Tag Archives: Maritime Interdiction

by | 02 Feb 2011 · 06:49

WikiLeaks 2009 US Cable: Libya takes back 500 Italy-bound migrants

This US Department of State cable, released by WikiLeaks on 31 Jan 2011, was written in May 2009 and describes the first major interdictions of migrants by Italy under the terms of the Italian-Libyan Friendship Agreement.  The events described in the cable are the subject of the communicated case currently pending before the Second Section of the European Court of Human Rights, Hirsi and others v Italy, Requête no 27765/09.  Click here for previous post on the Hirsi case.

Excerpts from the Cable:

“Implementation of a key component of the Italian-Libyan “friendship agreement” has begun, as Italy has returned approximately 500 migrants rescued and interdicted at sea to Libya over the past week. Libyan authorities have notified the local offices of IOM and UNHCR before returning boats arrive in Tripoli to facilitate medical screening, identification, and consular notification. The returnees are then placed in immigrant detention centers. UNHCR has interviewed a number of the detained returnees, noting that only “a handful” of the 500 are likely asylum seekers – mostly of Somali and Eritrean origin; the rest are economic migrants….”

“Libya has accepted the return of three tranches of migrants interdicted or rescued at sea by Italian authorities in recent days, beginning implementation of a key component of the Italian-Libyan “friendship agreement” signed last August aimed at reducing the flow of migrants from Libya to Italy. In each case, the Italians contacted the Libyan navy, which agreed to accept their return to Libya. The Libyan navy did not/not agree to take the migrants on Libyan vessels; rather, in one case, it instructed Italian energy company ENI, which operates an offshore platform in the area, to tow an African vessel to shore; in the other cases, it permitted the Italian navy to transport the migrants back to Tripoli. Once in Tripoli, according to the Italian Embassy, the migrants were processed in an orderly fashion and sent to a detention center.”

“The first group of 227 returnees arrived in Tripoli on May 7. A regional IOM team in Tripoli implementing a G/TIP-funded workshop to enhance Libya’s response to human smuggling and trafficking was on hand to help screen the arrivals and visit one of the three detention centers where the migrants were held….”

“IOM staff here characterized the recent returnees as “the usual suspects” of Nigerian, Nigerien, Ghanaian, and South Asian nationality. The UNHCR mission reportedly interviewed many of the returnees and found fewer than 10 migrants who were likely asylum seekers including “four or five” Somalis and “a handful” of Eritreans….”

Click here or here for the full cable.

Leave a comment

Filed under European Court of Human Rights, European Union, Italy, Libya, Mediterranean, News, UNHCR

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , ,

by | 02 Feb 2011 · 05:48

WikiLeaks 2009 US Cable: UN Official says Libya, Italy shirking HR responsibilities

Several US State Department cables discussing Libya, Italy, Malta, and the EU have been released over the past several days by WikiLeaks.  I will post several of the memos over the next day or so.

Among the cables released by WikiLeaks on 31 January 2011, is a Cable written in August 2009 by Gene Cretz, US Ambassador to Libya.  The cable is headed: “UN OFFICIAL SAYS LIBYA, ITALY SHIRKING HUMAN RIGHTS RESPONSIBILITIES.” Excerpts from the cable:

“In a July 28 [2009] meeting with Pol/Econ chief and Poloff, UNHCR Chief of Mission Mohammed al-Wash complained that Italy was breaking its commitments to support UN and EU charters on human rights by returning asylum seekers to Libya with other economic migrants, and strongly denounced the Italian Coast Guard’s tactics while forcing migrants to return. He cited the example of the return of 80 migrants — including several refugees registered with UNHCR in Tripoli, Addis Ababa, and Cairo — interdicted by Italy on or around July 1 who later related their story to UNHCR staff. When the vessel carrying the migrants was stopped, three Eritrean representatives reportedly asked to speak with the Italian ship’s commander to inform him of their refugee status. Several on the boat produced their UNHCR attestations for the commander. Replying that he was under strict orders from his government to return migrants to Libya, the Italian commander reportedly ordered that all migrants – including those registered with UNHCR — be removed from their vessel for transport to Libya. Some of the migrants refused, leading to physical altercations between the migrants and the Italian crew that ended with the Italians beating some Africans with plastic and metal batons, leaving at least six injured. Migrants on the boat reportedly filmed the incident with their mobile phones, leading the Italian crew to confiscate phones, documents, and personal belongings that have not yet been returned….”

