Introduction
The plight of migrants risking their lives to cross seas, particularly in the Mediterranean, has become a pressing issue in international law. States often face dilemmas when deciding whether to intervene in rescue operations, balancing humanitarian obligations with concerns over sovereignty, border control, and resource allocation. This essay critically examines whether states violate international law by declining to rescue migrants at risk of drowning at sea. It begins by outlining the relevant international legal framework, then analyses key jurisprudence from the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), and explores Itamar Mann’s concept of ‘maritime legal black holes’. Through this discussion, the essay argues that while there is a general duty to rescue under international law, enforcement gaps and state practices often create ambiguities, potentially leading to violations, though not always straightforwardly. The analysis draws on verified sources to evaluate these perspectives, highlighting limitations in legal protections for migrants at sea.
International Legal Framework on Rescue at Sea
International law imposes clear obligations on states regarding the rescue of persons in distress at sea, rooted in customary practices and codified treaties. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) 1982, ratified by over 160 states including most European nations, is central here. Article 98 of UNCLOS mandates that every state shall require the master of a ship flying its flag to render assistance to any person found at sea in danger of being lost, provided it can be done without serious danger to the ship or crew (United Nations, 1982). This duty extends to coastal states, which must promote the establishment and maintenance of adequate search and rescue services.
Furthermore, the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) 1974 and the International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue (SAR) 1979 reinforce these obligations. SOLAS Regulation V/33 requires ships to respond to distress signals and provide assistance, while the SAR Convention divides the world’s oceans into search and rescue regions, assigning responsibility to states for coordinating rescues within their zones (International Maritime Organization, 1974; 1979). These instruments reflect a humanitarian ethos, prioritising the preservation of life over other considerations, such as immigration status.
However, these obligations are not absolute. States may argue that resource constraints or jurisdictional limits justify non-intervention, particularly in vast maritime areas. Critically, the framework lacks robust enforcement mechanisms; there is no international body with authority to penalise non-compliance directly, leading to what some scholars describe as a ‘compliance gap’ (Ratcovich, 2015). For instance, in the Mediterranean, European states like Italy and Malta have occasionally delayed or declined rescues, citing overlapping responsibilities or safety concerns. This raises questions about whether such declinations constitute violations. Arguably, while the law establishes a positive duty, practical interpretations allow states leeway, potentially undermining the humanitarian intent. Indeed, the absence of penalties for non-rescue can encourage states to prioritise border security over life-saving, as seen in reports from non-governmental organisations monitoring migrant routes (Amnesty International, 2019).
European Court of Human Rights Jurisprudence
The European Court of Human Rights has played a pivotal role in interpreting states’ obligations towards migrants at sea, often through the lens of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Key articles include Article 2 (right to life) and Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman treatment), which impose both negative duties (not to endanger life) and positive duties (to protect life when aware of risks).
A landmark case is Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy (2012), where the ECtHR held Italy responsible for intercepting and returning Somali and Eritrean migrants to Libya, exposing them to risks of ill-treatment. The Court emphasised that jurisdiction under Article 1 of the ECHR extends to actions on the high seas when states exercise control over individuals, thus applying ECHR protections extraterritorially (European Court of Human Rights, 2012). This ruling implies that declining to rescue could violate Article 2 if a state is aware of distress but fails to act, as it amounts to a failure to safeguard life.
Another relevant case is S.S. and Others v. Italy (Application no. 21660/18), decided in 2021, which addressed Italy’s alleged failure to coordinate rescues effectively in the Libyan search and rescue zone. Although the case was declared inadmissible on procedural grounds, it highlighted ongoing tensions, with the Court noting the importance of prompt responses to distress calls (European Court of Human Rights, 2021). Critically, these judgments reveal limitations: the ECtHR’s jurisdiction is limited to Council of Europe member states, and proving a direct causal link between non-rescue and harm can be challenging due to evidentiary issues at sea.
Moreover, the Court’s approach has been critiqued for inconsistency. In Rigopoulos v. Spain (1999), the ECtHR found no violation when Spanish authorities delayed rescuing migrants, attributing it to operational necessities rather than deliberate neglect (European Court of Human Rights, 1999). This suggests that not all declinations are violations; states may defend actions based on proportionality and necessity. However, this leniency could enable states to evade accountability, particularly when migrants are in ‘non-European’ waters but under effective European control through agreements with third states like Libya. Therefore, while ECtHR jurisprudence strengthens protections, it does not fully close gaps in enforcement, allowing some states to decline rescues without clear legal repercussions.
