Few issues have posed more of a challenge for the European Court of Human Rights in recent years than the Convention's extraterritorial application. This book explores why this is by reflecting on how the issue has been approached by the primary interpreters of the treaty: the Strasbourg Court, Contracting Parties and National Courts. This is achieved through a detailed engagement with the previous jurisprudence on the Convention's extraterritorial application, and a particular focus on the activities of British authorities and judiciary during and after the Iraq War (2003). Litigation emerging from this conflict has been pivotal in constructing the current understanding of extraterritorial obligations, as well as drawing out some of its more challenging aspects. The book contends that by focusing on the interpretive behavior of the groups with the primary responsibility for interpreting the treaty, an understanding can be gained with regards to what motivates and constrains their argumentative practices. From this, a better understanding of both how the law has developed and where a solution to the extraterritorial challenge can be obtained. If, as some have argued, it is imperialistic to apply the Convention's obligations extraterritorially, the attention of this book lies with the 'human rights imperialists' who have construed those obligations to apply in this manner, as it is with them that any lasting solution to this particular challenge will be found.