CFP-Governments obliged to rescue migrants

Governments obliged under maritime law to rescue boat people
www.straitstimes.com,15 mai 2015
1) Thailand, Indonesia and Malaysia should fulfil their obligations under international maritime law
by rescuing thousands of migrants adrift at sea and avoiding "mass casualties", shipping experts
said on Friday. Thousands of mostly Rohingya Muslims fleeing persecution in Myanmar and others
escaping poverty in Bangladesh are stranded on boats as governments in the region seek to prevent
them from landing, despite a request by the United Nations to rescue them.
2)"We will have mass casualties on our hands if there is not an immediate and concerted searchand-rescue operation by countries in the region," said David Hammond, a maritime law expert and
founder of charity Human Rights At Sea. The migrants have been at sea in rickety boats for weeks
with little water and food following a crackdown by the Thai government on human trafficking.
3) "Turning these vulnerable people away because of political concerns that they may wish to seek
refugee status is unacceptable and violates the obligation of governments to help people in distress
at sea," Hammond told the Thomson Reuters Foundation.
4) The International Chamber of Shipping (ICS), which represents the global shipping industry, said
merchant ships as well as governments have a humanitarian obligation enshrined in international
maritime law and conventions to help people in distress at sea. "It's a well-honoured maritime
tradition for ships to rescue anyone in distress at sea but coastal states also have an obligation to
come to the rescue, and we expect them to honour this, including taking migrants ashore," ICS
spokesman Simon Bennett told the Thomson Reuters Foundation.
5) As members of the International Maritime Organisation (IMO), Thailand, Indonesia and
Malaysia are obliged to work together so those rescued reach a place of safety as soon as possible.
But the exact terms of such obligations are a grey area because they do not clearly define what
governments should do to help migrants adrift in the sea. "The regulations are worded very
carefully in order not to be too prescriptive," a spokeswoman for the IMO, an agency of the United
Nations, told the Thomson Reuters Foundation. "They state that there should be cooperation and
coordination but without specifying precisely what needs to be done. That ... does mean it's open to
interpretation."
6) However, Hammond said the case was clear. "Someone who is at sea, has no food and has put
people at notice that they are in trouble within the sight of land, I would say there is a lawful
obligation for governments to help them," he said. Merchant ships could boost search-and-rescue
operations to help boat people in the Andaman Sea and the Strait of Malacca, one of the world's
busiest shipping channels, Hammond said.
7) Last year, merchant ships were deployed to rescue more than 40,000 out of a total of more than
200,000 migrants attempting to cross the Mediterranean Sea from Africa and the Middle East,
according to the ICS.
The Straits Times is an English-language daily broadsheet newspaper based in Singapore
Governments obliged under maritime law to rescue boat people
Summary
The article is an extract from The Straits Times, a Singapore newspaper. We might thus expect an
original point of view from a country that is on the front line of the refugee problem in South-east
Asia. However, it becomes clear very quickly that the treatment of the issue is not very different
from what might have been found in the Times of London. The writer reports on states' apparent
indifference to the refugees' plight and finds the absence of strong joint government action
regrettable. Back in the 1970s, the term boat people referred to Vietnamese or Cambodian refugees
fleeing the local Communist regimes. Today, a global issue invites a global approach.
A more interesting angle can be found in the analysis of the legal situation of boat people. The
writer makes it clear in the title that states have a legal obligation, under a number of statutes and
international agreements reflecting ancient tradition, to rescue refugees at sea.
The tradition is well-known and internationally endorsed. All will acclaim a merchant ship that
rescues a wrecked yachtsman or a professional sailor who will forfeit a victory in a race to help a
competitor in need of assistance. Any individual sailor failing to meet his obligations would be
universally reviled.
But boat people are another matter. The story of the SS Exodus comes to mind. In 1947, British
authorities prevented a ship carrying Jewish refugees from landing in Palestine and deported them
back to Europe. Closer to us, we recall footage of US coastguards chasing Cuban migrants and
trying to prevent them from setting foot on US soil, lest they be able to claim refugee status.
What seems unacceptable from individuals seem to have become almost acceptable from states.
Why? Boat people are potential refugees, who may claim shelter, if not rights, as soon as they reach
the shore. A sailor does not bear liability for his rescue other than to ensure safe passage to the
nearest shore. A country often faces long-term liability for the welfare of refugees on its soil. Hence
the US determination not to allow Cuban refugees to land or the French authorities' efforts to
prevent refugees from the Comoro islands to reach Mayotte.
Hence also the remarkably loose legislation governing states' obligation to rescue boat people.
