at sea from January 2014 until the end of June 2017 only in the Mediterranean Sea,
being unknown the number of those who have died but whose bodies have never
been recovered (IOM 2017). These tentative figures are a good indicator that
maritime migration is not going to stop, and people will keep embarking on
unseaworthy ships either to escape from conflicts or just in search of a better life.
Remarkably, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
issued in 2009 a report on climate change and human rights according to which
150 million people are expected to be displaced from their countries due to extreme
weather (UNHCHR 2009).
Trade, fishing and other activities carried out at sea are also affected by maritime
migration. The burden of rescuing people in distress is simply allocated to any ship
that encounters a vessel in distress in accordance with the ancient law of the sea.
However, the background against which this rule is applied has changed as a result
of the abovementioned figures, making it worth exploring in which manner it is
impeding the normal operation of a ship. More specifically, this paper seeks to raise
awareness as to the impact of migration on maritime labour by elaborating upon the
occupational hazards that these professionals have to endure as a result of a search
and rescue operation.
The (in)famous MV Tampa case illustrates some of these hazards. In 2001, the
Norwegian freighter rescued 421 Afghan refugees on the search and rescue operation zone of Indonesia at the request of Australian authorities. The master headed
towards Indonesian waters following the instructions of the latter, but several asylum
seekers threatened to commit suicide for which reason the vessel changed route and
tried to reach Christmas Island. Australia strongly opposed to migrants’ disembarkation leaving an unprepared ship to deal with very distressed people for several
days (Willheim 2003). In addition to occupational safety and health (OSH) issues on
board, the whole operation triggered significant delays in the maritime venture that
led to amendments in international treaties dealing with rescue at sea, as examined in
the second section of this chapter.
The MV Tampa case is also remarkable because it unveils a clash between State
migratory policies and the international human rights framework. This clash has
already been subject to the scrutiny of international courts which have reminded
States that they are obliged to honour the latter also at high seas. In 1993, the InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights upheld the complaint filed against the
United States following the maritime interception of boat people and their return to
Haiti within a bilateral treaty signed by both countries to control illegal migration.
According to the Commission, the United States violated Article XXVII of the
American Declaration on Human Rights given that maritime interception did not
discriminate and thus Haitians had been returned without a proper examination of
their condition and an interview to determine whether they were entitled to the status
of refugee or not.
1 In a similar case involving about 200 Afghan refugees that were
1 Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Case 10.675, Report 51/96, Decision on merits,
13 March 1997.
78
L. Carballo Piñeiro
being unknown the number of those who have died but whose bodies have never
been recovered (IOM 2017). These tentative figures are a good indicator that
maritime migration is not going to stop, and people will keep embarking on
unseaworthy ships either to escape from conflicts or just in search of a better life.
Remarkably, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
issued in 2009 a report on climate change and human rights according to which
150 million people are expected to be displaced from their countries due to extreme
weather (UNHCHR 2009).
Trade, fishing and other activities carried out at sea are also affected by maritime
migration. The burden of rescuing people in distress is simply allocated to any ship
that encounters a vessel in distress in accordance with the ancient law of the sea.
However, the background against which this rule is applied has changed as a result
of the abovementioned figures, making it worth exploring in which manner it is
impeding the normal operation of a ship. More specifically, this paper seeks to raise
awareness as to the impact of migration on maritime labour by elaborating upon the
occupational hazards that these professionals have to endure as a result of a search
and rescue operation.
The (in)famous MV Tampa case illustrates some of these hazards. In 2001, the
Norwegian freighter rescued 421 Afghan refugees on the search and rescue operation zone of Indonesia at the request of Australian authorities. The master headed
towards Indonesian waters following the instructions of the latter, but several asylum
seekers threatened to commit suicide for which reason the vessel changed route and
tried to reach Christmas Island. Australia strongly opposed to migrants’ disembarkation leaving an unprepared ship to deal with very distressed people for several
days (Willheim 2003). In addition to occupational safety and health (OSH) issues on
board, the whole operation triggered significant delays in the maritime venture that
led to amendments in international treaties dealing with rescue at sea, as examined in
the second section of this chapter.
The MV Tampa case is also remarkable because it unveils a clash between State
migratory policies and the international human rights framework. This clash has
already been subject to the scrutiny of international courts which have reminded
States that they are obliged to honour the latter also at high seas. In 1993, the InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights upheld the complaint filed against the
United States following the maritime interception of boat people and their return to
Haiti within a bilateral treaty signed by both countries to control illegal migration.
According to the Commission, the United States violated Article XXVII of the
American Declaration on Human Rights given that maritime interception did not
discriminate and thus Haitians had been returned without a proper examination of
their condition and an interview to determine whether they were entitled to the status
of refugee or not.
1 In a similar case involving about 200 Afghan refugees that were
1 Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Case 10.675, Report 51/96, Decision on merits,
13 March 1997.
78
L. Carballo Piñeiro