MARITIME INTERDICTION AND THE RETURN OF MIGRANT BOATS UNDER THE LAW OF SEA

Yıl 2024, Cilt: 16 Sayı: 2, 276 - 299

Wajahat Sharif , İsmail Demir

https://doi.org/10.18613/deudfd.1524388

Öz

Maritime Interdiction is currently one of the most disputed instruments used by states to manage their borders. All states possess the inherent right of granting or denying access to its territories. By exercising this sovereign right, states use all means and resources to interdict and turn back migrants’ boats that have come to their borders. One of the real problems that emerge here is that such interception measures taken rarely check properly which of the migrants need protection and which are illegal. These circumstances raise many issues under International Law. For instance, the issue of refugee protection; the obligations upon states to protect life at sea; obligation upon states for search and rescue; protection under the principle of Non-Refoulement; it also questions the states authority to control the seas as an immigration policy tool. Such are some of the issues that concern various human rights at sea. The aim of this paper is to understand legal status of the concept of Maritime Interdiction and the return of migrant boats under the International Law, UNCLOS and the contemporary state practice. The author believes that humanitarian consideration (i.e. protection of lives at sea) must prevail over personal interests of states. This paper uses doctrinal research methods and comparative analysis of states approaches to maritime interdiction actions. Analysis has also been strengthened with the decisions of states, regional and international courts.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Maritime Interdiction, Interception, Migrants, Human Rights

DENİZ HUKUKUNA GÖRE DENİZ YASAĞI VE GÖÇMEN TEKNELERİNİN İADE EDİLMESİ

Öz

Denizcilik Yasası şu anda devletlerin sınırlarını yönetmek için kullandığı en tartışmalı araçlardan biridir. Tüm devletlerin kendi topraklarına erişim sağlamak ya da reddetmek için doğuştan bir hakkı vardır. Bu egemen hakkı kullanarak, devletler sınırlarına gelen göçmen gemilerini engellemek ve geri çevirmek için tüm araçları ve kaynakları kullanıyorlar. Burada ortaya çıkan gerçek sorunlardan biri de, alınan bu tür engelleme tedbirlerinin, hangi göçmenlerin korunmaya ihtiyacı olduğunu ve hangilerin yasadışı olduğunu nadiren doğru şekilde kontrol etmesidir. Bu koşullar uluslararası hukuk çerçevesinde pek çok soru ortaya çıkarıyor. Örneğin, mülteci koruma meselesi; devletlerin denizde yaşamı koruma yükümlülükleri; devletlere arama ve kurtarma yükümlükleri; iade edilmezlik ilkesine göre korunma; aynı zamanda göçmenlik politikası aracı olarak denizleri kontrol etme yetkisini de sorguluyor. Bunlar, denizde çeşitli insan hakları ile ilgili sorunlardan bazıları. Bu makalenin amacı, Uluslar Yasası ve çağdaş devlet uygulamaları kapsamında Deniz Yasası kavramının ve göçmen gemilerinin geri dönüşünün yasal statüsünü anlamaktır. Yazar, insani bakış açılarının (yani denizde yaşayan insanların korunması) devletlerin kişisel çıkarlarına öncelik vermesi gerektiğine inanıyor. Bu makale doktrinal araştırma yöntemlerini ve devletlerin deniz engelleme eylemlerine yaklaşımlarının karşılaştırmalı analizini kullanıyor. Analiz, devlet, bölgesel ve uluslararası mahkemelerin kararlarıyla da güçlendirildi.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Denizcilik yasaklama, engelleme, göçmenler, insan hakları