Where 'grey areas' in legislation often result from a lack of legislative foresight or honest mistakes,
maritime law was left deliberately vague so as to preserve states' margin of appreciation. Littoral
states are keen to protect their coasts and need a wide margin of appreciation to do so.
The notion of obligation to rescue people in distress at sea thus appears rather fragile and resolute
enforcement unlikely.
Issues
Maritime tradition: an empty shell?
Rescue, then what?
Realistic enforcement of international obligations: time for a new covenant (pacte)?
Governments obliged under maritime law to rescue boat people
VOCABULARY
§1
to fulfil one’s obligations: s’acquitter de ses obligations
to rescue: secourir
adrift: à la dérive
casualties: victimes
shipping: transport maritime
to flee: fuir
to be stranded: être échoué, en rade
to land: débarquer
§2
search-and-rescue operation: opération de recherche et de sauvetage
founder: fondateur
charity: organisation caritative
rickety: branlant, bringuebalant, bancal
crackdown: mesures de répression
human trafficking: trafic d’êtres humains
§3
to turn sb away: refouler qq
concern: préoccupation
§4
to enshrine: enchâsser, consacrer
coastal: côtier
to take sb ashore: débarquer qq
spokesman: porte-parole
§5
place of safety: lieu sûr
grey area: zone de flou
to word: formuler, rédiger
prescriptive: normatif
to state: déclarer
to specify: préciser
§6
to put sb at notice that: avertir; signifier à qq que
within sight of: en vue de
to boost: stimuler, relancer, promouvoir
boat people: réfugiés de la mer
strait: détroit
shipping channel: chenal de navigation, voie maritime
§7
to attempt to: essayer de
Le défi de la migration mixte par voie maritime
Judith Kumin, http://www.fmreview.org
1) De plus en plus fréquemment, les États considèrent les «hautes mers» comme une zone sur
laquelle ils peuvent étendre leurs mesures de contrôle aux frontières et sont tentés par un éventail de
mesures extraterritoriales visant à empêcher les arrivées clandestines. Certains États affirment que
rien ne les oblige à respecter leurs responsabilités juridiques internationales lorsqu’ils agissent hors
de leur territoire ou de leurs eaux territoriales; en substance, ils créent ainsi une zone dans laquelle
les droits des migrants ne sont pas protégés et où, de surcroît, il est difficile de contrôler leurs
propres actions.
2)Au fur et à mesure que les États ont intensifié leurs efforts pour combattre la migration
clandestine, les passeurs et les migrants se sont mis à emprunter des routes et des moyens de
transport de plus en plus dangereux. Il en résulte une variété de situations qui ressemblent bien peu
à celles que les architectes du droit maritime international avaient envisagées en codifiant leur
devoir de porter assistance aux personnes en détresse en mer.
3)Le devoir de porter assistance est un principe fondamental de la navigation en mer.
Traditionnellement, il a toujours été supposé que les personnes secourues seraient des pêcheurs ou
d’autres gens de mer qui pourraient être emmenés au prochain port d’escale, d’où ils pourraient
ensuite repartir vers leur pays natal. Cependant, des désaccords concernant le débarquement de boat
people vietnamiens sont apparus dans les années 1970 et 1980 et ont fini par créer d’importantes
tensions régionales et internationales, préfigurant les problèmes qui surviendraient quelques
dizaines d’années plus tard en Méditerranée et ailleurs.
4) L’interception en mer se traduit invariablement par un plus faible degré de protection des droits
fondamentaux que celui qui aurait été accordé aux migrants s’ils avaient pu continuer jusqu’à leur
destination. Toutefois, selon la perspective des États, l’interception présente certains avantages non
négligeables dans la mesure où elle empêche les arrivées mais aussi parce qu’elle se déroule loin du
regard public. Le droit international reste peu développé en matière d’interception. Toutefois, il
règne un large consensus concernant l’obligation des États à respecter leurs obligations
internationales en matière de droits humains partout où ils affirment leur compétence, y compris
hors de leur territoire ou de leurs eaux territoriales. À cet égard, la Cour européenne des droits de
l’homme a d’ailleurs affirmé que les États doivent prendre des mesures concrètes pour garantir que
les migrants interceptés puissent bénéficier d’une protection.
5) Face à l’intensification du mouvement visant à définir et garantir les droits des personnes qui ne
répondent pas aux critères de «réfugié» mais qui fuient d’autres risques, l’interception et le
traitement offshore sont susceptibles de devenir une solution encore plus attrayante pour les États
déterminés à restreindre leurs propres obligations.