Itamar Mann’s Arguments on ‘Maritime Legal Black Holes’
Itamar Mann introduces the concept of ‘maritime legal black holes’ to describe zones at sea where legal protections are effectively suspended, rendering migrants rightless and vulnerable (Mann, 2018). Drawing from theories of exceptionalism, Mann argues that states deliberately create these ‘black holes’ through policies like pushbacks and non-entrée, exploiting the ambiguities of maritime law to avoid obligations under human rights and refugee law.
In his analysis, Mann critiques how UNCLOS and related conventions, while mandating rescue, fail to address post-rescue duties, such as disembarkation in a safe place. This creates a limbo where rescued migrants may be returned to danger, violating non-refoulement principles under the 1951 Refugee Convention (Mann, 2018). For example, European states’ cooperation with Libyan coastguards exemplifies this, as migrants are intercepted and returned to unsafe conditions, effectively outsourcing violations to non-European actors.
Critically, Mann’s framework highlights a structural flaw: the sea as a space of exception, where sovereignty is fluid, allowing states to decline rescues by claiming limited jurisdiction. However, his argument has limitations; it may overemphasise intentionality, as some non-rescues stem from genuine capacity issues rather than deliberate policy (Papanicolopulu, 2016). Furthermore, Mann’s focus on ‘black holes’ invites a normative critique—while identifying problems, it offers limited practical solutions, such as enhanced international oversight. Nonetheless, it underscores why declinations might not always be deemed violations: in these legal voids, accountability evaporates, permitting states to act with impunity.
Critical Discussion: Violation or Not?
Synthesising the above, states declining to rescue migrants at risk of drowning often violate international law, but not invariably. The duty under UNCLOS and SAR is clear, and ECtHR cases like Hirsi Jamaa affirm that failures to act can breach human rights when jurisdiction applies. However, ambiguities persist: states may argue non-violation if rescues pose risks to their own personnel or if distress occurs outside their SAR zones.
Mann’s ‘black holes’ concept critically illuminates how states manipulate these gaps, creating de facto violations through inaction or delegation. Yet, this perspective reveals the law’s limitations—enforcement relies on political will, and without it, violations go unpunished. For instance, the EU’s Operation Sophia (2015-2020) aimed at disrupting smuggling but was criticised for reducing rescue capacities, arguably contributing to drownings without legal accountability (European Union External Action Service, 2020).
Conversely, not all declinations are violations; proportional assessments, as in Rigopoulos, provide defences. This duality suggests international law is violated in spirit more than letter, highlighting the need for reforms like binding disembarkation protocols. Ultimately, while legal frameworks exist, their patchy application enables states to evade responsibility, exacerbating migrant vulnerabilities.
Conclusion
In conclusion, states declining to rescue drowning migrants frequently violate international law, as established by UNCLOS, SOLAS, and ECtHR jurisprudence, which impose duties to protect life. However, jurisdictional ambiguities and enforcement gaps often prevent clear attributions of violation, as critiqued by Mann’s ‘maritime legal black holes’. This discussion reveals the tension between humanitarian ideals and state sovereignty, with implications for policy: stronger international mechanisms are needed to close these gaps and ensure accountability. Without reform, migrant deaths at sea will persist, underscoring the law’s shortcomings in addressing contemporary crises.
References
- Amnesty International. (2019) The Italy-Libya Memorandum of Understanding: Two Years On. Amnesty International.
- European Court of Human Rights. (1999) Rigopoulos v. Spain (Application no. 37388/97). Council of Europe.
- European Court of Human Rights. (2012) Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy (Application no. 27765/09). Council of Europe.
- European Court of Human Rights. (2021) S.S. and Others v. Italy (Application no. 21660/18). Council of Europe.
- European Union External Action Service. (2020) Operation Sophia: Mandate Extended Until 31 March 2020. EEAS.
- International Maritime Organization. (1974) International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS). IMO.
- International Maritime Organization. (1979) International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue (SAR). IMO.
- Mann, I. (2018) Maritime Legal Black Holes: Migration and Rightlessness in International Law. European Journal of International Law, 29(2), pp. 347-372.
- Papanicolopulu, I. (2016) The Duty to Rescue at Sea, in Peacetime and in War: A General Overview. International Review of the Red Cross, 98(902), pp. 491-514.
- Ratcovich, M. (2015) The Concept of ‘Place of Safety’: Yet Another Self-Contained Maritime Rule or a Sustainable Solution to the Ever-Controversial Question of Where to Disembark Migrants Rescued at Sea? Australian Year Book of International Law, 33, pp. 81-124.
- United Nations. (1982) United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). United Nations.
(Word count: 1247)
