NORDIC JOURNAL OF HUMAN RIGHTS 149 (amongst other things) preoccupied with a scenario in which military forces supervised some form of national government abroad (as was the case with United States forces at that time in Germany, Japan and Austria).64 This scenario seems to align with the ‘effective-control’ cases later adjudicated by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), in which it allowed the power (or control) actually exercised over a person or territory abroad, as an exception to the principle of territorial jurisdiction within the meaning of Article 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).65 Extraterritorial application of the ECHR should, however, not be equated with the full application of the rights of the ECHR. The ECtHR recognised that the scope of a State’s extra-territorial human rights obligations differs depending on the degree of extra-territorial authority or control exercised.66 This leads us to the interpretation of the jurisdiction clause of the UNCRC. Is jurisdiction under article 2(1) UNCRC to be understood as a restrictive territorial notion? Or does it allow for a more extensive extraterritorial interpretation? And if so, to what extent would the rights of the UNCRC apply in such cases? 3.2. Jurisdiction pursuant to Article 2(1) UNCRC According to UNCRC Article 2(1), States Parties have the responsibility to respect, protect and to realise or implement the rights of ‘each child within their jurisdiction’ (UNCRC, art 2(1)). According to Abramson, the territoriality condition was deliberately left out of the text of UNCRC Article 2.67 In a former draft of the UNCRC provision, the applicability of the UNCRC was explicitly linked to jurisdiction and the territory of a State Party. Later, the drafting parties backtracked on this double condition: ‘in order ‘to cover every possible situation’, the Finnish delegation proposed relinquishing the territorial boundary of the applicability of the UNCRC and only retaining the concept of jurisdiction.68 Jurisdiction is therefore not intended to be limited to the borders of a State Party. At the same time, it is not clear what was meant by ‘every possible situation’ and it is unlikely that the UNCRC’s scope of applicability is unlimited. The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC Committee) proposes that jurisdiction outside the territory of a State Party can be exercised if there is ‘effective control’.69 It also acknowledges that children attempting to reach the territory of a State Party, and who are thus not actually on its territory and fall outside its enforcement jurisdiction through ‘effective control’, could nevertheless fall within the jurisdiction of the State Party under certain circumstances.70 The CRC does not clarify in this case what is relevant to ascertain that these children, in spite of the lack of ‘effective control’, fall within the jurisdiction of a State Party and to what extent the State Party in question then can be held 64 Bhuta (n 61). European Court of Human Rights Guide on Article 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights, version 31 December 2019, 11 and 29. <https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/guide_art_1_eng.pdf> accessed 17 August 2020. 66 See Daragh Murray, ‘The Extra-Territorial Applicability of International Human Rights Law’ in Elizabeth Wilmshurst and others (eds), Practitioners’ Guide to Human Rights Law in Armed Conflict (Oxford University Press 2016). 67 Bruce Abramson, A Commentary on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 2: The Right of NonDiscrimination (Martinus Nijhoff 2008). 68 Den Heijer and Lawson (n 60) 161, with reference to Sharon Detrick: see Sharon Detrick, The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child: A Guide to the ‘Travaux Préparatoires’ (Martinus Nijhoff 1992) 147. 69 Joint General Comment No 3 (2017) of the Committee on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families and No 22 (2017) of the Committee on the Rights of the Child on the general principles regarding the human rights of children in the context of international migration, 12. 70 Ibid. 65