence of such
civilising processes and has involved the development of sometimes rudimentary and
sometimes more ambitious conventions regarding state restraint. Most notably, the
members of international society have sought to limit their recourse to violence, though
not nearly to the same extent that domestic societies with successful monopolies of
To continue reading
Request your trial