The Law of the Sea and Human Rights in the Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

Coppens, Jasmine

doi:10.1007/978-94-007-7599-2_7

Jasmine Coppens⁵

Part of the book series: Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice ((IUSGENT,volume 30))

1691 Accesses
1 Citations

Abstract

The question of extraterritorial applicability of the principle of non-refoulement – as implicitly present in Article 3 ECHR – on the high seas was decided by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) on 23 February 2012 in Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy. The ECtHR found that the applicants had fallen within the jurisdiction of Italy as in the period between boarding onto the Italian ships on the high seas and being handed over to the Libyan authorities, the applicants had been under the continuous and exclusive de jure and de facto control of the Italian authorities. This chapter will deal with the impact of this judgment on the law of the sea rules concerning search and rescue at sea.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Chapter: USD 29.95; Price excludes VAT (USA)

eBook: USD 84.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Softcover Book: USD 109.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 109.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
M. Koskenniemi and P. Leino, “Fragmentation of International Law: Postmodern Anxieties?”, 15 Leiden Journal of International Law (2002), 553-579; T. Treves, “Fragmentation of International Law: the Judicial Perspective”, 23 Comunicazione e Studi (2007) 821-875.
2.
ILC (2006), “Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law. Report of the Study Group of the International Law Commission. Finalized by Martti Koskenniemi”, UN Doc. A/CN.4/L.682, available at: http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/guide/1_9.htm
3.
R. Barnes, “The International Law of the Sea and Migration Control” in B. Ryan and V. Mitsilegas (eds.), Extraterritorial Immigration Control, (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2010) 100–146, 104–106.
4.
B. Oxman, “Human Rights and the Law of the Sea” in J. Charney, D. Anton and M. O’Connell (eds.), Politics, Values and Functions: International Law in the 21st Century – Essays in Honor of Professor Louis Henkin, (The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 1997), 404; B. Oxman, “Human Rights and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea”, 36 Columbia Journal of Transnational Law (1998), 399–429, 429.
5.
S. Cacciaguidi-Fahy, “The Law of the Sea and Human Rights”, 9 Panoptica (2007), 1–21, 1.
6.
ECtHR 23 February 2012, No. 27765/09 (2012), Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy, paras. 9–13.
7.
ECtHR, Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy, supra, note 6, para. 65.
8.
D. Nelson, “Reflections on the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea”, in D. Freestone, R. Barnes and David M. Ong (eds.), The Law of the Sea: Progress and Prospects, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006) 28–39.
9.
S. Scott, “The LOS Convention as a Constitutional Regime for the Oceans”, in Alex G. Oude Elferink (ed.), Stability and Change in the Law of the Sea: the Role of the LOS Convention, (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2005) 9–38.
10.
Oxman, supra, note 4 (1997), 377–404; G. Bastid-Burdeau, “Migrations clandestines et droit de la mer”, in V. Coussirat Coustère(ed.), La mer et son droit: Mélanges offerts à Laurent Lucchini et Jean-Pierre Quéneudec, (Paris: Editions A. Pedone, 2003) 57–66; P. Tavernier, “La Cour européenne des droits de l’Homme et la mer”, in V. Coussirat Coustère (ed.), La mer et son droit: Mélanges offerts à Laurent Lucchini et Jean-Pierre Quéneudec, (Paris: Editions A. Pedone, 2003) 575–589; B. Vukas, The Law of the Sea: Selected Writings, (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2004), 71–79; Cacciaguidi-Fahy, supra, note 5, 1–21; T. Treves, “Human Rights and the Law of the Sea”, 28 Berkeley Journal of International Law (2010) 1–14.
11.
Oxman, supra, note 4 (1997), 379.
12.
UN, “Status of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, of the Agreement relating to the implementation of Part XI of the Convention and of the Agreement for the implementation of the provisions of the Convention relating to the conservation and management of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks”, Table recapitulating the status of the Convention and of the related Agreements (20 September 2011), available at: http://www.un.org/depts/los/reference_files/status2010.pdf
