Skip to main content

LUP Student Papers

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Remote Coercive Control and the Limits of States’ Positive Obligations under the European Court of Human Rights’ Jurisprudence on Domestic Violence

Baghirzade, Zubeyir LU (2026) JAMM07 20261
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract
This thesis examines whether the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) can adequately respond to technology-facilitated domestic abuse through its existing framework of States’ positive obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The study focuses specifically on ‘remote coercive control’, a specific form of abuse in which digital technologies are used to exercise ongoing surveillance, intimidation, control, and psychological pressure within intimate relationships without requiring physical proximity between the perpetrator and the victim. Examples include the use of spyware and monitoring applications, unauthorised access to email and social media accounts, GPS tracking, and other forms of digital surveillance.
The... (More)
This thesis examines whether the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) can adequately respond to technology-facilitated domestic abuse through its existing framework of States’ positive obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The study focuses specifically on ‘remote coercive control’, a specific form of abuse in which digital technologies are used to exercise ongoing surveillance, intimidation, control, and psychological pressure within intimate relationships without requiring physical proximity between the perpetrator and the victim. Examples include the use of spyware and monitoring applications, unauthorised access to email and social media accounts, GPS tracking, and other forms of digital surveillance.
The analysis begins from the observation that domestic violence has traditionally been understood through visible physical violence and separate incidents of harm. However, digital technologies such as smartphones, spyware, GPS tracking, social media platforms, and online communication tools have changed the conditions under which abuse occurs. Abuse may now continue remotely, continuously, and invisibly, even after physical separation.
The thesis analyses the ECtHR’s domestic violence jurisprudence, particularly under Articles 3 and 8 of the ECHR, and examines recent judgments concerning technology-facilitated abuse (Buturugă v Romania, Volodina v Russia (No. 2), and M.Ș.D. v Romania). It argues that the ECtHR’s existing framework is formally capable of addressing remote coercive control, particularly through the flexibility of Articles 3 and 8. However, significant conceptual tensions emerge when traditional legal concepts are applied to digitally mediated abuse. The Court’s framework remains largely structured around visible, physically proximate, and incident-based forms of violence, whereas remote coercive control operates through continuous, cumulative, and often invisible forms of psychological harm. Consequently, the thesis concludes that the principal issue is not the absence of legal protection, but the need for more context-sensitive interpretation of existing doctrinal concepts in response to evolving forms of digital abuse. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Baghirzade, Zubeyir LU
supervisor
organization
course
JAMM07 20261
year
type
H2 - Master's Degree (Two Years)
subject
keywords
technology-facilitated abuse, remote coercive control, European Court of Human Rights, positive obligations
language
English
id
9232484
date added to LUP
2026-06-15 09:15:06
date last changed
2026-06-15 09:15:06
@misc{9232484,
  abstract     = {{This thesis examines whether the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) can adequately respond to technology-facilitated domestic abuse through its existing framework of States’ positive obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The study focuses specifically on ‘remote coercive control’, a specific form of abuse in which digital technologies are used to exercise ongoing surveillance, intimidation, control, and psychological pressure within intimate relationships without requiring physical proximity between the perpetrator and the victim. Examples include the use of spyware and monitoring applications, unauthorised access to email and social media accounts, GPS tracking, and other forms of digital surveillance.
The analysis begins from the observation that domestic violence has traditionally been understood through visible physical violence and separate incidents of harm. However, digital technologies such as smartphones, spyware, GPS tracking, social media platforms, and online communication tools have changed the conditions under which abuse occurs. Abuse may now continue remotely, continuously, and invisibly, even after physical separation.
The thesis analyses the ECtHR’s domestic violence jurisprudence, particularly under Articles 3 and 8 of the ECHR, and examines recent judgments concerning technology-facilitated abuse (Buturugă v Romania, Volodina v Russia (No. 2), and M.Ș.D. v Romania). It argues that the ECtHR’s existing framework is formally capable of addressing remote coercive control, particularly through the flexibility of Articles 3 and 8. However, significant conceptual tensions emerge when traditional legal concepts are applied to digitally mediated abuse. The Court’s framework remains largely structured around visible, physically proximate, and incident-based forms of violence, whereas remote coercive control operates through continuous, cumulative, and often invisible forms of psychological harm. Consequently, the thesis concludes that the principal issue is not the absence of legal protection, but the need for more context-sensitive interpretation of existing doctrinal concepts in response to evolving forms of digital abuse.}},
  author       = {{Baghirzade, Zubeyir}},
  language     = {{eng}},
  note         = {{Student Paper}},
  title        = {{Remote Coercive Control and the Limits of States’ Positive Obligations under the European Court of Human Rights’ Jurisprudence on Domestic Violence}},
  year         = {{2026}},
}