Kaynakça

• Al-Skeini et al. v. the United Kingdom, (2011). Application no. 55721/07, European Court of Human Rights, https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre#{ %22itemid%22:[%22001-105606%22]}, Access Date: 15.03.2024.
• Anderson, H.E. (1996). The nationality of ships and flags of convenience: Economics, politics and alternatives. Tulane Maritime Law Journal 21: 140-160.
• Australian Government. (2010). Report of the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee on the maritime incident involving asylum seekers. Parliament of Australia. https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/For mer_Committees/maritimeincident/report/c11. Accessed Date: 13.11.2024.
• Australian Migration Act. (1958). (as amended up to 2009) https://www.refworld.org/cgibin/texis/vtx/rwmain/opendocpdf.pdf?reldoc =y&docid=52de3d284, Access Date: 13.02.2024.
• Brill, F. (2004). Denying haiti’s refugees. The Washington Post https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/2004/03/06/denyingh aitis-refugees/5c8821a6-a851-417f-b852-99586049be17/, Access Date: 21.07.2023.
• Brouwer, A. & Kumin, J. (2003). Interception and asylum: When migration control and human rights collide. Refuge: Canada’s Journal on Refugees, 21(4): 6-24. https://doi.org/10.25071/19207336.21305 Churchill, R.R. & Lowe, A.V. (1999) The law of the sea. Manchester University Press.
• Commission of the European Communities (2007). Commission staff working document: Study on the international law instruments in relation to illegal immigration by sea. (Brussels: May 15, 2007), SEC (2007) 691 https://ec.europa.eu/homeaffairs/sites/homeaffairs/files/elibrary/document s/policies/irregularmigrationreturn/pdf/irregularimmigration/sec_2007_69 1_en.pdf Access Date: 10.07. 2024.Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone (adopted on 29 April 1958, entered into force on 10 September 1964) 516 UNTS 205. Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (adopted on 28 July 1951, entered into force on 22 April 1954) 189 UNTS 150.
• Crock, M. (2003). In the wake of the tampa: conflicting visions of the international refugee law in the management of refugee flows. Pacific Rim & Policy Journal 12(1): 49-95.
• Crock, M. (2003). The refugee convention at 50: mid-life crisis or terminal inadequacy? an australian perspective. In the refugees convention 50 years on: globalization and international law, Susan Kneebone (Eds). UK, Ashgate.
• Fink, M. (2018). Maritime interception and the law of naval operations. TMC Asser Press.
• Frelick, B. (2004). Denying haiti’s refugees. The Washington Post. Retrieved from: https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/2004/03/06/denyinghaitis- refugees/5c8821a6-a851-417f-b852-99586049be17/
• Frelick, B. (2009). Pushed back, pushed around, Italy’s forced return of boat migrants and asyslum seekers, libya’s mistreatement of migrants and asylum seekers. Human Rights Watch. Retrieved from: https://w ww.hrw.org/report/2009/09/21/pushed-back-pushed-around/italys-forcedreturn- boat-migrants-and-asylum-seekers
• Gallagher, A. T. & David, F (2014). The international law of migrant smuggling, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Ghezelbash, D. (2018). Maritime interdiction, in refuge lost: asylum law in an interdependent world, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Goodwin-Gill, G.S. & McAdam, J. (2007). The refugee in international law, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Guilfoyle, D. (2007). Maritime interdiction of weapons of mass destruction. Journal of Conflict & Security Law, 12(1): 1-36. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcsl/krm001.
• Guilfoyle, D. (2009). Shipping interdiction and the law of the sea, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Guilfoyle, D. (2015). The High Seas, In D. R. Rothwell, A. G. O. Elferink, K. N. Scott, & T. Stephens (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of The Law of the Sea (1st ed.), Oxford UK: Oxford University Press.
• Heijer, M.D. (2012). Europe and Extraterritorial Asylum, Oxford: Hart Publishing.
• Hessbruegge, J. (2013). Introductory note to the european court of human rights: hirsi jamaa et al. v. Italy, International Legal Materials 51(3): 423- 76.
• Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy. (2012). Application no. 27765/09, Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights. United States Immigration and Nationality Act 1952 (as amended by Refugee Act of 1980) https://www.uscis.gov/lawsandpolicy/legislation /immigrationandnationality-act, Access Date: 13.07.2024. International Law Commission. (1956). Report of the international law commission covering the work of its eighth session. Year Book of International Law Commission, II, p. 265.
• IOM. (2002). Managing migration at the regional level: Strategies for regional consultation. Geneva, Switzerland.