13.
LOSC, Preamble paras. 4–5.
14.
LOSC, Art. 136.
15.
LOSC, Art. 140 (1).
16.
LOSC, Art. 303.
17.
LOSC, Art. 192.
18.
See for example: LOSC, Artt. 16, 94(7), 205, etc.
19.
LOSC, Art. 99.
20.
LOSC, Art. 73(3) and 73(4).
21.
MSC, “Review of safety measures and procedures for the treatment of persons rescued at sea”, IMO Doc. MSC 76/22/8 (31 July 2002), Annex “Report-Record of Decisions on the United Nations Inter-Agency Meeting on the Treatment of Persons Rescued at Sea”, para. 6.
22.
ITLOS, 7 February 2000, The Camouco Case, Panama v. France, ITLOS Reports (2000).
23.
ITLOS, 18 December 2000, The Monte Confurco Case, Seychelles v. France, ITLOS Reports (2000).
24.
ITLOS, 18 December 2004, The Juno Trader Case, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines v. Guinea Bissau, ITLOS Reports (2004).
25.
ITLOS, 6 August 2007, The Hoshinmaru Case, Japan v. Russian Federation, ITLOS Reports (2007).
26.
Treves, supra, note 10, 4.
27.
ITLOS, 18 December 2004, The Juno Trader Case, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines v. Guinea Bissau, ITLOS Reports (2004), para. 77.
28.
ITLOS, 6 August 2007, The Tomimaru Case, Japan v. Russian Federation, ITLOS Reports (2007).
29.
ITLOS, 1 July 1999, The M/V Saiga Case (No. 2), St. Vincent and the Grenadines v. Guinea, ITLOS Reports (1999), para. 155. In the Corfu Channel Case (1949), the ICJ had already reflected the relevance of elementary conditions and considerations of humanity as a general principle of international law. See ICJ, 9 April 1949, Corfu Channel Case, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v. People’s Republic of Albania, ICJ Reports 4 (1949).
30.
E. Gold, A. Charcot, and H. Kindred, Maritime Law, (Toronto: Irwin Law, 2003), 193–195.
31.
N. Jones, The Plimsoll Sensation: The Great Campaign to save Lives at Sea, (London: Little Brown, 2006).
32.
International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law related to Assistance and Salvage at Sea and Protocol of Signature (adopted 23 September 1910, entered into force 1 March 1913), 4 ACTS 6677.
33.
International Convention on Salvage (adopted 28 April 1989, entered into force 14 July 1996), 1953 NUTS 194 [1989 Salvage Convention]. Article 10 stipulates: “(1) Every master is bound, so far as he can do so without serious danger to his vessel and persons thereon, to render assistance to any person in danger of being lost at sea. (2) The States Parties shall adopt the measures necessary to enforce the duty set out in paragraph 1. (3) The owner of the vessel shall incur no liability for a breach of the duty of the master under paragraph 1.”
34.
Cacciaguidi-Fahy, supra, note 5, 6.
35.
LOSC, Art. 58(2).
36.
LOSC, Art. 18(2) (implicitly).
37.
M. Norris, The Law of Salvage, (Mount Kisco NY: Baker/Voorhis, 1958), 15–31; I. Wildeboer, The Brussels Salvage Convention: Its Unifying Effect in England, Germany, Belgium, and The Netherlands, (Leiden: A.W. Sijthoff, 1965), 95; F. Kenney and V. Tasikas, “The Tampa Incident: IMO Perspectives and Responses on the Treatment of Persons Rescued at Sea”, 12 Pacific Rim Law & Policy Journal (2003), 143–177, 151–152.
38.
E. Papastavridis, “Rescuing Migrants at Sea: The Responsibility of States under International Law”, Working Paper Series Social Science Research Network, 2011, available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1934352.
39.
A. Moen, “For Those in Peril on the Sea: Search and Rescue under the Law of the Sea Convention”, 24 Ocean Yearbook 2010, 377–410.
40.
A. Boyle “Further Development of the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea”, in D. Freestone, R. Barnes and D. Ong (eds.), The Law of the Sea: Progress and Prospects, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), 43.
41.
LOSC, Art. 309.
42.
LOSC, Art. 311.
43.
LOSC, Arts. 313–314.
44.
International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (adopted 1 November 1974, entered into force 25 May 1980) 1184 UNTS 278. [SOLAS Convention].
45.
International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue (adopted 27 April 1979, entered into force 22 June 1985) 405 UNTS 97. [SAR Convention].
46.
IMO, “Search and rescue”, available at: http://www.imo.org/OurWork/Safety/RadioCommunicationsAndSearchAndRescue/SearchAndRescue/Pages/Default.aspx
