This contribution focuses primarily on the human rights obligations and responsibility of troop-contributing states in peace operations. Typically, peace operations take place outside the territories of the troop-contributing states. This raises the question whether the human rights obligations incumbent on them within their own territories also apply outside their territory. Recently, the legal debate has shifted from the question whether troop-contributing states to peace operations exercise jurisdiction and therefore have extraterritorial obligations, to the nature and scope of these obligations. In this article, the author submits that the scope of a troop-contributing state’s human rights obligations can and should be divided and tailored, regardless of how jurisdiction is exercised. The author also seeks to challenge an emerging jurisprudence that waters down the human rights obligations incumbent on the state under the right to liberty in the context of armed conflict, ‘against the background of international humanitarian law’. He proposes to accept a variable scope of human rights obligations during peace operations, but without fundamentally watering down human rights obligations, even not in the context of armed conflict.