On September 18, 2023, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau claimed to have “credible information” on the role of “agents” of the government of India in the targeted killing of Canadian citizen Hardeep Singh Nijjar in British Columbia, Canada. This raises questions about the potential violation of international human rights law (IHRL) and whether India can be held responsible for the extraterritorial killing.
Both India and Canada are parties to various IHRL instruments, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which impose obligations on states to uphold human rights provisions. The Human Rights Committee’s General Comment No. 36 on the right to life extends state responsibility to acts of private individuals or entities authorized by the state.
Article 6 of the ICCPR guarantees the right to life and restricts the use of lethal force by state agents to cases of strict necessity. Targeted killings outside of armed conflict are considered arbitrary deprivations of life unless they meet the strict necessity and proportionality conditions. If it is proven that India had a role in the killing and the act fails to meet these requirements, it could be considered a violation of ICCPR.
The extraterritorial jurisdiction of human rights obligations is a subject of debate and interpretation. The ICJ has concluded in its Advisory Opinion on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory that the ICCPR can have extraterritorial effect. The Human Rights Committee has also opined that a state can be held liable for acts outside its territory if it had power and effective control over an individual or territory.
Different interpretations exist regarding the circumstances in which extraterritorial human rights obligations may apply. In the present case, Canada’s allegations against India may fall under the functionality model, which holds states responsible for actions that impact human rights fulfillment. The direct and reasonably foreseeable nexus between the act and resulting violation is crucial in determining extraterritorial responsibility.
Canada’s previous position on the extraterritorial application of IHRL has been restricted to narrow circumstances. Therefore, if Canada alleges India’s responsibility for extraterritorial human rights violations, it should revise its position on this issue.
In conclusion, the killing of Hardeep Singh Nijjar raises important international human rights issues. The alleged act, if proven true, could be a violation of IHRL, and India may be held liable for the extraterritorial killing. The interpretations of IHRL regarding extraterritorial obligations and the functionality model play a crucial role in determining state responsibility.
