II.2.2.4 Interception and rescue at sea

Treaties

  1. United Nations, International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue, 27 April 1979, 1403 U.N.T.S.

Soft Law

  1. UNHCR EXCOM ‘Protection Safeguards in Interception Measures’, Conclusion No. 97 (LIV), 2003.
  2. UNHCR, ‘Asylum-Seekers at Sea / Rescue at Sea’, 6th edition, June 2011.
  3. UNHCR, Executive Committee, Conclusion No. 53 (XXXIX) of 1988, Stowaway Asylum-Seekers, 10 October 1988.

UNHCR Documents

  1. UNHCR,’Global Initiative on Protection At Sea’, May 2014.
  2. UNHCR, ’Rescue at Sea, Stowaways and Maritime Interception: Selected Reference Materials’, 2nd Edition,December 2011.
  3. UNHCR, ’Refugee Protection and Mixed Migration: The 10-Point Plan in Action’, February 2011.
  4. UNHCR, ’Refugees and Asylum-Seekers in Distress at Sea – how best to respond? Summary Conclusions ('Djibouti Conclusions')’, 5 December 2011.
  5. UNHCR, ’Co-chairs' Summary: International Workshop on the Protection of Irregular Movements of Persons at Sea’, Jakarta, Indonesia, 21-22 April 2014.
  6. UNHCR, 'Co-Chairs' Summary: Mapping Disembarkation Options: Towards Strengthening Cooperation in Managing Irregular Movements by Sea', 4 March 2014.
  7. UNHCR, Central Mediterranean Sea Initiative (CMSI): ’EU solidarity for rescue-at-sea and protection of refugees and migrants’, 13 May 2014.

Cases

  1. J.H.A. v. Spain, CAT/C/41/D/323/2007, UN Committee Against Torture (CAT), 21 November 2008.
  2. Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs & Others v. Vadarlis ("Tampa Case"), [2001] FCA 1329, Australia: Federal Court, 17 September 2001 (The appeal considered by the Federal Court of Australia in famous Tampa case, which held that Australian authorities had prerogative powers to prevent the entrance of non-citizens to Australia in certain cases).

Readings

Core

  1. R. Barnes, ‘Refugee Law at Sea’, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, vol. 53, no. 1 (January 2004), pp. 47–77.
  2. A. Fischer-Lescano, T. Löhr, and T. Tohidipur, ‘Legal Opinion - Border Controls at Sea: Requirements under International Human Rights and Refugee Law’, International Journal of Refugee Law, vol. 21(2009), pp. 256–296.
  3. B. Miltner, ‘Irregular Maritime Migration: Refugee Protection Issues in Rescue and Interception’, Fordham International Law Journal, vol. 30, Issue 1, 2006, pp. 75–125.
  4. M. Pugh, ‘Drowning not Waving, Boat People and Humanitarianism at Sea’, Journal of Refugee Studies, vol. 17, no. 1 (2004), pp. 52–69.

Extended

  1. C. Bailliet, ‘The Tampa Case and its Impact on Burden Sharing at Sea’, Human Rights Quarterly, vol. 25, no. 3 (August 2003), pp. 741–774.
  2. S. Hamood, ‘EU–Libya Cooperation on Migration: A Raw Deal for Refugees and Migrants?’, Journal of Refugee Studies, vol. 21 (2008), pp. 19–42.
  3. K. Wouters and M. Den Heijer, ‘The Marine I Case: a Comment’, International Journal of Refugee Law, vol. 22 (2010), pp. 1–19.

Editor’s Note

It is important to analyze whether the non-refoulement obligation is applicable on the high seas.

See Section II.1.1 on non-refoulement, and Section VI.2.3 for an overview of Access to Territory within the European context, and Section VI.2.3.2 on European practice concerning Interception and Rescue at Sea.

 II.2.2.4 Interceptions and Rescue at SeaII.2.2.4 Interceptions and Rescue at Sea

TreatiesTreaties

#NameSize
1International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue, 27 April 1979, 1403 U.N.T.S. International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue, 27 April 1979, 1403 U.N.T.S. Empty

UNHCR DocumentsUNHCR Documents

#NameSize
1UNHCR, Selected Reference Materials: ‘Rescue at Sea, Maritime Interception and Stowaways’, November 2006.UNHCR, Selected Reference Materials: ‘Rescue at Sea, Maritime Interception and Stowaways’, November 2006.Empty
2UNHCR and IMO, ‘Rescue at Sea: A Guide to Principles and Practice as Applied to Migrants and Refugees’, 2006. UNHCR and IMO, ‘Rescue at Sea: A Guide to Principles and Practice as Applied to Migrants and Refugees’, 2006. Empty