“Al-Wash alleged that the Italian government was intentionally stonewalling the UN. According to al-Wash, Italian Ambassador Francesco Trupiano refuses to meet with UNHCR and told al-Wash that he was a “troublemaker.” Al-Wash believed that that Trupiano was single-mindedly focused on returning migrants to Libya and claimed to be unaware that Rome had agreed in principle to accept 63 refugees for resettlement from Libya. UNHCR has also submitted to the GOI a list of 93 refugees that have been returned since Italy and Libya began joint patrols in May. According to al-Wash, Rome agreed to accept “20 or 30″ of the 93 refugees, provided EU states committed to a burden-sharing agreement, though states did not seem eager to undertake one. Al-Wash was hopeful the EC would intercede to bring Italy in line, citing the EC’s inclusion of Libya signing an MOU with UNHCR as part of its requirements for a Framework Agreement (ref A) and a recent letter from the Commission to the Italian Interior Ministry, reminding it of its obligations under the EU’s Human Rights Charter….”

“Al-Wash alleged that the Italian government was intentionally stonewalling the UN. According to al-Wash, Italian Ambassador Francesco Trupiano refuses to meet with UNHCR and told al-Wash that he was a “troublemaker.” Al-Wash believed that that Trupiano was single-mindedly focused on returning migrants to Libya and claimed to be unaware that Rome had agreed in principle to accept 63 refugees for resettlement from Libya. UNHCR has also submitted to the GOI a list of 93 refugees that have been returned since Italy and Libya began joint patrols in May. According to al-Wash, Rome agreed to accept “20 or 30″ of the 93 refugees, provided EU states committed to a burden-sharing agreement, though states did not seem eager to undertake one. Al-Wash was hopeful the EC would intercede to bring Italy in line, citing the EC’s inclusion of Libya signing an MOU with UNHCR as part of its requirements for a Framework Agreement (ref A) and a recent letter from the Commission to the Italian Interior Ministry, reminding it of its obligations under the EU’s Human Rights Charter.”

Click here or here for the full memo.

Leave a comment

Filed under European Union, Italy, Libya, Mediterranean, News, UNHCR

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , ,

by | 28 Jan 2011 · 02:00

Goodwin-Gill Lecture: “Right to Seek Asylum: Interception at Sea and the Principle of Non-Refoulement” (16 Feb., Brussels)

Professor Guy Goodwin-Gill will give the Chaire W.J. Ganshof Van Der Meersch lecture in Brussels, 16 February 2011, 17:00, at the Académie Royale des Sciences, des Lettres et des Beaux-Arts de Belgique, salle Albert II.

The lecture will address “The Right to Seek Asylum: Interception at Sea and the Principle of Non-Refoulement ” – The right to seek asylum is continuously challenged by the fight against irregular migration. In particular, the European Union and its Member States take measures to intercept boats on the sea in order to prevent irregular migration: patrols at sea, treaties with countries of origin or transit to readmit the concerned persons, agreements regarding the place of disembarkation,… The problem comes from the fact that asylum seekers are traveling together with undocumented migrants, what is called “mixed flows”. Even if the applicability of the principle of non-refoulement is often reaffirmed, the way to implement it represents a real difficulty in such a context.”

RSVP by 11 Feb.:

Votre réponse est attendue au plus tard le 11 février 2011

Tél: +32(0)2 650 27 16 (9h00 à 12h00)

Fax : +32(0)2 650 39 57

Courriel : fwa@ulb.ac.be

Click here for more information.

1 Comment

Filed under Belgium, Colloques / Conferences, European Union, News

Tagged as , , , , , ,

by | 23 Jan 2011 · 06:07

Frontex Signs Cooperation Agreement with Cape Verde

2006 BBC Map of Frontex Deployment

Frontex and Cape Verde signed a “Working Arrangement” on 14 January.  According to the Frontex press release, “the arrangement aims at promoting the development of broad cooperation on operational and technical border security/management matters between the Agency and the competent authorities of Cape Verde, with a view to working toward sustainable partnership. The intended cooperation in areas related to border security and management include exchange of best practices and strategic information, training, capacity-building and collaboration on relevant technologies as well as participation in joint operations. Information sharing regarding people-smuggling and trafficking in human beings is also foreseen as part of the arrangement.”

Frontex has coordinated operations with Cape Verde for many years pursuant to the provisions of bi-lateral agreements between Spain and Cape Verde.  In a September 2010 interview with EurAsylum, Frontex Director Laitinen said:  “In West Africa, Senegal, Mauritania and Cape Verde have all been integrated into Frontex operations for many years with good results, always demonstrating a willingness and capacity to work for the same aims and goals as their European colleagues. Although we do not have formal working arrangements in place yet with these countries, we are able to work together on the basis of their existing bi-lateral provisions with Spain. This cooperation has had measurable results in reducing people smuggling via the Canary Islands and in preventing the loss of human lives at sea.”

Click here for Frontex Press Release.

1 Comment

Filed under Eastern Atlantic, Frontex, News

Tagged as , , , , , , , , ,

by | 26 Nov 2010 · 07:24

INEX Report and Interview with Frontex Director Laitinen

A final report prepared as part of the INEX Work Package 3 “Value Dilemmas of Security Professionals” has just been released.  The Report is entitled “Ethical Security in Europe? Empirical Findings on Value Shifts and Dilemmas across European Internal-External Security Policies.”  The report’s authors are Dr. Matteo Tondini and Dr. Isabelle Ioannides.  The report contains extensive empirical findings and policy recommendations that are based primarily on two case studies: “the recent interception of migrants in the Central Mediterranean Sea undertaken by the Italian authorities” and “the implementation of anti-terrorism/radicalisation measures in the Netherlands and the UK.”

