Title to Territory and Jurisdiction in International Human Rights Law: Three Models for a Fraught Relationship

Bibliography File Note

Type
Journal Article

Author
Lea Raible

URL
http://ift.tt/2EFxzk8

Pages
1-20

Publication
Leiden Journal of International Law

ISSN
0922-1565, 1478-9698

Date
2018/02

DOI
10.1017/S0922156518000018

Accessed
2018-02-21 09:13:15

Library Catalog
Cambridge Core

Language
en

Abstract
It is by now uncontroversial that states may owe human rights obligations to individuals outside their territory. The debate about extraterritoriality has, so far, focused on the concept and interpretation of jurisdiction. The role of territory in general, and title in particular, in the conceptual landscape has received less attention in comparison. This article aims to fill this gap by showing that (a) title to territory continues to shape interpretations of jurisdiction, and (b) that this should be avoided. To this end, the article first defines jurisdiction in international human rights law and title to territory. Jurisdiction is best understood as a threshold criterion that triggers human rights obligations of states towards particular individuals. Title to territory, on the other hand, is a set of claims to territory designed to uphold minimal stability. The article then introduces three models – the approximation model, the differentiation model, and the separation model – of the relationship between title to territory and jurisdiction in international human rights law and evaluates them in light of their fit with the relational nature of human rights. The result is that the approximation and differentiation models – that is, those that maintain title’s influence on the interpretation of jurisdiction in various degrees – fail the success criterion, while the separation model satisfies it.

Short Title
Title to Territory and Jurisdiction in International Human Rights Law

Securitization of Search and Rescue at Sea: The Response to Boat Migration in the Mediterranean and Offshore Australia

Bibliography File Note

Type
Journal Article

Author
Daniel Ghezelbash

Author
Violeta Moreno-Lax

Author
Natalie Klein

Author
Brian Opeskin

URL
http://ift.tt/2Dy1iiu

Pages
1-37

Publication
International & Comparative Law Quarterly

ISSN
0020-5893, 1471-6895

Date
2018/01

DOI
10.1017/S0020589317000562

Accessed
2018-01-23 01:05:33

Library Catalog
Cambridge Core

Language
en

Abstract
Abstract
This article compares the law and practice of the European Union and Australia in respect to the search and rescue (SAR) of boat migrants, concluding that the response to individuals in peril at sea in both jurisdictions is becoming increasingly securitized. This has led to the humanitarian purpose of SAR being compromised in the name of border security. Part I contrasts the unique challenge posed by SAR operations involving migrants and asylum seekers, as opposed to other people in distress at sea. Part II analyses the relevant international legal regime governing SAR activities and its operation among European States and in offshore Australia. Part III introduces the securitization framework as the explanatory paradigm for shifting State practice and its impact in Europe and Australia. It then examines the consequences of increasing securitization of SAR in both jurisdictions and identifies common trends, including an increase in militarization and criminalization, a lack of transparency and accountability, developments relating to disembarkation and non-refoulement, and challenges relating to cooperation and commodification.

Short Title
SECURITIZATION OF SEARCH AND RESCUE AT SEA

The Right to Leave by Sea: Legal Limits on EU Migration Control by Third Countries

Bibliography File Note

Type
Journal Article

Author
Nora Markard

URL
http://ift.tt/2n3IbS3

Volume
27

Issue
3

Pages
591-616

Publication
European Journal of International Law

ISSN
0938-5428

Date
2016/08/01

Journal Abbr
Eur J Int Law

DOI
10.1093/ejil/chw034

Accessed
2018-01-23 01:03:14

Library Catalog
academic-oup-com.ezproxy.lib.monash.edu.au

Language
en

Abstract
The EU and its member states are progressively involving third countries in their border control measures at sea. Relevant instruments of cooperative migration control range from capacity building measures to joint patrols in third-country territorial waters and shared surveillance intelligence on ship movements. So far, the discussion on migration control at sea has mainly focused on the illegality of ‘push-backs’ of migrant boats by EU member states to their point of departure. By contrast, the increasing incidence of departure prevention or ‘pull-backs’ by third countries in the service of EU member states has been largely neglected. In particular, such measures raise grave concerns with respect to the right to leave any country, including one’s own. Of central importance during the Cold War, this human right is of no lesser relevance at Europe’s outer borders. This paper explores to what extent departure prevention and pull-back measures are compatible with the right to leave and the law of the sea and discusses the responsibility of EU member states for internationally wrongful acts committed by third countries in such cooperative migration control scenarios.

Short Title
The Right to Leave by Sea