In light of today's arrest in Italy of a German sea captain who had rescued migrant refugees in the Mediterranean does the law of the sea need to be clarified?
The 1979 International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue establishes a legal framework for signatories to co-ordinate rescue efforts. According to the International Maritime Organization, which helped put together the principles behind rescue at sea, its member states also have an obligation "to co-ordinate so that persons rescued at sea are disembarked in a place of safety as soon as possible".
However, there are a number of issues. One problem is over defining distress, according to Yves Pascouau, editor of the European Migration Law website. which offers advice on asylum and immigration law across the EU. "This is a question of interpretation," he says.The vessel was not in obvious mechanical difficulty as it approached Maltese and Italian waters and he adds: "They (Italy and Malta) did not consider the definition of distress had been met."
There are also issues over what constitutes a place of safety, and whether that means disembarking those rescued at sea on land. "There is no obligation on a state responsible for a specific search and rescue area, or responsible for co-ordinating a rescue effort, to receive the survivors on land," says Ainhoa Campas Velasco of the Institute of Maritime Law at University of Southampton. However, she points out that humanitarian considerations are meant to form part of search and rescue operations.
It is also worth remembering that under maritime regulations, states have the authority to allow or refuse permission for vessels to enter their territorial waters.
Do we need greater clarity and agreed legal obligations to save life at sea?
There is a fundamental difference between rescuing those in distress on international waters and conveying refugee status on them. Every nation has an obligation to rescue those who are in danger and take them to a place of safety from where they can be repatriated to their home nation.
If the country of origin is unsafe then they have refugee status. If not they are sent home and correctly so.
It's really not that simple and you know it if following events
There are limits to a legal perspective
This is not a legal matter, if so it would be rather harder on the migrants than it already is.
The issue is political and one of the main reasons for the rise of the alt-right all over the developed world. It is rather clear that the 'safe' countries of the world cannot accommodate the populations of all those deemed unsafe for a number of reasons.
The most obvious one is resources but equally problematic is that of culture. It simply is not possible for the rich countries to absorb millions of migrants.
Therefore the onus should be on making the countries they come from safer so people can stay and make their own home countries more prosperous.
China is doing this with the Belt & Road Initiative. Building infrastructure allows poor countries to become self sufficient and better places for their people to live.
This is of course a form of neo-colonialism but if it feeds the people, gives them homes and schools, where their own governments have failed then it is worth it.
Mass immigration is not the answer to the problem it is the cause of more problems. Fascism thrives on scapegoats and migrants make excellent scapegoats.
Mass immigration is not the answer? But it is short term clearly.
So yes long term global development needed to redress the impact of European colonialism but that is not exactly happening
Colonialism lives on through resource extraction and TNC domination
But agree its not a legal matter as such. However it will now play out in Lampedusa in a court of law, so law of the sea is an issue as I pointed out
The main reason global development is not taking place is because it indirectly threatens the wealth/hegemony of the developed world.
It is however inevitable due to the large population expansion expected in Africa and South America. By the end of the century the population of Africa will be 4 billion. Much of the pristine wilderness will be developed into cities and infrastructure to accommodate and feed these people.
All developed nations are going to have to help in this task so that Africa can be a decent place for all of its population to live.
There will then be no need for migration to Europe.
Do we see the developed nations coming together on the climate emergency?
Your line was tried out in the 1970s by the Brandt Commission and got nowhere
People do not share wealth readily even if its in their long term interest to do so
I'm afraid this is just pie in the sky. Conflict is inevitable...
Yes conflict is inevitable so we must get used to the powerful being in charge.
Incidentally the nations are coming together to combat the climate emergency. It will all be sorted out by the middle of the century, no problem.
That is wishful thinking I fear
Trump is but one sign of resistance to anything that contradicts the profit principle
But I hope you are right
- Badges
- Science topic