The report contains a significant amount of information which will be of interest to anyone concerned with migrant interdiction practices in the Mediterranean (and elsewhere).  I will try to post a few summaries of some portions of the report in the coming days, but in the meantime I wanted to call attention to an interview that was conducted in May of this year by Dr. Tondini with Frontex Executive Director Ilkka Laitinen as part of the research project.  A transcript of the interview is included in the report. [INEX Laitinen Interview 12May2010]

In the interview Mr Laitinen said that contrary to the information contained in the Human Rights Watch Report of 21 September 2009, Frontex had no involvement in the 18/19 June 2009 incident where Italian and Libyan authorities jointly intercepted and returned a group of migrants to Libya.  He noted that the recent agreements between Libya and Italy had closed the central Mediterranean migration route and that it is therefore now “the right moment for the Agency to intervene, with the aim of consolidating the results achieved so far … The only way of doing this is to cooperate with neighbouring countries such as Libya.”  And while Mr Laitinen stated that the “respect of fundamental rights is a crucial part of the European border control service” he also stated that “the right of boat people to claim asylum or other forms of protection outside [Member States’] territorial waters is not yet acknowledged Europe-wide.”  In response to this latter point, Dr. Tondini pointed out that it is the position of the Italian government that if an asylum claim is made on board an Italian vessel, the asylum seeker is supposed to be transported to Italy for the purpose of making a formal claim.

(Thank you to Matteo Tondini for sharing the Report.)

Click here for the final Report.

Click on this link- INEX Laitinen Interview 12May2010 -for the transcript of the Interview.

1 Comment

Filed under Analysis, Data / Stats, European Union, Frontex, Italy, Libya, Mediterranean, Reports

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , ,

by | 22 Nov 2010 · 05:48

Frontex Map: Current Situation at the External Borders (JANUARY – SEPT 2010)

Frontex has released an updated Third Quarter map, January-September 2010, showing data regarding the situation at the external borders.   Note the information on the map pre-dates the deployment of the Frontex RABIT forces to the Greek border in October/November.  The data shows a 369% increase in detected irregular crossings along the Greek-Turkey land border over the first three quarters of 2010 compared to 2009.

The significant reduction in migrants detected at maritime borders continues:

  • Jan-Sept 2010:   11.163 (estimated preliminary data)
  • Jan-Sept 2009:   39.084
  • 71% reduction

Data by route:

Central Mediterranean route

  • Italy:
    • Jan-Sept 2010:     2.866
    • Jan-Sept 2009:    8.289
    • 65% reduction
  • Malta:
    • Jan-Sept 2010:    29
    • Jan-Sept 2009:    1.289
    • 98% reduction

Western Mediterranean route

Spain (land border):

  • Jan-Sept 2010:   1.089
  • Jan-Sept 2009:   1.369
  • 20% reduction

Spain (sea border excluding Canary Islands):

  • Jan-Sept 2010:   2.592
  • Jan-Sept 2009:   3.540
  • 27% reduction

West African route – Canary Islands (Spain):

  • Jan-Sept 2010:   16
  • Jan-Sept 2009:   2.212
  • 99% reduction

Eastern Mediterranean route

Greece (TUR land border):

  • Jan-Sept 2010:   31.021 (estimated preliminary data)
  • Jan-Sept 2009:   6.616
  • 369% increase

Greece (sea borders):

  • Jan-Sept 2010:   5.606 (estimated preliminary data)
  • Jan-Sept 2009:   23.735
  • 76% decrease

Click here to view Jan-Sept 2010 Map.

Click here for link to Jan-June 2010 Map.

Click here for link to 2009 Map.

1 Comment

Filed under Aegean Sea, Data / Stats, Eastern Atlantic, European Union, Frontex, Greece, Italy, Libya, Malta, Mediterranean, News, Spain, Turkey

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , ,

by | 21 Nov 2010 · 05:18

Migreurop Report: European borders- Controls, detention and deportations

Migreurop has released its second report on Europe’s borders: “European borders- Controls, detention and deportations.”  Migreurop describes the report as a “[denunciation of] the « externalization » process of the European union migratory policy [which] shows how third countries are obliged, through the threat of the reconsideration of cooperation agreements and development aid, not only to readmit the migrants chased from Europe, but also to keep them on their own territory from travelling towards its doors.   From Calais area in France to the edge of Turkey and the Adriatic sea, from the surroundings of Gibraltar to the Sahel Saharan desert and the new member states of eastern Europe, a subcontracting of migratory control is carried out in series, sometimes very far away from the Union but also within its territory, especially when it deals with sending asylum seekers from country to country considered as unwanted. A large population of exiles, from both sides of the European borders, is subjected to arbitrary incarceration, wandering, and the constant humiliation of a hostile environment….”