47.
IMO, “SAR Convention”, available at: http://www.imo.org/OurWork/Safety/RadioCommunicationsAndSearchAndRescue/SearchAndRescue/Pages/SARConvention.aspx
48.
SAR Convention, Annex Chapter 2 para. 2.1.3.
49.
SAR Convention, Annex Chapter 1 para. 1.3.13.
50.
European Commission Proposal for a Council Decision of 27 November 2007 supplementing the Schengen Borders Code as regards the surveillance of the sea external borders in the context of the operational cooperation coordinated by the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders, COM (2009) 658 final, Explanatory Memorandum, para. 2.
51.
ILC (1979), Yearbook of the International Law Commission, New York: ILC 1979, 135, para. 10, available online: http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/publications/yearbooks/Ybkvolumes%28e%29/ILC_1979_v2_p2_e.pdf. Although this definition was given during the discussions on the concept of ‘distress’ as one of the grounds for excluding wrongfulness with regard to the Draft Articles on State Responsibility, the definition is often being used to describe the situation of distress of persons at sea. See for example: R. Barnes, “Refugee Law at Sea”, 53 International & Comparative Law Quarterly (2004), 47–77, 60.
52.
Council Decision (EU) No. 2010/252 of 26 April 2010 supplementing the Schengen Borders Code as regards the surveillance of the sea external borders in the context of the operational cooperation coordinated by the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders, OJ L 111/20 of 4 May 2010, Annex Part II para. 1.4.
53.
SAR Convention, Annex Chapter 1 para. 1.3.2.
54.
For example the case of the Norwegian container ship M/V Tampa (2001). The captain rescued as many as 438 asylum seekers from drowning in international waters between Christmas Island (Australia) and Indonesia. It lasted for weeks until all the countries involved came to a solution for the disembarkation problem, painfully demonstrating the insufficiency of the international legal framework. See: S. Derrington and M. White, “Australian Maritime Law Update 2001”, 33 Journal of Maritime Law & Commerce (2002), 275–291; P. Mathew, “Australian Refugee Protection in the Wake of Tampa”, 96 American Journal of International Law(2002), 661–676; C. Bailliet, “The Tampa Case and its Impact on Burden Sharing at Sea”, 3 Human Rights Quarterly(2003) 741–774.
55.
MSC, “Guidelines on the Treatment of Persons Rescued at Sea”, MSC Resolution 167(78) (20 May 2004), para. 2.3.
56.
SOLAS Convention, Chapter V Regulation 33 para 1.
57.
Ibid, 33 para 6.
58.
Ibid, 34–1.
59.
Ibid, 33 para 1–1; SAR Convention, Chapter 3 para 3.1.9.
60.
G. Goodwin-Gill, The Refugee in International Law, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996), 157.
61.
SOLAS Convention, Chapter V Regulation 33 para 1–1; SAR Convention, Chapter 3 para 3.1.9.
62.
In 2002, a High-Level Inter-agency Group was set up to deal with the problem of migrants at sea. The IMO, the UNHCR, the United Nations Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea (UNDOALOS), the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) and the International Organization for Migration (IOM) were all participating in this Inter-Agency Group. The conclusions of the Interagency Group meetings were the basis for the 2004 SOLAS and SAR Amendments. See for example: MSC, “Review of Safety Measures and Procedures for the Treatment of Persons Rescued at Sea”, IMO Doc. MSC 76/22/8 (31 July 2002).
63.
IMO Legal Committee (LEG), “Implications of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea for the International Maritime Organization”, IMO Doc. LEG/MISC.6 (10 September 2008), 7–8. The Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea (UNDOALOS), Office of Legal Affairs prepared a table on ‘Competent or relevant international organizations’ in relation to the LOSC. The table lists subjects and articles in the sequence in which they appear in the Convention, together with the corresponding competent organizations. See: Law of the Sea Bulletin No.31, 81–95.
64.
LEG, supra, note 63, 8.
65.
Ibid.
66.
A. Mihneva-Natova, “The Relationship between United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the IMO Conventions”, Paper within the Framework of The United Nations and The Nippon Foundation of Japan Fellowship, 2005, 14, available at: http://www.un.org/depts/los/nippon/unnff_programme_home/fellows_pages/fellows_papers/natova_0506_bulgaria.pdf
