<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<dc xmlns="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/ http://dublincore.org/schemas/xmls/simpledc20021212.xsd">
  <dc:identifier>http://dx.doi.org/10.17176/20210218-172025-0</dc:identifier>
  <dc:identifier>https://verfassungsblog.de/tailoring-the-jurisdiction-of-the-echr/</dc:identifier>
  <dc:title>Tailoring the Jurisdiction of the ECHR - The ECtHR’s Grand Chamber Decision in Hanan v. Germany</dc:title>
  <dc:creator>Mehta, Kalika</dc:creator>
  <dc:language>eng</dc:language>
  <dc:date>2021-02-18</dc:date>
  <dc:type>electronic resource</dc:type>
  <dc:format>text/html</dc:format>
  <dc:subject>ddc:342</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>Afghanistan</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>airstrike</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>ECHR</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>ECtHR</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>NATO</dc:subject>
  <dc:publisher>Verfassungsblog</dc:publisher>
  <dc:relation>Verfassungsblog--2366-7044</dc:relation>
  <dc:rights>CC BY-SA 4.0</dc:rights>
  <dc:description>On 16 February 2021, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled in the case Hanan v. Germany concerning a 2009 NATO-Kunduz airstrike resulting in deaths of civilians in Afghanistan in favor of Germany. The primary allegation before the Court was that Germany violated its procedural obligation under Article 2 by failing to conduct a prompt, effective and impartial investigation into a lethal use of force. Although the Court unconvincingly decided that there was no violation of the procedural duty to investigate, the majority opinion held that there was a clear jurisdictional link obliging Germany to conduct the investigation of airstrikes in Afghanistan.</dc:description>
</dc>