Here is the Table of Contents:

Introduction

  • What have migrants become 3

Ceuta, a gilded prison

  • A murderous border 7
  • A legal limbo 8
  • The situation of migrants in detention 8
  • The situation of migrants in the CETI (open centre) 9
  • Deportations and expulsions 12
  • Surviving without resources 14

Sahel-Saharan countries, Europe’s new sentries

  • I – European interference in inter-African migrations – the case of Mauritania 18
    • The “crisis of the cayucos” 18
    • 1. Cooperation instigated by Europe 18
    • 2. Mauritania tramples on its own principles and conforms 21
    • 3. Subcontracting repression and endangering foreigners 22
  • II – Bargaining between Libya and Europe: migrants as an exchange currency –the case of Niger 33
    • 1. A reciprocal exploitation 34
    • 2. An increasingly repressive control of borders 37
    • 3. Arrests and detention in Libyan territory 39
    • 4. A deadly expulsion policy 42
  • Conclusion: the real face of Kadhafi’s pan-Africanism 44

Poland, Romania: how to be good state members in the enlarged EU

  • I – At the new frontiers: the screening of migration 47
    • 1. Reducing the transit and deserving Schengen 48
    • 2. The border police, Frontex and cooperation with other European states 48
  • II – Reception and detention centres 52
    • 1. The detention of foreigners 52
    • 2. Reception centres: isolating asylum seekers 60
    • 3. “Dublinized” asylum seekers 61
  • III – Returns 63
  • IV – Intolerance towards migrants and refugees 66
  • V – Embryonic mobilizations 70

The Ionian and Adriatic seas: forced returns between Italy and Greece

  • A new migration route at Europe’s gates 73
  • I – Controlling and blocking 75
    • 1. Controls in Greece 75
    • 2. Controls at sea 77
    • 3. Controls in Italian ports 78
  • II – Turning back and readmission 82
    • 1. Arbitrary practices and violation of rights 82
    • 2. The port of Venice: collective returns 83
    • 3. The port of Ancona 86
    • 4. Forced return to Greece 86
  • III – Detention 88
    • 1. At the borders and at sea: areas beyond legality 88
    • 2. Detention in Italy 89
    • 3. Detention in Greece 90
  • IV – Some cruel situations 93
    • 1. In Greece 93
    • 2. In Italy 96
  • V – Mobilizations 97
    • 1. In Venice 97
    • 2. In Ancona 97
    • 3. In Greece 98

Ping-pong at the Greco-Turkish border

  • Selective expulsions and random readmissions 106
  • Reactions to a degrading and sometimes murderous situation 107
  • Assistance, support, resistance 108

Dismantling the Calais jungle: a deceptive operation

  • I – The declared objectives of the 22 September 2009 operation 112
  • II – The real objectives of dismantling the jungle 113
  • III – The Modus Operandi: brutality and trickery 115
  • IV – What next? 116

Migreurop network 121

Annexes 122

  • Knocking down walls and defending the right to migrate 122
  • UNHCR-Libya : the bid is rising, migrants pay the price 124
  • All for the closure of camps for migrants, in Europe and beyond 125
  • Italia and Libya: hand in hand 127
  • Roma people victims of the French government xenophobia 128

Click here for the report (EN), or  here (FR), or here (ES).

Click here for article (ES) in Periodismo Humano about the report.

1 Comment

Filed under Aegean Sea, Eastern Atlantic, English Channel / La Manche, European Union, France, Frontex, Italy, Libya, Mauritania, Mediterranean, Morocco, Niger, Reports, Spain, Turkey, UNHCR

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

by | 09 Nov 2010 · 07:02

UNHCR Issues Protection Policy Paper: Maritime Interception Operations and the Processing of International Protection Claims

The UNHCR has issued a Protection Policy Paper: “Maritime interception operations and the processing of international protection claims: legal standards and policy considerations with respect to extraterritorial processing.” (Nov. 2010).

The “paper outlines UNHCR’s views on extraterritorial processing of claims for international protection made by persons who are intercepted at sea.”  UNHCR’s position is that it is not possible to conduct a full and adequate RSD onboard a ship and therefore intercepted persons should in most circumstances be disembarked in the territory of the intercepting state to have their claims for protection considered in regular in-country RSD procedures.

The paper should be read in its entirety (17 pages).  Here are some excerpts (with most footnotes omitted):

“1. Governments in some regions have adopted, or are considering, measures to process certain claims for international protection outside of their territory.  This is particularly the case following maritime interception operations, 2  where asylum-seekers and migrants are prevented from reaching their destination while on the high seas or in the territorial waters of a third State. …

(Ftnt 2 There is no internationally accepted definition of interception, and its meaning is largely informed by State practice. A working definition is provided in Executive Committee Conclusion No. 97 (LIV) (2003) on Protection Safeguards in Interception Measures, available at http://www.unhcr.org/41b041534.html .)