67.
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (adopted 23 May 1969, entered into force 27 January 1980), 1155 UNTS 331. [VCLT].
68.
VCLT, Art. 31(2).
69.
ICJ, (Namibia Advisory Opinion), 21 June 1971, Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970) ICJ Reports 16 (1971), para. 53; ICJ, 19 December 1978, Aegean Sea Continental Shelf Case, Greece v. Turkey, ICJ Reports 3 (1978); ICJ, 6 November 2003, Oil Platforms Case, Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America, ICJ Reports 161 (2003), paras. 40–41.
70.
ILC, “The Law of Treaties”, Commentary to draft Article 27, para. 16, in Watts, A. (1999, Vol. II, 690).
71.
ICJ, 25 September 1997, Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Case, Hungary v. Slovakia, Separate Opinion of Judge Mohammed Bedjaoui, ICJ Reports 120 (1997), para. 12.
72.
Boyle, supra, note 40, 46.
73.
Barnes, supra, note 3, 111.
74.
IMO, “Status of Conventions summary” (31 August 2012), available online: http://www.imo.org/About/Conventions/StatusOfConventions/Pages/Default.aspx
75.
MSC, “Guidelines on the Treatment of Persons Rescued at Sea”, MSC Resolution 167(78) (20 May 2004), para. 1.1.
76.
Ibid., para. 6.12.
77.
Ibid., para. 6.17.
78.
Boyle, supra, note 40, 51–52.
79.
IMO, “Status of multilateral conventions and instruments in respect of which the International Maritime Organization or its Secretary-General performs depositary or other functions” (31 October 2011), available at: http://www.imo.org/About/Conventions/StatusOfConventions/Documents/Status%20-%202011.pdf
80.
S. Klepp, “A Double Bind: Malta and the Rescue of Unwanted Migrants at Sea, A Legal Anthropological Perspective on the Humanitarian Law of the Sea”, 23 International Journal of Refugee Law (2011), 538-557 at 549.
81.
Boyle, supra, note 40, 44.
82.
LEG, “Report of the Legal Committee on the work of its ninety-eight session”, IMO Doc. LEG 98/14 (18 April 2011), para. 13.25.
83.
COMSAR, “Report to the Maritime Safety Committee”, IMO Doc. COMSAR 14/17 (22 March 2010), paras. 10.1–10.26.
84.
Convention on Facilitation of International Maritime Traffic (adopted 9 April 1965, entered into force 5 March 1967) 591 UNTS 265. [FAL Convention].
85.
COMSAR, “Report to the Maritime Safety Committee”, IMO Doc. COMSAR 15/16 (25 March 2011), para. 10.3.
86.
MSC, “Measures to protect the safety of persons rescued at sea”, IMO Doc. MSC 89/INF.23 (12 April 2011), para. 6.
87.
Ibid., Annex.
88.
FAL, “Address of the Secretary-General at the Opening of the Thirty-Seventh Session of the Facilitation Committee”, IMO Doc. FAL 37/INF. 5 (5 September 2011), 3–4.
89.
Arnold McNair, The Law of Treaties (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1961), 15.
90.
MSC, “Measures to protect the safety of persons rescued at sea”, IMO Doc. MSC 89/INF.23 (12 April 2011), para. 9.
91.
H. Hesse, “Persons rescued at Sea”, Presentation by the Senior Deputy Director, IMO Maritime Safety Division at the Expert Meeting on Refugee and Asylum Seekers in Distress at Sea (8–10 November 2011), available online: http://www.unhcr.org/4ef3061c9.html.
92.
UNHCR, “Refugees and Asylum-Seekers in Distress at Sea – How Best to Respond?”, Background paper (8–10 November 2011), available online: http://www.unhcr.org/4ec1436c9.html. The Model Framework is based on and further develops the UNHCR’s 10 Point Plan of Action on Refugee Protection and International Migration. See: UNHCR, “Refugees and Asylum-Seekers in Distress at Sea – How Best to Respond?”, Summary Conclusions (8–10 November 2011), available at: http://www.unhcr.org/4ede2ae99.html, para. 13.
93.
European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (adopted 4 November 1950, entered into force 3 September 1953) 213 UNTS 222. [ECHR].
94.
ECtHR, 12 December 2001, No. 52207/99, Bankovic and Others v. Belgium and Others, para. 73.
95.
For a detailed discussion see: V. Moreno-Lax, “Seeking Asylum in the Mediterranean: Against a Fragmentary Reading of EU Member States’ Obligations Accruing at Sea”, 23 International Journal of Refugee Law(2011) 174–220.
96.
ECtHR, 23 March 1995, No. 15318/89, Loizidou v. Turkey.
97.
ECtHR, 16 November 2004, No. 31821/96, Issa and Others v. Turkey.
98.
ECtHR, 10 July 2008, No. 3394/03, Medvedyev and Others v. France, para. 50.
99.
ECtHR, 10 July 2008, No. 3394/03, Medvedyev and Others v. France .
100.
ECtHR, 12 January 1999, No. 37388/97, Rigoupoulos v. Spain.