• IOM. (2024). Missing migrants project, https://missingmigrants.iom.int/data, Access Date: 17.05.2024. Italy: Berlusconi Misstates Refugee Obligations (May 12, 2009) https://www.hrw.org/news/2009/05/12/italyberlusconimisstatesrefugeeob ligations, Access Date: 12.05.2024.
• Legomsky, S.H. (2006). The USA and the Caribbean interdiction program. International Journal of Refugee Law 18(3-4) 677-686.
• Marr, D. & Wilkinson, M. (2004). Dark victory: How a government lied its way to political triumph, Australia: Allen & Unwin,.
• McAdam, M. (2018). Protection of migrants at sea. International Organization for Migration.
• Meijers, H. (1967). The nationality of ships, The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.
• Messineo. (2012). Yet another mala figura: Italy breached nonrefoulement obligations by intercepting migrants’ boats at sea says ECtHR. Blog of European Journal of International Law, https://www.eji ltalk.org/yetanothermalafiguraitalybreachednonrefoulementobligationsbyi nterceptingmigrants-boats-at-sea-says-ecthr/, Access Date: 30.05.2024.
• Miltner, B. (2006). Irregular maritime migration: Refugee protection issues in rescue and interception. Fordham International Law Journal 30(1): 79– 83.
• Moreno-lax, V. (2011). Seeking asylum in the Mediterranean: Against a fragmentary reading of EU member states, obligations accruing at sea. International Journal of Refugee Law 23(2): 174-220 https://doi.org/10.1093/ijrl/eer005.
• Morrison, J. & Crosland, B. (2001). The trafficking and smuggling of refugees: The end game in European asylum policy?, UNHCR Working paper No. 39.
• Naim Molvan v. Attorney General for Palestine (The Asya) (1948). AC 351 Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
• O’Connell, D.P. (1982). The International Law of the Sea, vol. I, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• Pallis, M. (2002). Obligations of states towards asylum seekers at sea: Interactions and conflicts between legal regimes. International Journal of Refugee Law 14(2): 329-364 https://doi.org/10.1093/ijrl/14.2_and_3.329
• United Nations (2000). Protocol Against The Smuggling of Migrants by land, Sea, and Air, Supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (adopted on 15 November 2000, entered into force on 28 January 2004) 2241 UNTS 507.
• Refugees International. (2021). Haiti snapshot. https://refugees.org/wpcontent/ uploads/2021/09/Haiti-Snapshot-FINAL.pdf. Accessed Date: 13.11.2024.
• Rijpma, J. (2009). Building Borders: The regulatory framework for the management of the external borders of the european union, European University Institute: Dissertation.
• Rothwell, D. R. (2002). The law of sea and the M/V tampa incident: Reconciling maritime principles with coastal state sovereignty. Public Law Review 13: 118.
• Rothwell, D. R., Elferink, A. G. O., K. N. Scott, & Stephens, T. (Eds. 2015) The oxford handbook of the law of the sea.1st ed, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Sale v. Haitian Centers Council, Inc. (1993). 509, U.S. 155, https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/509/155.html, Accessed Date: 21.06.2024.
• Shearer, A. (1986). Problems of jurisdiction and law enforcement against delinquent vessels’, International and Comparative Law Quarterly 35, 320-343.
• Trevisanut, S. (2008). The principle of non-refoulement at sea and the effectiveness of asylum protection. Max Plank Year Book of United Nations Law. 12: 205-246.
• Trevisanut, S. (2014). Efthymios Papastavridis, The interception of vessels on the high seas, contemporary challenges to the legal order of the oceans. European Journal of International Law 25(2): 616-619. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chu044.
• Vaughan, L. & Tzanakopoulos, A. (2013). Ships, visit and search. In: Rüdiger Wolfrum (ed), Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Oxford University Press. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (adopted on 10 December 1982, entered into force on 16 November 1994) 1833 UNTS 396.
• UNHCR. (1997). UNHCR note on the principle of non-refoulement. https://www.refworld.org/docid/438c6d972.html Access Date: 30.06.2024.
• UNHCR. (2000). Interception of asylum seekers and refugees: The international framework and Recommendations for a comprehensive approach. https://www.unhcr .org/excom/standcom/3ae68d144/interceptionasylumseekersrefugeesinter national-framework-recommendations.html. Accessed 12.06.2024.
• UNHCR. (2002). Background note on the protection of asylum seekers and refugees rescued at sea. https://www.unhcr.org/protection/globalconsult/3e5f35e94/backgroundno te-protection-asylum-seekers-refugees-rescued-sea.html, Accessed 17.06. 2024.
• United States v. Marino-Garcia. (1982) 679 F.2d 1373 United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit. U.S. Customs and Border Protection. (n.d.). September 1981: U.S. Coast Guard begins Haitian interdiction operations. https://www.cbp.gov/about/history/timeline/timelinedate/september -1981. Accessed Date: 13.11.2024.