4. If extraterritorial processing is part of a comprehensive or cooperative strategy to address mixed movements, the location of reception and processing arrangements is only one relevant element. With its 10-Point Plan on Refugee Protection and Mixed Migration, (‘10-Point Plan’), UNHCR has developed a tool that provides suggestions across a number of areas, … This paper should be read in conjunction with the 10-Point Plan, and related strategies for comprehensive State cooperation in this field.

[…]

9. The existence of jurisdiction triggers State responsibilities under international human rights and refugee law.  It is generally recognized that a State has jurisdiction, and consequently is bound by international human rights and refugee law, if it has effective de jure and/or de facto control over a territory or over persons….

(Ftnt 10 Some governments have argued that an intercepting State may not have jurisdiction under international law over persons located on parts of its territory that have been excised under domestic law (e.g. declared ‘international’ or ‘transit’ areas in airports, ports and border areas, or other parts of State territory including remote territories or islands), on high seas, or on the territory of a third State that is under the control of the intercepting State (e.g. because the intercepting State is responsible for a military base or reception centre). Such arguments are inconsistent with the notion of jurisdiction under international law. Domestic law is not determinative of the existence of jurisdiction as a matter of fact under international law: The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1155 U.N.T.S. 331, 8 I.L.M. 679, entered into force 27 January 1980, Article 27 (providing that a State may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as a justification for its failure to perform a treaty); see also Article 3 of ILC, Draft Articles on the Responsibility of States for International Wrongful Acts with Commentaries (2001).)

55. Processing onboard maritime vessels is generally not appropriate. In exceptional circumstances, that would need to be defined further, initial profiling or prescreening onboard the maritime vessel by the intercepting State may be one solution to ensure that persons with international protection needs are identified and protected against refoulement. Following profiling, those persons identified as having potential protection needs would need to be disembarked in the territory of the intercepting State to have their international protection claims considered in regular in-country RSD procedures….

56. In general the carrying out of full RSD procedures onboard maritime vessels will not be possible, as there can be no guarantee of reception arrangements and/or asylum procedures in line with international standards….”

(My thanks to Dr. Neil Falzon, former Head of UNHCR’s Malta Office, for bringing this to my attention over a week ago – and my apologies for being behind in email and updates. –nwf)

Click here for complete Paper.

Leave a comment

Filed under Analysis, Statements, UNHCR

Tagged as , , , , ,

by | 12 Oct 2010 · 05:56

New Paper: M Tondini, “Fishers of Men? The Interception of Migrants in the Mediterranean Sea and Their Forced Return to Libya”

A new legal paper by Dr Matteo Tondini entitled “Fishers of Men? The Interception of Migrants in the Mediterranean Sea and Their Forced Return to Libya” is available.  This paper should be read by anyone with any interest in Italy’s current push-back practice with Libya.  Dr Tondini is currently a post-doctoral researcher at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam – Faculty of Social Sciences – Department of Governance Studies.  The paper has been produced as part of the INEX Project, financed by the EC under the FP7 (http://www.inexproject.eu).

The paper refers to some unpublished material and interviews. Here is the abstract:

“This paper presents an extensive account and assesses the legality of the recent naval constabulary operations – undertaken by Italian and Libyan military vessels – in the central Mediterranean Sea, aimed at intercepting boat people in international waters and returning them to the Northern African coasts. If considered as a border control operation, the interception of migrants and their debarkation in a third country often lacks a valid legal basis. The latter is easier to be found under maritime law, by ‘labelling’ interceptions as rescue missions. Nevertheless, such operations must be conducted according to state obligations under human rights law and refugee law (especially the non-refoulement rule), which only allow Italian vessels to disembark boat people to a ‘safe third country’. The paper concludes that since Libya cannot be considered a ‘safe third country’ in this sense, the interception of migrants on the high seas and their forced return to Tripoli may entail violations of maritime, human rights, migration and refugee law at both an international, European and domestic level.”

Click here or here to access the paper.

(Thank you to Dr Tondini for bringing this paper to my attention.)

Leave a comment

Filed under Analysis, European Union, Frontex, Italy, Libya, Mediterranean

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , ,

by | 08 Oct 2010 · 03:36

Erika Feller’s Comments Regarding Boat People and Irregular Secondary Movements

During her annual address to the UNHCR’s Executive Committee on 6 October, Assistant High Commissioner for Protection Erika Feller reviewed significant protection issues over the past year, noting also that 2010 marks the 60th anniversary of the founding of the UNHCR in December 1950 and the 59th anniversary of the Refugee Convention.

Among the topics she addressed were the challenges posed by the arrival of irregular secondary movements of migrants, including boat people.  She is critical of interdiction practices being carried out throughout the world and makes the strong point that “[t]he evidence suggests that tough sea policies have not solved, just changed and indeed complicated the dynamics, of irregular movements.”  While Ms. Feller does not identify countries by name, she is apparently referencing increased maritime interdiction in the Aegean Sea and the resulting surge in irregular crossings along Greece’s land borders.  The point could also be made in regard to the Italian push-back practice.

Excerpts from her address:

“Arrivals of undocumented migrants continue to test the capacity of States, with the problem of so-called “irregular secondary movement” exacerbated in recent years by boat arrivals. The Pacific, the Mediterranean, the Caribbean or the Gulf of Aden are all regular theatres, with ‘boatpeople’ being interdicted, intercepted, turned around, ignored by passing ships, shot at, or denied landing. Even when rescued, disembarkation somewhere has no guarantees attached, as an incident currently playing out off the Somalia/Djibouti coasts starkly reminds us.

All this is seriously at odds not only with protection principles but also with the reality that when they manage to gain access to territory and asylum processes, a large percentage of asylum-seekers who come by boat are actually found to be refugees. …

Boat arrivals can provoke fears and high emotions which may be difficult for Governments to manage. However, in our experience, an approach built predominantly around closing borders and trying to prevent movement is not the answer, as it does not work. In fact it can make situations even more difficult to deal with. Developments in relation to one country that has pursued a tough policy towards boats are actually quite revealing. While arrivals by sea are dramatically down, arrivals by land have basically doubled. In addition, while sea arrivals had been able to be concentrated through being channeled to one main reception point, land arrivals now come through multiple crossing points and have been able to disperse more effectively and rapidly through the community, below any radar screen. The evidence suggests that tough sea policies have not solved, just changed and indeed complicated the dynamics, of irregular movements….

The phenomenon of refugees on the move for non-protection reasons is also growing. Numbers and categories vary with the regions but the concern is global. On the African continent, where camps are more the norm than the exception, it is preoccupying that camp environments are starting to be compromised by a form of transit migration to and through them, with refugees, and others, seeking to use their facilities for R&R en route to a more distant destination. Just as concerning has been the misuse of reception centers as way-stations, or even lucrative recruitment opportunities for smugglers and traffickers. These facts are not a rationale for abandoning camps or centers. They are, though, a solid reason to rethink how better to manage them within a burden sharing framework….”

Click here for full address.

2 Comments

Filed under Aegean Sea, European Union, Greece, Italy, Libya, Mediterranean, News, Statements, UNHCR

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , ,

by | 06 Oct 2010 · 20:05

Cecilia Malmström: Back From Libya

Commissioner Malmström writes her own blog, Cecilia Malmström Mitt Europa (My Europe).  Here is her most recent posting regarding her trip to Libya (translated from Swedish with Google Translate).  There are several points worth noting – and worrying about.  She notes that Libya is not a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention or 1967 Protocol.  (Though Libya is a signatory to the OAU Refugee Convention.)  She suggests that the new migration agreement between the EU and Libya will involve the UNHCR, but no insight is offered regarding whether or how the UNHCR might return to Libya.  She concedes that the European Commission does not know all of the details of the bi-lateral agreement between Italy and Libya which has resulted in the current push-back practice in the central Mediterranean.  And she seems to say that she was greatly troubled by what she saw when she visited one of the southern migrant detention centres in Libya during her official trip.

Translated excerpts:

“Just returned from Libya … I have been there to try to initiate a dialogue between the EU and Libya on issues relating to asylum, migration and international protection. … I believe it is necessary to have a dialogue with Libya.

Libya has not signed the Geneva Convention and the concept of asylum is not in Libyan law. … Since Italy and Libya signed an agreement, which we unfortunately do not know everything about, it has basically been that case that no boats are crossing the Mediterranean.

Against this background, I see it as progress that the first time we have agreed a text with Libya, a version of a plan for cooperation, which deals with issues of asylum and international protection…  Our aim is to identify people in need of international protection, while helping Libya to raise standards in the detention centres in order to provide decent conditions to people. We also address the issues of border control, labor migration and human smuggling in this plan for cooperation. From the EU side, we are prepared to put up 50 million euros over three years to support reforms. These will obviously not be given as a blank check to Libya but will be provided using the guidelines of the European Commission. For example, we support specific projects by various organizations, including the UNHCR.

Besides holding talks with Libyan ministers, I also visited Libya’s southern border in the middle of the desert, observed International Organisation for Migration activities in Libya, and visited one of the detention centres where many migrants have ended up. I had the opportunity to talk to some of the people there.  Several of these stories that I heard have kept both me and my staff awake at night. …”

Click here for the full posting.

3 Comments

Filed under European Union, Italy, Libya, Mediterranean, News, UNHCR

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , ,

by | 29 Sep 2010 · 05:46

Frontex 2nd Quarter Report

The Frontex Risk Analysis Unit has released its Report for the Second Quarter of 2010 (April-June).  It is a 30+ page report containing data, charts, and graphs detailing entry routes, detections of migrants, detections of facilitators, and other information.

Excerpts from the Report’s Executive Summary:

Illegal migration pressure in the EU underwent a foreseeable seasonal increase during the second quarter of 2010, but is still clearly in a period of decline.…

The widespread decline in illegal migration pressure is probably due to two key factors. The first is decreased employment opportunities in the EU …  [and the] second is stricter migration and asylum policies in Member States, supported by much more effective collaboration with key third countries. For example, stricter migration and asylum policies in Norway and the UK have reduced the number of applications in these Member States…. Similarly, bilateral agreements between Italy and Libya, and between Spain and both Senegal and Mauritania, continue to control, for the time being at least, most illegal migration via the Central Mediterranean and West African routes, respectively.

Notwithstanding the general decline in detections, there were two emerging trends in the second quarter (Q2) of 2010: a continued and intensified shift from the Greek sea border to the Greek land border with Turkey….  In the beginning of 2009 illegal crossings of the EU external border between Greece and Turkey were divided roughly equally between the land and sea borders.  However, there has been a gradual and recently intensified shift to the land border. Reasons for this shift from sea to land borders are linked to the effectiveness of the Frontex activities in the Aegean Sea, combining surveillance activities with identification of illegal migrants, and opening the possibility of return to origin countries for detected migrants. ….

Main trends:

  • There is a general decline in illegal migration to the EU compared to a year ago;
  • For the time being, Turkey is the main transit country for illegal migration to the EU….;
  • In the Eastern Mediterranean route, there has been a gradual and recently intensified shift from the Greek-Turkish sea border to the land border, where 90% of detections were made….   At the Greek-Turkish land border around 60% of detections were made at the Border Control Unit (BCU) Orestiada which is under the biggest pressure. Air connections to Turkey are increasingly used by migrants from North Africa, who then illegally cross the EU external border with Turkey. As well as effective Frontex-coordinated joint operations at the sea border, potential explanations for this shift include cheaper facilitation costs, a lower risk crossing, lower detection rates…;
  • There were increased detections on the Central Mediterranean route, probably due to the recent re-organisation of criminal groups in response to effective bilateral agreements in the area. In June 2010 Libya expelled the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), with whom 9,000 refugees and 4,000 asylum-seekers were registered and who, in the absence of protection, may now attempt entry to the EU.

Click here for the 2nd Quarter Report.

Click here for the 1st Quarter Report.

2 Comments

Filed under Aegean Sea, Analysis, Data / Stats, Eastern Atlantic, European Union, Frontex, Greece, Italy, Libya, Malta, Mauritania, Mediterranean, News, Reports, Senegal, Spain, Turkey

Tagged as , , , , , , , ,

by | 28 Sep 2010 · 04:03

EU Official Journal Notice re ECJ Challenge to Frontex Sea Border Rule

The European Court of Justice published a routine notice and summary in the Official Journal regarding the EP’s pending challenge to the validity of the Frontex rule regarding the surveillance of the sea external borders (Council Decision 2010/252/EU (“Frontex / Sea borders”)).

I reproduce the Notice here in full:

Action brought on 14 July 2010 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union

(Case C-355/10) (2010/C 246/58)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Parliament (represented by: M. Dean, A. Auersperger Matić, Agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul Council Decision 2010/252/EU ( 1 ) of 26 April 2010 supplementing the Schengen Borders Code as regards the surveillance of the sea external borders in the context of operational cooperation coordinated by the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union;

— Order that the effects of the Council Decision be maintained until it is replaced;

— order Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Parliament seeks the annulment of the contested Decision on the grounds that it exceeds the scope of the implementing power in Article 12(5) of the Schengen Borders Code ( 2 ) in that it introduces rules on ‘interception’, ‘search and rescue’ and ‘disembarkation’ which cannot be considered to be within the scope of ‘surveillance’ as defined by Article 12 of the Schengen Borders Code and which cannot be considered to be non-essential elements, and modifies the essential elements of the Schengen Borders Code which are reserved to the legislator. Moreover, the contested Decision modifies the obligations of the EU Member States relating to Frontex operations, which are laid down in the Frontex Regulation ( 3 ).  Should the Court annul the contested Decision, Parliament nonetheless considers it would be desirable that the Court exercise its discretion to maintain the effects of the contested Decision, in accordance with Article 264 (2) TFEU, until such time as it is replaced.

( 1 ) Council Decision of 26 April 2010 supplementing the Schengen Borders Code as regards the surveillance of the sea external borders in the context of operational cooperation coordinated by the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union OJ L 111, p. 20

( 2 ) Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) OJ L 105, p. 1

( 3 ) Council Regulation (EC) No 2007/2004 of 26 October 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 349, p. 1

Click here for link to EU OJ.

Click here and here for earlier posts on the case.

2 Comments

Filed under European Union, Frontex, Judicial, News

Tagged as , , , , , , , , ,

by | 28 Sep 2010 · 03:36

Frontex: Current Situation at the External Borders (JANUARY – JUNE 2010)

Frontex posted this map to its web site this week.  According to Frontex, “[t]he map describes the current migratory situation at the external borders of the EU, including the main entry routes of irregular migration into the European Union.”

Note the significant reductions in migrants detected at all maritime borders:

  • Jan-June 2010 – 6.557
  • Jan-June 2009 – 26.398
  • Decrease of 75%

This 75% decrease over the first six months of 2010 compared with the first six months of 2009 is on top of the 43% reduction in migrants detected at maritime borders in 2009 relative to 2008:

  • 2009 – 48.700
  • 2008 – 84.900
  • Decrease of 43%

Note the further breakdown of the figures in the Legends of the two maps.  You probably need to click on the links to view higher quality images of the maps.

Click here for link to Jan-June 2010 Map.

Click here for link to 2009 Map.

Current Situation at the External Borders (January - June 2010)

Current Situation at the External Borders (January - June 2010)

Situation at the External Borders (2009)

Situation at the External Borders (2009)

1 Comment

Filed under Aegean Sea, Data / Stats, Eastern Atlantic, European Union, Frontex, Mediterranean, News

Tagged as , , , , , ,

by | 23 Sep 2010 · 06:20

ECRE and AI Joint Briefing on Commission Proposal to Amend Frontex Regulation

On 21 September ECRE and Amnesty International released a 30+ page joint briefing on the 24 February 2010 European Commission “Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL 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 (FRONTEX),” COM(2010) 61 final.

The joint briefing presents detailed views on the proposal and makes numerous specific recommendations for possible amendments.  I have not had time to read the full briefing closely, but here are several excerpts from the Summary:

“1. Role and responsibilities of Frontex vis-à-vis Member States –  [***] Amnesty International and ECRE recommend that Frontex be subject to full accountability by the enhancement of democratic oversight of the Agency before the European Parliament, in addition to judicial oversight by the European Courts for legal protection against unlawful actions, and by effective implementation of the requirement to give access to prompt, objective and reliable information on its activities. In particular, accountability should be enhanced by providing for the following: 1) Relevant information, including risk analysis, should be transmitted to the European Parliament to enable adequate scrutiny of Frontex activities; 2) Independent observation should be enabled at the meetings of the Management Board; 3) Frontex programme of work should be subject to public consultation. [***]

2. The legal framework governing Frontex –  The proposal clarifies the legal framework of Frontex operations by stating explicitly that its activities are subject to the Schengen Borders Code and should be undertaken in accordance to relevant international and EU law, obligations related to international protection and fundamental rights. Sea border surveillance activities fall within the remit of the Schengen Borders Code, even if implemented in the high seas, and as such must be conducted without prejudice of the rights of refugees and other persons demanding international protection. The Council Decision setting out rules which apply to join sea operations further clarifies that all aspects of these operations, including interception and disembarkation, are subject to international obligations arising from refugee and human rights law.

While meant to deal with Member States’ disputes over responsibility, the Council Decision also includes non-binding guidelines, which must form part of the operational plan drawn up for each Frontex operation and state modalities for disembarkation of persons intercepted or rescued. Yet, these are not detailed enough to ensure that sea operations will meet the requisite standards.

Amnesty International and ECRE recommend that the new Frontex Regulation includes an explicit requirement that the rules for interception at sea operations be formalized in the operational plan. Moreover, they should be accompanied with detailed measures to ensure that disembarkation meets the requisite standards, in particular by specifying the place of disembarkation and as regards the provision of food, shelter and medical care, as well as access to asylum and protection from refoulement.

Although the extent of the extraterritorial application of the EU acquis remains to be determined, Member States intercepting individuals beyond their territorial waters cannot operate in a legal vacuum. In addition, when border surveillance activities take place in the territorial waters of a third country, Member States and Frontex appear to attribute responsibility for any possible human rights breaches to the third country concerned. Adequate measures must also be in place to ensure that those involved in joint operations are able to guarantee refugee and human rights protections in a practical way, both when they act within a territory or territorial waters, as well as extraterritorially Amnesty International and ECRE recommend that the proposal sets out the concrete measures by which States can effectively meet their obligations, when these are engaged both territorially and extraterritorially. These should include at a minimum the following: 1) Individuals have the possibility of explaining their circumstances during a personal interview; 2) Those who wish to apply for asylum are helped to access the asylum procedure, including through interpretation and independent legal advice. International cooperation should never be construed as releasing EU Member States from fundamental rights obligations in relation to those intercepted or diverted in the territorial sea of the third state in question. [***]”

Click here for the Joint Briefing.

Click here for the Proposed Amendment to the Regulation.

Leave a comment

Filed under Analysis, Communiqués, European Union, Frontex, News

Tagged as , , , , , , , , ,