101.
ECtHR, 3 February 2009, No. 31276/05, Women on Waves and Others v. Portugal.
102.
Treves, supra, note 10, 11.
103.
ECtHR, 8 January 2009, No.12050/04, Mangouras v. Spain.
104.
ECtHR, Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy, supra, note 6. See also: UNHCR, “UNHCR’s oral intervention at the European Court of Human Rights Hearing of the case Hirsi and Others v. Italy (Application No. 27765/09), Strasbourg, June 22, 2011”, available at: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/pdfid/4e0356d42.pdf.
105.
ECtHR, Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy, supra, note 6, paras. 9–13.
106.
Ibid., para. 70 et seq. Already before this ECtHR judgment, Guilfoyle concluded that – based on Australian and Spanish state practice – the non-refoulement principle will be applicable on the high seas when persons are removed onto a government vessel. See: Douglas Guilfoyle, Shipping Interdiction and the Law of the Sea, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 231.
107.
ECtHR, Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy, supra, note 6, para. 133.
108.
Ibid., para. 136.
109.
M. Dembour, “Interception-at-Sea: Illegal as currently practiced – Hirsi and Others v. Italy”, Strasbourg Observers Blog, 2012, available at: http://strasbourgobservers.com/2012/03/01/interception-at-sea-illegal-as-currently-practiced-hirsi-and-others-v-italy/
110.
VCLT, Art. 31(1).
111.
For an extensive discussion see: Moen, supra, note 39, 377–410.
112.
Barnes (2004), supra, note 51, 50.
113.
Barnes (2010), supra, note 3, 107.
114.
MSC, “Guidelines on the Treatment of Persons Rescued at Sea”, MSC Resolution 167(78) (20 May 2004), para. 6.17.
115.
ECHR, Art. 43.
116.
J. Hessbruegg, “European Court of Human Rights Protects Migrants Against “Push Back” Operations on the High Seas”, 2012, ASIL Insights, available at: http://www.asil.org/pdfs/insights/insight120417.pdf
117.
LOSC, Art. 110.
118.
Papastavridis, supra, note 38, 155.
119.
Papastavridis also discusses the ‘slave trade’ argument as a possible legal basis for interception of human beings on the high seas. Ibid. 159. See also Barnes, supra, note 3, 130; G. Goodwin-Gill and J. McAdam, The Refugee in International Law, (Oxford: Oxford University Press,2007), 272; M. Pallis, “Obligations of States towards Asylum Seekers at Sea: Interactions and Conflicts Between Legal Regimes” 14 International Journal of Refugee Law 2002, 329–364 at 350–353.
120.
Council Regulation (EC) No. 2007/2004 of 26 October 2004 establishing a European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Border of the Member States of the European Union, OJ L 349/1 of 25 November 2004; Regulation (EU) No. 1168/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 amending Council Regulation (EC) No. 2007/2004 establishing a European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union, OJ L 304/1 of 22 November 2011.
121.
Council Regulation (EC) No. 2007/2004 of 26 October 2004 establishing a European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Border of the Member States of the European Union, OJ L 349/1 of 25 November 2004, Preamble, para. 4.
122.
See for example: Moreno-Lax, supra, note 95, 174–220.
123.
ECtHR 11 January 2001, No. 39473/98, Xhavara and Others v. Italy and Albania.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Department of Public International Law, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
Jasmine Coppens

Authors

Jasmine Coppens
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jasmine Coppens .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Human Rights Centre, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
Yves Haeck
Human Rights Centre, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
Eva Brems

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Coppens, J. (2014). The Law of the Sea and Human Rights in the Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights. In: Haeck, Y., Brems, E. (eds) Human Rights and Civil Liberties in the 21st Century. Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice, vol 30. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7599-2_7

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7599-2_7
Published: 16 October 2013
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-7598-5
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-7599-2
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics